Federer has never won any of the fall Masters events. There is no reason to assume he was a lock to win Paris if he played. Anyway it is meaningless, since he didnt play. As for Hamburg, Nadal is the heavy favorite to win any clay court event he entered in that period. Beating Nadal there once (when he was clearly gassed since we are choosing to go into subjective territory anyway now) does not give him 50/50 odds to beat Nadal there.
First of all Federer won Madrid in 2006. Furthermore, I never said he was a lock to win the Paris Masters but a heavy favorite and rightly so cause the guy barely lost single matches on hard/grass courts in his prime. In fact, Federer skipped 3 Paris Masters events in a row in 04-06 so I guess he felt it wasn't worth the sacrifice of the WTF which was played a weak later at the time.
As for Hamburg/Madrid Federer actually played Nadal 5 times there and he won twice, in 2007 he won (including a bagel), 2008 (he was up 5-1 in sets 1 and 2, lost in 3 tough sets in the end), 2009 beat Nadal in Madrid 6-4 6-4, in 2010 Fed gave Nadal a tough time, Nadal won 6-4 7-6 in the end, in 2011 Fed was GOATing for a set which he won 7-5 and then faded away. Believe it or not, Hamburg (or the 3rd clay Masters event) is Fed's best MS as far as results are concerned with 5 titles and 2 finals.
Djokovic skipped Monte Carlo this year. Would he have won there. Better chance than Federer winning Hamburg, since it is clear Djokovic of 2011 is a much bigger threat to Nadal on clay than Federer 2006 was. Would Djokovic have won Shanghai if he had been able to play, atleast the same odds of Federer winning Paris 2006 probably. You can do just as many what ifs to try and bolster Djokovic as you can Federer.
Ok, so Djokovic was a lock for Monte Carlo this year but Federer wasn't in Paris in 2006? Not saying Djokovic wouldn't've beaten Nadal in Monte Carlo had they played but look - Nadal had a slip in every clay tournament he entered since 2005 except....Monte Carlo which he won don't know how many times in a row now. I know it probably wouldn't make much of a difference but Djokovic hasn't won on the slowest clay YET, both Monte Carlo and the FO (both considered to have the slowest clay) were won by Nadal this year. We'll just have to wait and see what happens next year.
I agree about the what ifs, though, it leads nowhere.
In the end Djokovic has already done better in the Masters this year than Federer did in 2006, and the only way that might change is if he lost both Paris and the WTF. Djokovic has won every Masters he has played, has already won a record # with 5, has a mix of multiple hard court and multiple clay court Masters titles, and the only one he didnt win he lost in the final. Compared to Federer, winning 4 of 7 played, not winning a clay Masters, and losing 1st round of another, there is no comparision whatsoever.
This is not true, this year or ever.
All in all, Djokovic could have an advantage in MS, agreed, but Federer having an advantage in Slams and (thus far) in the WTF (+ all the other titles and finals - case not finished though for Djokovic) makes his season better.
. I think he should predict publicly that Federer will lose in a major more often, seems to do Federer some good towards adding to his major-haul, 
