Alienturnedhuman wrote:

There is a huge flaw with this system, as you would expect it to not change the positions much. If you are just adding in their season average score by the number of retirements then it's only going to make any difference to drivers who had disproportionate number of retirements. If every driver had the same number of retirements it would make zero difference to their score. If they have retired from 1 out of 11 races it will increase their score by 10%. Given that for the lower ranked drivers, the percentage difference in points is high (ie, +100% from 10th to 9th, +100% from 9th to 8th, +50% from 8th to 7th) the loss of points in the midfield from one failed result is more statistically singificant as well - as it's not just the swing from the driver who lost it, it's a gain to the drivers who inherited them, with whom they are in competition with. Norris losing his 5th place in Spa is the perfect example of this. Had he not retired he had that 5th place nailed on, there is no speculation there, it's not like if he had retired with 20 laps left where anything could happen. He lost 10 points from that (and Albon, Kyvat, Hulkenberg and Perez all gained 2 points) all drivers he would have leapfrogged. That 12 point delta is 50% of his 25 points, yet if this is counted as a retirement he only gets 2 points back, and his rivals keep their advantage.

Alien, this is all correct but not sure why you felt the need to post it. I never claimed the system was anything - just said what I'd done. Certainly didn't say it was a perfect system. I'm well aware of what it does/doesn't do. Norris losing his 5th place is actually the perfect example of why I DID take this approach. Lando nearly scored the points...but didn't. That's all you're left with. Coulda shoulda woulda... What if if he'd retired 2 laps earlier than he did - still say it was "nailed on", what if it was 3 laps? 4?.. You say it's 50% of his 25 points but with your approach you'd have to go back and work out the points you think he *should* have had - not what he actually had. And while you're doing that don't forget to remove points he picked up due to attrition...

It's a system of averages and I made that very clear so pointing out what it isn't seems a little unnecessary.

If you feel you can re-model the race results according to what you "know" would have happened then I'm sure we'd all love to see that.