You are about to report the comment below to the Crash.Net moderators as being abusive. An abusive comment may contain profanity, personal attacks or commercial SPAM.
Please do not report this comment as being abusive if you simply disagree with the comment posted. If this is the case then you can click on the "disagree" icon () in the upper right of the comment's post to show your dissatisfaction.
Crash.Net moderators will view all reported comments and will act as they deem necessary. This may be editing the comment or total deletion.
@ Codger "I believe that you should have factored in the winners time at each race compared to last year. If each winner was faster or slower it will skew your results."
We know stats never tell the whole story. However, I didn't do as you suggest cos
a) I really couldn't be bothered to go that far, and
b) the other variables in the races such as conditions and the relative competitiveness cannot be controlled
I still think as an overall guideline though it is a better tool to measure relative performance than finishing position - as one week there might be 5 guys going v well, and only 2 the next, plus mistakes / crashes etc.
Best to compare the performance in overall time lost against the rider who did the job best I think - the winner and regardless of overall race time (as the conditions that made the winner faster or slower will be the same for the rider being looked at every time).
What do you think? Is this a 'fair' comparison test?