Help understand Points

K

Kevin Baker

Guest
Hi,
Can some explain the points column in the attached Picture.. for example how did Chase Elliott who finished 4th get 49 points and Martin Truex, Jr who won the race get 40

Thanks,
Kevin
 

Attachments

  • points.PNG
    points.PNG
    64.4 KB · Views: 156
Kevin Baker said:
Hi,
Can some explain the points column in the attached Picture.. for example how did Chase Elliott who finished 4th get 49 points and Martin Truex, Jr who won the race get 40

Thanks,
Kevin
Click to expand...
Extra points are awarded to those that finish in the top 10 of a given stage. I believe Truex pitted right before the end of stage 1 and 2, while Chase stayed out and finished in the top 10 each time to earn those extra points.
 
I recall this type of thing happening under other points systems too. A driver could score more points than the winner for getting more bonus points such as leading the most laps. I don't recall all of the types of bonus points available under the different systems; I just check the standings - I'm still getting used to the current point spread between drivers to determine how close they are.
 
Zerkfitting said:
I recall this type of thing happening under other points systems too. A driver could score more points than the winner for getting more bonus points such as leading the most laps. I don't recall all of the types of bonus points available under the different systems; I just check the standings - I'm still getting used to the current point spread between drivers to determine how close they are.
Click to expand...

In the 'classic' version of the Latford system, used from 1975-2003, it was possible for the second place driver to score the same number of points as the winner by leading the most laps. The winner received 175 points, second got 170, and there were 5 bonus points for leading a lap and 5 for leading the most laps. Both could score 180 total.

This was no longer possible in 2004-2006 when the winner received 180, and 2007-2010 when the winner received 185.

Before stage points, the 43-1 / 40-1 scales didn't allow anyone else to score as many or more points than the winner.

It is now technically possible for the 15th place driver to score more points than the race winner. While they have made winning more important in other ways, IMO that is an unprecedented clusterf**k.
 
Give me the Latford system and a season-long battle between Harvick, Busch, and Truex.
 
gnomesayin said:
In the 'classic' version of the Latford system, used from 1975-2003, it was possible for the second place driver to score the same number of points as the winner by leading the most laps. The winner received 175 points, second got 170, and there were 5 bonus points for leading a lap and 5 for leading the most laps. Both could score 180 total.

This was no longer possible in 2004-2006 when the winner received 180, and 2007-2010 when the winner received 185.

Before stage points, the 43-1 / 40-1 scales didn't allow anyone else to score as many or more points than the winner.

It is now technically possible for the 15th place driver to score more points than the race winner. While they have made winning more important in other ways, IMO that is an unprecedented clusterf**k.
Click to expand...
I'm actually kind of OK with a lower finishing driver getting more points than the winner if they ran well all day. If a driver dominates a whole race then has an 89 cent part break with 10 laps to go, it's not as devastating as it used to be.
 
ReturnTrip said:
Give me the Latford system and a season-long battle between Harvick, Busch, and Truex.
Click to expand...
It’d be epic. A 3 man title fight where each guy is a threat to win each and every week. What an organic and real way to decide a title
 
ToyYoda said:
I'm actually kind of OK with a lower finishing driver getting more points than the winner if they ran well all day. If a driver dominates a whole race then has an 89 cent part break with 10 laps to go, it's not as devastating as it used to be.
Click to expand...

just say no to participation trophies. you play the game to win.

oh wait. the game has changed.
 
ToyYoda said:
I'm actually kind of OK with a lower finishing driver getting more points than the winner if they ran well all day. If a driver dominates a whole race then has an 89 cent part break with 10 laps to go, it's not as devastating as it used to be.
Click to expand...

I get the argument, but I'm not OK with it. Never have I watched an auto race, or a sports game for that matter, and bemoaned that if a driver / player / team dominates the event but loses at the end, that they should get some kind of credit for that in the standings. The point was always win the race, win the game. Not lead the race or lead the game. The incentive to win throughout a race is that it tends to put one in a better position to be in front at the end. That's it. That's me, and I'll continue to believe that virtually all other racing series and sports have it right in that regard.
 
The phrase "winning is everything" has no place in NASCAR anymore.
 
Truex_rox said:
The phrase "winning is everything" has no place in NASCAR anymore.
Click to expand...
No longer is second place necessarily first loser.

If you want points for a team that ran well all day but didn't win, bring back the Latford 5-point bonus for leading the most laps.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
No longer is second place necessarily first loser.

If you want points for a team that ran well all day but didn't win, bring back the Latford 5-point bonus for leading the most laps.
Click to expand...
In NASCAR mathematics, the 11th placed car can come home with more points than the race winner! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom