How about that Ryan Newman

Einarr Thoreson said:
This is the first time I actually followed a NASCAR season, and probably the last, due to the fact that I just can't wrap my head around the scoring system, and how little it values winning a race.

When I look at past seasons and see "champions" that have half as many victories as some of their peers, or even EIGHT TIMES as many LESS as was the case with Newman / Kenseth in 03', I can't help but think to myself that the NASCAR "champion" is based more on luck than any kind of driver skill.

IMO, a NASCAR "championship" is pretty much meaningless as it simply crowns the "best loser" instead of the best WINNER.
Click to expand...

Cool, peace out.

So after one season of NASCAR, you've deduced that the Championship is "meaningless" and how little NASCAR values winning. Spot on sir
 
3wideinturn1 said:
Cool, peace out.

So after one season of NASCAR, you've deduced that the Championship is "meaningless" and how little NASCAR values winning. Spot on sir
Click to expand...

/shrug

That's all it took.

Look for yourself. Here's the last 10 seasons worth of "champions" compared to their peers:

YEAR POINT CHAMP VICTORY CHAMP
04 KU BUSH 3 WINS JOHNSON 8 WINS
05 STEWART 5 WINS BIFFLE 6 WINS
06 JOHNSON 5 WINS KAHNE 6 WINS
07 JOHNSON 10 WINS JOHNSON 10 WINS
08 JOHNSON 7 WINS EDWARDS 9 WINS
09 JOHNSON 7 WINS JOHNSON 7 WINS
10 JOHNSON 6 WINS HAMLIN 8 WINS
11 STEWART 5 WINS STEWART 5 WINS
12 BRAD K. 5 WINS JOHNSON 5 WINS MORE 2NDS AND 3RDS
13 JOHNSON 6 WINS KENSETH 7 WINS
14 HARVICK 5 WINS BRAD K. 6 WINS

Note how SEVENTY PERCENT of the so called "champions" FAILED to win more races than their peers during the season, and this is just the past 10 years.

Here's another good one from 1996:

1996 Point Champ Victory Champ
Terry Labonte 2 wins Jeff Gordon 10 wins

Great "champion" THAT year with his 2 victories! Ridiculous.

So you tell me, sir, how exactly are wins "important" to NASCAR when 70% of the "champions" this past decade FAILED to win more races than their peers to earn their "championship"? You can't. Because they're NOT.

The NASCAR point system is designed to reward the best LOSERS, not the best WINNERS, and the "championship" stats clearly highlight that fact.
 
Einarr Thoreson said:
/shrug

That's all it took.

Look for yourself. Here's the last 10 seasons worth of "champions" compared to their peers:

YEAR POINT CHAMP VICTORY CHAMP
04 KU BUSH 3 WINS JOHNSON 8 WINS
05 STEWART 5 WINS BIFFLE 6 WINS
06 JOHNSON 5 WINS KAHNE 6 WINS
07 JOHNSON 10 WINS JOHNSON 10 WINS
08 JOHNSON 7 WINS EDWARDS 9 WINS
09 JOHNSON 7 WINS JOHNSON 7 WINS
10 JOHNSON 6 WINS HAMLIN 8 WINS
11 STEWART 5 WINS STEWART 5 WINS
12 BRAD K. 5 WINS JOHNSON 5 WINS MORE 2NDS AND 3RDS
13 JOHNSON 6 WINS KENSETH 7 WINS
14 HARVICK 5 WINS BRAD K. 6 WINS

Note how SEVENTY PERCENT of the so called "champions" FAILED to win more races than their peers during the season, and this is just the past 10 years.

Here's another good one from 1996:

1996 Point Champ Victory Champ
Terry Labonte 2 wins Jeff Gordon 10 wins

Great "champion" THAT year with his 2 victories! Ridiculous.

So you tell me, sir, how exactly are wins "important" to NASCAR when 70% of the "champions" this past decade FAILED to win more races than their peers to earn their "championship"? You can't. Because they're NOT.

The NASCAR point system is designed to reward the best LOSERS, not the best WINNERS, and the "championship" stats clearly highlight that fact.
Click to expand...

Winning races doesn't make you champion. The entire season of work does.

Points system aside, how could you possibly comment with any credibilty on the past 10 years of racing when you just said this was the first year you've followed it? It's been changed almost every year for the past half decade.

Some folks on here have been following for 20-30 years, and we know the points system is silly sometimes, that and it's being changed constantly. However that doesn't take away from what guys like Johnson, Gordon, Stewart, Harvick, Kenseth have done in this sport. They are champions and they earned it in whatever the system was that respective year.

I can tell you this...I've been a fan for close to 20 years now, and most of us don't like people coming in and taking a crap on our sport. Yeah, we know the points/Chase is silly sometimes, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless. Some folks like me still care about this sport and it's champions, and I don't take kindly to people who just showed up this year and have decided that its all a joke and meaningless, because it's not to me and others.
 
Einarr Thoreson said:
This is the first time I actually followed a NASCAR season, and probably the last, due to the fact that I just can't wrap my head around the scoring system, and how little it values winning a race.

When I look at past seasons and see "champions" that have half as many victories as some of their peers, or even EIGHT TIMES as many LESS as was the case with Newman / Kenseth in 03', I can't help but think to myself that the NASCAR "champion" is based more on luck than any kind of driver skill.

IMO, a NASCAR "championship" is pretty much meaningless as it simply crowns the "best loser" instead of the best WINNER.
Click to expand...


I just try to enjoy each race by itself and forget about the chase crap, I am excited to see how the cars perform with all the changes coming up
 
Einarr Thoreson said:
/shrug

That's all it took.

Look for yourself. Here's the last 10 seasons worth of "champions" compared to their peers:

YEAR POINT CHAMP VICTORY CHAMP
04 KU BUSH 3 WINS JOHNSON 8 WINS
05 STEWART 5 WINS BIFFLE 6 WINS
06 JOHNSON 5 WINS KAHNE 6 WINS
07 JOHNSON 10 WINS JOHNSON 10 WINS
08 JOHNSON 7 WINS EDWARDS 9 WINS
09 JOHNSON 7 WINS JOHNSON 7 WINS
10 JOHNSON 6 WINS HAMLIN 8 WINS
11 STEWART 5 WINS STEWART 5 WINS
12 BRAD K. 5 WINS JOHNSON 5 WINS MORE 2NDS AND 3RDS
13 JOHNSON 6 WINS KENSETH 7 WINS
14 HARVICK 5 WINS BRAD K. 6 WINS

Note how SEVENTY PERCENT of the so called "champions" FAILED to win more races than their peers during the season, and this is just the past 10 years.

Here's another good one from 1996:

1996 Point Champ Victory Champ
Terry Labonte 2 wins Jeff Gordon 10 wins

Great "champion" THAT year with his 2 victories! Ridiculous.

So you tell me, sir, how exactly are wins "important" to NASCAR when 70% of the "champions" this past decade FAILED to win more races than their peers to earn their "championship"? You can't. Because they're NOT.

The NASCAR point system is designed to reward the best LOSERS, not the best WINNERS, and the "championship" stats clearly highlight that fact.
Click to expand...

don't this belong in "real champion " thread ?
 
3wideinturn1 said:
Winning races doesn't make you champion.


Points system aside, how could you possibly comment with any credibilty on the past 10 years of racing when you just said this was the first year you've followed it? It's been changed almost every year for the past half decade.

Some folks on here have been following for 20-30 years, and we know the points system is silly sometimes, that and it's being changed constantly. However that doesn't take away from what guys like Johnson, Gordon, Stewart, Harvick, Kenseth have done in this sport. They are champions and they earned it in whatever the system was that respective year.

I can tell you this...I've been a fan for close to 20 years now, and most of us don't like people coming in and taking a crap on our sport. Yeah, we know the points/Chase is silly sometimes, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless. Some folks like me still care about this sport and it's champions, and I don't take kindly to people who just showed up this year and have decided that its all a joke and meaningless, because it's not to me and others.
Click to expand...


You are obviously aware of the ridiculous nature of the scoring, so why are you so hostile? Because I point it out? Do you think the scoring lunacy was lost on Ryan Newman this season? I don't.

It's not MY fault the scoring system is a joke, and it's not the drivers' fault, it's the fault of NASCAR.

Send THEM the angry message, not me.
 
Einarr Thoreson said:
You are obviously aware of the ridiculous nature of the scoring, so why are you so hostile? Because I point it out? Do you think the scoring lunacy was lost on Ryan Newman this season? I don't.

It's not MY fault the scoring system is a joke, and it's not the drivers' fault, it's the fault of NASCAR.

Send THEM the angry message, not me.
Click to expand...

My apologies if you deemed my comments hostile, perhaps they were a bit harsh.

However, if you're here as a first year fan, after watching that incredibly exciting Chase...and then say how it's championships are "meaningless"...then why are you still here?

That was some awesome racing, and Newman almost exploited a loophole in the 2014 rules, but the right guy ended up winning anyways.

I just don't understand why or how you could possibly try and say that the last 10 years worth of championships are meaningless because this years rules are a joke. 2014 had nothing to do with all the past champions, why are you trying to discount their success?
 
I personally wanted Newman to win even though he kicked my favorite JEff Gordon out of chase the previous race. he has been strong during the Chase. Logano was strong too. so was Harvick and Hamlin and Jeff Gordon.
 
Einarr Thoreson said:
/shrug

That's all it took.

Look for yourself. Here's the last 10 seasons worth of "champions" compared to their peers:

YEAR POINT CHAMP VICTORY CHAMP
04 KU BUSH 3 WINS JOHNSON 8 WINS
05 STEWART 5 WINS BIFFLE 6 WINS
06 JOHNSON 5 WINS KAHNE 6 WINS
07 JOHNSON 10 WINS JOHNSON 10 WINS
08 JOHNSON 7 WINS EDWARDS 9 WINS
09 JOHNSON 7 WINS JOHNSON 7 WINS
10 JOHNSON 6 WINS HAMLIN 8 WINS
11 STEWART 5 WINS STEWART 5 WINS
12 BRAD K. 5 WINS JOHNSON 5 WINS MORE 2NDS AND 3RDS
13 JOHNSON 6 WINS KENSETH 7 WINS
14 HARVICK 5 WINS BRAD K. 6 WINS

Note how SEVENTY PERCENT of the so called "champions" FAILED to win more races than their peers during the season, and this is just the past 10 years.

Here's another good one from 1996:

1996 Point Champ Victory Champ
Terry Labonte 2 wins Jeff Gordon 10 wins

Great "champion" THAT year with his 2 victories! Ridiculous.

So you tell me, sir, how exactly are wins "important" to NASCAR when 70% of the "champions" this past decade FAILED to win more races than their peers to earn their "championship"? You can't. Because they're NOT.

The NASCAR point system is designed to reward the best LOSERS, not the best WINNERS, and the "championship" stats clearly highlight that fact.
Click to expand...
Even thought Kahne won the most times in 06, he wasn't the best driver that year, or this year Keselowski wasn't the best driver even thought he won the most races and i'm a Brad fan.
 
Einarr Thoreson said:
/shrug

That's all it took.

Look for yourself. Here's the last 10 seasons worth of "champions" compared to their peers:

YEAR POINT CHAMP VICTORY CHAMP
04 KU BUSH 3 WINS JOHNSON 8 WINS
05 STEWART 5 WINS BIFFLE 6 WINS
06 JOHNSON 5 WINS KAHNE 6 WINS
07 JOHNSON 10 WINS JOHNSON 10 WINS
08 JOHNSON 7 WINS EDWARDS 9 WINS
09 JOHNSON 7 WINS JOHNSON 7 WINS
10 JOHNSON 6 WINS HAMLIN 8 WINS
11 STEWART 5 WINS STEWART 5 WINS
12 BRAD K. 5 WINS JOHNSON 5 WINS MORE 2NDS AND 3RDS
13 JOHNSON 6 WINS KENSETH 7 WINS
14 HARVICK 5 WINS BRAD K. 6 WINS

Note how SEVENTY PERCENT of the so called "champions" FAILED to win more races than their peers during the season, and this is just the past 10 years.

Here's another good one from 1996:

1996 Point Champ Victory Champ
Terry Labonte 2 wins Jeff Gordon 10 wins

Great "champion" THAT year with his 2 victories! Ridiculous.

So you tell me, sir, how exactly are wins "important" to NASCAR when 70% of the "champions" this past decade FAILED to win more races than their peers to earn their "championship"? You can't. Because they're NOT.

The NASCAR point system is designed to reward the best LOSERS, not the best WINNERS, and the "championship" stats clearly highlight that fact.
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear that Einaar here is likely today's typical race fan . Nascar is trying it's best to reinvent racing to appeal to Einaar . Good luck with that .
 
Einarr Thoreson said:
/shrug

That's all it took.

Look for yourself. Here's the last 10 seasons worth of "champions" compared to their peers:

YEAR POINT CHAMP VICTORY CHAMP
04 KU BUSH 3 WINS JOHNSON 8 WINS
05 STEWART 5 WINS BIFFLE 6 WINS
06 JOHNSON 5 WINS KAHNE 6 WINS
07 JOHNSON 10 WINS JOHNSON 10 WINS
08 JOHNSON 7 WINS EDWARDS 9 WINS
09 JOHNSON 7 WINS JOHNSON 7 WINS
10 JOHNSON 6 WINS HAMLIN 8 WINS
11 STEWART 5 WINS STEWART 5 WINS
12 BRAD K. 5 WINS JOHNSON 5 WINS MORE 2NDS AND 3RDS
13 JOHNSON 6 WINS KENSETH 7 WINS
14 HARVICK 5 WINS BRAD K. 6 WINS

Note how SEVENTY PERCENT of the so called "champions" FAILED to win more races than their peers during the season, and this is just the past 10 years.

Here's another good one from 1996:

1996 Point Champ Victory Champ
Terry Labonte 2 wins Jeff Gordon 10 wins

Great "champion" THAT year with his 2 victories! Ridiculous.

So you tell me, sir, how exactly are wins "important" to NASCAR when 70% of the "champions" this past decade FAILED to win more races than their peers to earn their "championship"? You can't. Because they're NOT.

The NASCAR point system is designed to reward the best LOSERS, not the best WINNERS, and the "championship" stats clearly highlight that fact.
Click to expand...

This is the first year you've followed nascar and yet you pull out a stat from 18 years ago to make a point? :bsflag:
 
Get That 88 Up There !! said:
Even thought Kahne won the most times in 06, he wasn't the best driver that year, or this year Keselowski wasn't the best driver even thought he won the most races and i'm a Brad fan.
Click to expand...
In Kahne's case I agree. Brad this past season is debatable, I think. I find it very hard to distinguish between Logano, Harvick, Keselowski, and Gordon this year.

In regards to crowning champions based on wins, it can be a bit nitpicky when you say a guy with eight wins should automatically beat a guy with seven wins. When the margin is so small like that I don't mind looking at how many Top 5s and Top 10s they got. But when it's eight wins to three or eight wins to one I get what Einarr is saying. In cases like that I think you can say the system has failed.
 
FLRacingFan said:
..... But when it's eight wins to three or eight wins to one I get what Einarr is saying. In cases like that I think you can say the system has failed.
Click to expand...

Talk about blissful ignorance ! I was a race fan for 30 years and it never occurred to me how wrong Nascar was.
 
ted@economy said:
Talk about blissful ignorance ! I was a race fan for 30 years and it never occurred to me how wrong Nascar was.
Click to expand...
Edge of the seat racing, 2nd place was only 2 laps down to the leader. Today the young people expect instant gratification.
 
Racer X said:
This is the first year you've followed nascar and yet you pull out a stat from 18 years ago to make a point?
Click to expand...

What's B.S. about the stat? Look for yourself:

http://www.racing-reference.info/wc.htm

They've got the results to pretty much every NASCAR season, and if you check out the "champions", it becomes pretty obvious how ridiculous the scoring is, and has been, over the years.
 
FLRacingFan said:
In Kahne's case I agree. Brad this past season is debatable, I think. I find it very hard to distinguish between Logano, Harvick, Keselowski, and Gordon this year.

In regards to crowning champions based on wins, it can be a bit nitpicky when you say a guy with eight wins should automatically beat a guy with seven wins. When the margin is so small like that I don't mind looking at how many Top 5s and Top 10s they got. But when it's eight wins to three or eight wins to one I get what Einarr is saying. In cases like that I think you can say the system has failed.
Click to expand...


I just don't agree with attributing success to failure, and that's exactly what happens when drivers are made "champions" without having won the most races.

I hold the opinion that Kahne was indeed the best driver that year, as is Keselowski this season, due to the fact that both drivers succeeded where others failed, and they did it more often than ANY of their peers.
 
Einarr Thoreson said:
I just don't agree with attributing success to failure, and that's exactly what happens when drivers are made "champions" without having won the most races.

I hold the opinion that Kahne was indeed the best driver that year, as is Keselowski this season, due to the fact that both drivers succeeded where others failed, and they did it more often than ANY of their peers.
Click to expand...

It's called the Sprint Cup series championship...not the Most Wins championship
 
Einarr Thoreson said:
I just don't agree with attributing success to failure, and that's exactly what happens when drivers are made "champions" without having won the most races.

I hold the opinion that Kahne was indeed the best driver that year, as is Keselowski this season, due to the fact that both drivers succeeded where others failed, and they did it more often than ANY of their peers.
Click to expand...

Problem with that , is that the " best car" all race , the one who leads the most laps , seldom wins the race . A green /white / checker finish , a flat tire , a missed pit call , somebody elses accident , and a thousand other factors contribute to a Trevor Bayne or a Derrick Cope win . Every form of racing since the beginning of time has been measured by consistent excellence over the course of a racing season . Stick and ball sports are about wins . Different strokes for different folks . But , hey , if a win or two is what the kids want to base a season on , than that'll have to do.
 
One more thing . A bold prediction . If Danica were to win a race next season , nobody ...nobody ...on this forum would agree that the win proves anything.
 
ted@economy said:
One more thing . A bold prediction . If Danica were to win a race next season , nobody ...nobody ...on this forum would agree that the win proves anything.
Click to expand...

Not no one. I would be over the moon and to me, to show a TON of improvement
 
ted@economy said:
Problem with that , is that the " best car" all race , the one who leads the most laps , seldom wins the race . A green /white / checker finish , a flat tire , a missed pit call , somebody elses accident , and a thousand other factors contribute to a Trevor Bayne or a Derrick Cope win . Every form of racing since the beginning of time has been measured by consistent excellence over the course of a racing season . Stick and ball sports are about wins . Different strokes for different folks . But , hey , if a win or two is what the kids want to base a season on , than that'll have to do.
Click to expand...


I agree 100% with your assessment about the difficulty of winning a race, and that is EXACTLY why I believe the driver that wins the most IS the champion, no questions asked.

A victory is so difficult to achieve that some drivers will go an entire career without EVER winning a race, and yet the points given for a win are easily achieved by simply landing 2 finishes in the top 20 or above. That's ridiculous.
 
Einarr Thoreson said:
I agree 100% with your assessment about the difficulty of winning a race, and that is EXACTLY why I believe the driver that wins the most IS the champion, no questions asked.

A victory is so difficult to achieve that some drivers will go an entire career without EVER winning a race, and yet the points given for a win are easily achieved by simply landing 2 finishes in the top 20 or above. That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Ooops , did I say winning was hard ? No , being the only car that hasn't pitted when the rain starts is pretty easy . Being the car that dominated the race before the rain started is damn hard . But that's just me . :(
 
Einarr Thoreson said:
I just don't agree with attributing success to failure, and that's exactly what happens when drivers are made "champions" without having won the most races.

I hold the opinion that Kahne was indeed the best driver that year, as is Keselowski this season, due to the fact that both drivers succeeded where others failed, and they did it more often than ANY of their peers.
Click to expand...
Even by a margin so slim? In Kahne's case, we're talking about him having only one more win than Johnson, Harvick, and Stewart did. Six-to-five over the course of thirty-six races isn't very decisive.
 
Marcingak said:
Newman finished 2nd in the championship during his first year at RCR while Harvick only managed a best points finish of 3rd in all his years at RCR.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile Harvick took over Newman's old ride at SHR won the title and 5 races.....Meanwhile Newman won about 5 races in his 5 year stint at SHR
 
FLRacingFan said:
Even by a margin so slim? In Kahne's case, we're talking about him having only one more win than Johnson, Harvick, and Stewart did. Six-to-five over the course of thirty-six races isn't very decisive.
Click to expand...

Certainly.

Being able to achieve the most victories during a season is an incredible feat, even if the margin is only by a single race win.
 
Einarr Thoreson said:
Certainly.

Being able to achieve the most victories during a season is an incredible feat, even if the margin is only by a single race win.
Click to expand...
It is a great feat, but at the same time, when the competition is that close you risk putting way too much emphasis on restrictor plate race wins, fuel mileage race wins, rain-shortened race wins, and the like. I absolutely agree with weighting the points scale more towards winning but counting wins alone isn't the best indicator of performance in a sport where you compete against a field rather than head-to-head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom