Singer Pitbull takes Ownership Role at Trackhouse Racing

ChexOrWrex said:
Never understood the hate for Kenseth’s championship. 90% of his 2003 season was a top 10 finish, 11 of which were top 5s. He only had 2 DNFs and held onto the championship lead for 33 races. It was a historically consistent season. Absolutely deserved.
Click to expand...
1611189925579.png
 
ChexOrWrex said:
Never understood the hate for Kenseth’s championship. 90% of his 2003 season was a top 10 finish, 11 of which were top 5s. He only had 2 DNFs and held onto the championship lead for 33 races. It was a historically consistent season. Absolutely deserved.
Click to expand...

It was indeed a historically consistent season. The Latford points scale is way too flat and over-rewards conservatively decent finishes whlle under-rewarding top performance.

If you think that winning a race is about 2.9% better than finishing second, and that finishing 9th is about 80% as good as winning, the traditional Latford system is for you.
 
ChexOrWrex said:
Never understood the hate for Kenseth’s championship. 90% of his 2003 season was a top 10 finish, 11 of which were top 5s. He only had 2 DNFs and held onto the championship lead for 33 races. It was a historically consistent season. Absolutely deserved.
Click to expand...
I don't have any hate, but I wish it didn't happen because of the reaction it caused and what it has done to the racing morphing thru the years to these "playoffs" we have today. I also don't think it was a competitive year which is what was the statement was about by another poster. Winning a series with only one win by way of not wrecking isn't my idea of being competitive but more of conservative survivorship. Your thoughts may differ. Jimmie and Chad obliterating the competition for 5 years in the row without anybody close I don't call that more competative than today's racing either.
 
I have no hate for Kenseth either, but there was a flaw in the system his 2003 season exposed. The solution was to change the points structure to more incentivize wins and top five finishes, not to graft a playoffs onto the season as a workaround.
 
gnomesayin said:
I have no hate for Kenseth either, but there was a flaw in the system his 2003 season exposed. The solution was to change the points structure to more incentivize wins and top five finishes, not to graft a playoffs onto the season as a workaround.
Click to expand...
And even this system can be won without winning a race. Ryan Newman and Matt Crafton have shown that.
 
gnomesayin said:
It was indeed a historically consistent season. The Latford points scale is way too flat and over-rewards conservatively decent finishes whlle under-rewarding top performance.

If you think that winning a race is about 2.9% better than finishing second, and that finishing 9th is about 80% as good as winning, the traditional Latford system is for you.
Click to expand...
Top performance “dont mean ****” with 7 DNFs.

Kenseth deserved 2003 and Labonte deserved 1996.
 
ChexOrWrex said:
Top performance “dont mean ****” with 7 DNFs.

Kenseth deserved 2003 and Labonte deserved 1996.
Click to expand...

I'm not really getting into retroactive who deserved what. There are better and worse methods to determine a champion. The Latford points system, which was literally designed to encourage participation above all else, isn't a very good one. Wins and top five position finishes should be worth far more relative points than they even are today.
 
gnomesayin said:
I'm not really getting into retroactive who deserved what. There are better and worse methods to determine a champion. The Latford points system, which was literally designed to encourage participation above all else, isn't a very good one. Wins and top five position finishes should be worth far more relative points than they even are today.
Click to expand...
The current system rewards flashes in the pan over consistent performance. It’s worst feature, and has been since the original chase format, is a points reset.

Ask Kevin Harvick who said in 2010 when asked about the points system being updated, ““There has to be something that rewards durability, not just a guy winning one week and breaking down the next week.”

After the awful results of Harvick’s 2020 season, his sentiment still rings true today.
 
ChexOrWrex said:
The current system rewards flashes in the pan over consistent performance. It’s worst feature, and has been since the original chase format, is a points reset.

Ask Kevin Harvick who said in 2010 when asked about the points system being updated, ““There has to be something that rewards durability, not just a guy winning one week and breaking down the next week.”

After the awful results of Harvick’s 2020 season, his sentiment still rings true today.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of that.
 
gnomesayin said:
I have no hate for Kenseth either, but there was a flaw in the system his 2003 season exposed. The solution was to change the points structure to more incentivize wins and top five finishes, not to graft a playoffs onto the season as a workaround.
Click to expand...

There wasn't a problem with the system The current system could produce a winless champion. The Chase could have produced a winless champion. I mean, I'm done with the playoffs after what happened to Harvick. Didn't even watch Phoenix, and I like Chase Elliott.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
There wasn't a problem with the system The current system could produce a winless champion. The Chase could have produced a winless champion. I mean, I'm done with the playoffs after what happened to Harvick. Didn't even watch Phoenix, and I like Chase Elliott.
Click to expand...

This is frustrating. I'm not arguing for the current system, as my posts make clear. I loathe the playoffs.

175 points for the winner, 170 points for second place, 165 points for third and so on is a subpar points structure. The 40-1 scale and the incremental changes made to it also suck. It's all way too flat.
 
gnomesayin said:
This is frustrating. I'm not arguing for the current system, as my posts make clear. I loathe the playoffs.

175 points for the winner, 170 points for second place, 165 points for third and so on is a subpar points structure. The 40-1 scale and the incremental changes made to it also suck. It's all way too flat.
Click to expand...
The current system allows for situations where a team who ran well for 75% of the race but wrecked out, had a mistake, mechanical failure, or bad closing strategy will score many more points than a team that executed well at the end when it mattered. It has happened dozens of times over the last few seasons. Personally, I find that to be an egregious oversight.
 
ChexOrWrex said:
The current system allows for situations where a team who ran well for 75% of the race but wrecked out, had a mistake, mechanical failure, or bad closing strategy will score many more points than a team that executed well at the end when it mattered. It has happened dozens of times over the last few seasons. Personally, I find that to be an egregious oversight.
Click to expand...

The current system is poorly thought out, and I've been a persistent critic of stage points, which are awful. In many cases they make the first half of the race more important than the last. Terrible.
 
I thought we were talking about competition or lack of. Harvick lost in the playoffs, but the year of races were full of close competition. Bowman, Truex and KDB all tied for points, but it was imposssible for anybody to know how close it was because of the impossible points system they have now, helped by announcers who are fixated on other things and to their credit they can't count the points on the fly either. But there were close races for positions, more so than back in the day..IMO
 
I'm so happy to see this team running as well as they did yesterday. With all the hype on 23XI this off-season, Trackhouse became the darkhorse that's just making moves quietly and has a nice driver redemption arc. The more competitive teams we have the better, so I hope they continue to improve over the next few years and stick around.
 
StandOnIt said:
I don't have any hate, but I wish it didn't happen because of the reaction it caused and what it has done to the racing morphing thru the years to these "playoffs" we have today. I also don't think it was a competitive year which is what was the statement was about by another poster. Winning a series with only one win by way of not wrecking isn't my idea of being competitive but more of conservative survivorship. Your thoughts may differ. Jimmie and Chad obliterating the competition for 5 years in the row without anybody close I don't call that more competative than today's racing either.
Click to expand...
The race for second spot was rather competitive during those five years though. :XXROFL: :XXROFL: :XXROFL: ;)
 
Turtle84 said:
Quickly becoming one of my more favorite teams to root for. Just wish that speeding penalty hadn't happened.

Click to expand...

Also just curious, where do they get their cars from? They seem to have better equipment and better performance than I would have expected tbh, especially this early into their first season as a team.
 
hmmm298 said:
Also just curious, where do they get their cars from? They seem to have better equipment and better performance than I would have expected tbh, especially this early into their first season as a team.
Click to expand...
RCR. Which is funny because the past two weeks they've outrun RCR
 
cheesepuffs said:
RCR. Which is funny because the past two weeks they've outrun RCR
Click to expand...
Said from the start, they are a 3rd RCR team. Justin Marks was not joking about competitive from the jump.

They look really good and Daniel Suarez has confidence in his team. I think people forget Suarez won an Xfinity championship, he's never been short of talent. Now, he has a team fully behind him and bouncing off of RCR is helping as well.

Certainly happy for this team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom