JJD's NASCAR blog

WHY GRADING DRAFTS IS STUPID

2010-04-26T16:54:00.000-07:00

As a Patriots fan, it was pretty frustrating to figure out my opinion of the Pats' 2010 draft. The Patriots are one of the most common traders in the NFL (they swapped picks seven times on draft day this year), so it was a struggle to figure out what value they got at each spot. After two hours (or maybe three) I've got some answers. I'm sure my boss will be thrilled.

A big problem I have with draft "grades" is that they don't really factor in the entire mechanism of the draft and the complete use of a draft pick as an asset – generally, they merely grade the picks in each spot and that's it. For example, the Patriots left New York last year with a couple of picks in the 2010 draft that had been acquired for 2009 picks. While I'm sure those trades were somewhat factored in to the evaluation of the 2009 draft, the truth is that the 2009 draft has been graded and forgotten, despite the fact that some of the picks only reached their final use this weekend. Nobody ever goes back and adds up the "net" use of a draft pick as an asset, right?

So I decided to retrace the Patriots' 2010 draft – every team gets seven draft picks per season plus compensatory picks, but New England's 2010 draft (as of Thursday morning) had EIGHT picks, including three second-rounders and zero fifth-rounders. Where'd those extra picks come from (or in the case of the missing fifth-rounders, where did they go?)

FIRST, THE EASY STUFF

The Patriots had four compensatory draft choices in 2010 – picks rewarded for having a net "loss" in free agency in 2009. The Patriots lost five players – WR Jabar Gaffney, FB Heath Evans, RB LaMont Jordan, LS Lonie Paxton, and LB Larry Izzo – while importing only CB Brandon McGowan during the 2009 off-season. The NFL rewarded the Patriots with four compensatory, and untradeable, draft choices.

Round 6 – 36th pick (205th overall) = NC State C Ted Larsen
Round 7 – 40th pick (247th overall) = Alabama DT Brandon Deaderick
Round 7 – 41st pick (248th overall) = Georgia DT Kade Weston
Round 7 – 43rd pick (250th overall) = Oklahoma State QB Zac Robinson

Now, the standard picks that were awarded to the Patriots for the 2010 draft that the Patriots actually USED to just pick a player should be easy, right? The Patriots had either the 21st or 22nd pick in each of the seven rounds, so they ended up at 22, 53, 85, 119, 153, 190, and 229. How many of THOSE exact picks did the Patriots use on a player in the 2010 draft? ONE. (Thanks, Bill Belichick.)

Round 2 – 21st pick (53rd overall) = Florida DE Jermaine Cunningham

HEY, WHERE DID THOSE PICKS GO?

The Patriots' original fifth-round pick went to Tampa Bay last season for TE Alex Smith, who was promptly released before the season started. I think we can put that down as an unqualified failure at #153.

The Patriots made another player-for-pick trade to get Oakland DE Derrick Burgess. This trade ended up being extremely complicated – Burgess for a third and a fifth in 2010, only the Pats didn't have a fifth at the time so the deal was amended to "a third and a fourth, unless the Pats get another fifth, in which case the fourth becomes a fifth. " OW MY HEAD HURTS. The Patriots ended up trading DT LeKevin Smith to Denver for Denver's fifth-round pick (#158 overall) to get back into the fifth-round, so the trade ended up looking like this:

NE trades DT LeKevin Smith to Denver for 158th overall pick
NE trades 85th and 158th overall picks to Oakland for DE Derrick Burgess

Was LeKevin Smith and the 85th pick worth Burgess' 35 tackles and 5 sacks? I might like this better if Burgess wasn't going on 33, but five sacks out of a third-round rookie and career back-up Smith probably wasn't going to happen.

After trading those picks for players, and making the pick for Cunningham at #53, here is the state of the Patriots' 2010 draft (with their picks ONLY).

Round 1 – 22nd pick (22nd overall)
Round 2 – 21st pick (53rd overall) – Drafted Florida DE Jermaine Cunningham
Round 3 – 21st pick (85th overall) – Traded to OAK for DE Derrick Burgess
Round 4 – 21st pick (119th overall)
Round 5 – 22nd pick (153rd overall) – Traded to TB for TE Alex Smith
Round 6 – 21st pick (190th overall)
Round 7 – 22nd pick (229th overall)

HEY, WHERE DID THOSE PICKS COME FROM?

The Patriots had three second-round picks headed into the 2010 draft, so where did they get those extra picks? One was a final piece to a multiple-trade down deal that New England had made last year. The Patriots started with the 23rd pick of the first round in 2009, and after making separate trades with Baltimore and Green Bay, they had the 41st, 73rd, and 83rd picks of the 2009 draft. The Patriots used the picks at 41 and 83, and traded the 73rd pick to Jacksonville for Jacksonville's 2010 second-round pick and 2009 7th-round pick (#232 overall). That meant the traded ended up here headed into the 2010 draft:

NE trades 23rd overall pick for 2009 41st overall pick (CB Darius Butler), 2009 83rd overall pick (WR Brandon Tate), 2009 232nd overall pick (WR Julian Edelman), and 2010 44th overall pick

Wow, right? Butler and Edelman turned out to be solid contributors in 2009 and Tate was used mainly on special teams. Throw in the 2010 pick and that's pretty great value for the 23rd overall pick.

The other trade the Patriots made involving a future second-rounder was much simpler, trading their original 2009 third-rounder (89th overall) to Tennessee for their 2010 second-rounder, which turned out to be 47th overall.

The Patriots also traded G Russ Hochstein to Denver for a seventh-round pick.

So with these picks added to their 2010 draft the Patriots were here:

Round 1 – 22nd pick (22nd overall)
Round 2 – 12th pick (44th overall) – Acquired for 2009 73rd overall pick (Originally acquired in deal for 2009 23rd overall pick)
Round 2 – 15th pick (47th overall) – Acquired for 2009 89th overall pick
Round 2 – 21st pick (53rd overall) – Drafted Florida DE Jermaine Cunningham
Round 3 – 21st pick (85th overall) – Traded to OAK for DE Derrick Burgess
Round 4 – 21st pick (119th overall)
Round 5 – 22nd pick (153rd overall) – Traded to TB for TE Alex Smith
Round 6 – 21st pick (190th overall)
Round 6 – 36th pick (205th overall) = Drafted NC State C Ted Larsen (compensatory)
Round 7 – 22nd pick (229th overall)
Round 7 – 24th pick (231st overall) – Acquired for G Russ Hochstein
Round 7 – 40th pick (247th overall) = Drafted Alabama DT Brandon Deaderick (compensatory)
Round 7 – 41st pick (248th overall) = Drafted Georgia DT Kade Weston (compensatory)
Round 7 – 43rd pick (250th overall) = Drafted Oklahoma State QB Zac Robinson (compensatory)

LET'S MAKE A DEAL (OR SEVEN)

First, the simplest deal. At the start of the seventh round, the Patriots made a deal with Washington, trading New England's two seventh-rounders to Washington for the Redskins' seventh-rounder, 208th overall. The Patriots drafted Vanderbilt T Thomas Welch at 208, making the final deal basically this: Welch for Hochstein and the 229th overall pick.

With their first-rounder at 22, the Patriots made two deals to move down. First, they traded with Denver to acquire the 24th and 113th overall picks for the Patriots' 22nd pick. Then the Patriots traded with Dallas, moving from 24th to 27th in round one, while moving UP from 119th to Dallas' pick at 90th overall. Essentially the Patriots added a late third-round pick for nothing, and they used all three other picks they acquired to draft players.

At 44, the Patriots made a two-for-one deal to move up, sending the 44th and 190th picks to Oakland to slide up to 42nd overall. Since this pick was originally part of the package the Patriots received out of the 23rd spot in 2009, you can put those two trades together and come up with this:

2009 23rd overall + 2010 190th overall = Butler + Tate + Edelman + 2010 42nd overall
OR
2009 23rd overall = Butler + Tate + 2010 42nd overall AND SEPARATELY 2010 190th overall = Edelman (drafted at 232 in 2009)

That makes sense, doesn't it? I thought I did, so updating the list you have:

Round 1 – 22nd pick (22nd overall) – Traded for 27th overall pick (Drafted Rutgers CB Devin McCourty) and 90th overall pick (Drafted Ohio WR Taylor Price)
Round 2 – 10th pick (42nd overall) – Acquired for 2009 73rd overall pick (Originally acquired in deal for 2009 23rd overall pick) (Drafted Arizona TE Rob Gronkowski)
Round 2 – 15th pick (47th overall) – Acquired for 2009 89th overall pick
Round 2 – 21st pick (53rd overall) – Drafted Florida DE Jermaine Cunningham
Round 3 – 21st pick (85th overall) – Traded to OAK for DE Derrick Burgess
Round 4 – 21st pick (119th overall) – Traded for 113th overall pick (Drafted Florida TE Aaron Hernandez)
Round 5 – 22nd pick (153rd overall) – Traded to TB for TE Alex Smith
Round 6 – 21st pick (190th overall) – Traded for 2009 232nd overall pick (Drafted WR Julian Edelman)
Round 6 – 36th pick (205th overall) = Drafted NC State C Ted Larsen (compensatory)
Round 7 – 1st pick (208th overall) – Acquired for 2010 229th overall pick and G Russ Hochstein (Drafted Vanderbilt T Thomas Welch)
Round 7 – 24th pick (231st overall) – Acquired for G Russ Hochstein
Round 7 – 40th pick (247th overall) = Drafted Alabama DT Brandon Deaderick (compensatory)
Round 7 – 41st pick (248th overall) = Drafted Georgia DT Kade Weston (compensatory)
Round 7 – 43rd pick (250th overall) = Drafted Oklahoma State QB Zac Robinson (compensatory)

BELICHICK'S PIECE DE RÉSISTANCE

Now, the only pick that is left to track is the 47th overall pick – the one that was last year's 89th overall pick. The Patriots – as they tend to do – started dealing. First, they traded with Arizona, sending them the 47th pick in exchange for the 58th and 89th overall picks. Then they traded down again sending the 58th pick to Houston for the 62nd and 150th overall picks. So they started here:

2009 89th overall pick

…and moved to here…

2010 62nd overall pick + 2010 89th overall pick + 2010 150th overall pick

THEN, they drafted players at 62 (Florida LB Brandon Spikes) and 150 (Michigan P Zoltan Mesko), but in-between they traded the 89th overall pick to Carolina for the Panthers' 2011 second-rounder! Even if you question the wisdom of drafting a punter in the fifth (which – I hope the guy turns out to be Shane Lechler crossed with Ray Guy), Belichick turned a late third-rounder into TWO second-round picks through separate deals. Awesome.

ADD IT ALL UP AND WHADDAYA GOT?

2009 Round 1 – 23rd pick (23rd overall) – Traded for 2009 41st overall pick (Drafted UConn CB Darius Butler) + 2009 83rd overall pick (Drafted North Carolina WR Brandon Tate) + 2010 42nd overall pick (Drafted Arizona TE Rob Gronkowski)
2009 Round 3 – 25th pick (89th overall) – Traded for 2010 62nd overall pick (Drafted Florida LB Brandon Spikes) + 2010 150th overall pick (Drafted Michigan P Zoltan Mesko) + 2011 Carolina 2nd-round pick
2010 Round 1 – 22nd pick (22nd overall) – Traded for 27th overall pick (Drafted Rutgers CB Devin McCourty) and 90th overall pick (Drafted Ohio WR Taylor Price)
2010 Round 2 – 21st pick (53rd overall) – Drafted Florida DE Jermaine Cunningham
2010 Round 3 – 21st pick (85th overall) – Traded to OAK for DE Derrick Burgess
2010 Round 4 – 21st pick (119th overall) – Traded for 113th overall pick (Drafted Florida TE Aaron Hernandez)
2010 Round 5 – 22nd pick (153rd overall) – Traded to TB for TE Alex Smith
2010 Round 6 – 21st pick (190th overall) – Traded for 2009 232nd overall pick (Drafted WR Julian Edelman)
2010 Round 6 – 36th pick (205th overall) = Drafted NC State C Ted Larsen (compensatory)
2010 Round 7 – 1st pick (208th overall) – Acquired for 2010 229th overall pick and G Russ Hochstein (Drafted Vanderbilt T Thomas Welch)
2010 Round 7 – 40th pick (247th overall) = Drafted Alabama DT Brandon Deaderick (compensatory)
2010 Round 7 – 41st pick (248th overall) = Drafted Georgia DT Kade Weston (compensatory)
2010 Round 7 – 43rd pick (250th overall) = Drafted Oklahoma State QB Zac Robinson (compensatory)

2008 Craftsman Truck Series FINAL

2008-11-15T08:08:00.000-08:00

First off - congratulations to Johnny Benson for winning the NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series championship last night. I feel like I need to put that in here so I don't sounds like a whining Ron Hornaday-fan, which I might, but I'm not. I just really don't like the fact that, well, let me just repost what I wrote two months ago...

But really - what is the reason why Ron Hornaday is not the points leader today? I think you can point to our nation's economy. Yes, I'm being totally serious.

In what is surely a situation affected by economics (and a Gateway-Loudon-Las Vegas in three weeks schedule that likely doesn't help) only 31 trucks were in Las Vegas Saturday - the smallest turnout for a Truck Series race since 2001 at Nashville. When Johnny Benson cut down a tire and hit the wall, he was the fifth truck to retire, leaving him in 27th place.

Now, because of the way NASCAR's points-system works, Benson was awarded 87 points (including five bonus points for leading a lap). HOWEVER, if a full 36 truck-field had turned out for the race, and Benson had been the fifth truck out - he would have been 32nd - receiving 15 LESS points than for 27th. He would actually be 14 points BEHIND Hornaday if not for the short field Saturday.

When you give points to everybody, regardless of the minimum performance, you create a situation where the differences in the worst performances - things dictated often by what drivers can't control like a bad tire or a blown engine or someone else's crash - are as important as the differences in the best ones. That's how dumb luck can be the difference - TOO big of a difference - in a championship.

It is also worth pointing out that not only did Hornaday have more wins that Benson, he actually beat Benson on the track, head-to-head, 13 times out of 25. They also had the same number of top-fives and top-tens, so essentially their seven NOT top-ten finishes were the championship-deciders. Whatever the case, Benson won the championship by seven points. It will be interesting to see where he ends up next year.

Strangely, since Ron Hornaday won the extremely prestigious JJD version of the Truck Series championship, that makes SIX years in a row that my champion has been different from NASCAR's.

2008 - Ron Hornaday (NASCAR - Johnny Benson)
2007 - Mike Skinner (NASCAR - Ron Hornaday)
2006 - Johnny Benson (NASCAR - Todd Bodine)
2005 - Todd Bodine (NASCAR - Ted Musgrave)
2004 - Ted Musgrave (NASCAR - Bobby Hamilton Sr.)
2003 - Brendan Gaughan (NASCAR - Travis Kvapil)
2002 - Mike Bliss
2001 - Jack Sprague
2000 - Greg Biffle
1999 - Jack Sprague
1998 - Ron Hornaday
1997 - Jack Sprague
1996 - Mike Skinner (NASCAR - Ron Hornaday)
1995 - Mike Skinner

Congratulations also to Todd Bodine for winning the Ford 200. The win gives Bodine 15 Truck Series wins in his career, and with his 15 Busch/NWS wins he is only the second driver to get to 15 wins in both series. (Greg Biffle has 18 Busch/NWS wins and 16 Truck Series wins.) He is also the 34th driver ever to get to 30 TOTAL wins, but only the third to do so without a Cup victory. (After Ron Hornaday's 43 wins and Jack Ingram's 31 wins.)

Here are the final 2008 drivers standings, including every driver who scored a point.

CRAFTSMAN TRUCK SERIES
Rank Points
1 Ron Hornaday 290
2 Johnny Benson 274
3 Todd Bodine 240
4 Kyle Busch 226
5 Erik Darnell 174
6 Matt Crafton 153
7 Mike Skinner 138
8 Rick Crawford 121
9 Dennis Setzer 103
10 Jack Sprague 101
11 Scott Speed 81
12 David Starr 80
13 Terry Cook 70
14 Chad McCumbee 69
   Colin Braun 69
16 Travis Kvapil 57
17 Brian Scott 52
18 Brendan Gaughan 47
19 T.J. Bell 40
20 Kevin Harvick 36
21 Donny Lia 35
22 Ted Musgrave 31
23 Michael Annett 27
24 Landon Cassill 26
25 Stacy Compton 23
26 Ryan Newman 21
27 Shelby Howard 20
28 Denny Hamlin 15
29 John Andretti 14
30 Bobby East 12
   Ken Schrader 12
32 Mike Wallace 10
33 Justin Marks 9
34 Jon Wood 8
   Brad Keselowski 8
36 Marc Mitchell 6
   Jeff Green 6
38 Shane Sieg 4
   Sean Murphy 4
   Phillip McGilton 4
   David Stremme 4
   Sam Hornish Jr. 4
43 Jason White 3
   Timothy Peters 3
45 Andy Lally 2
46 Chad Chaffin 1
   Ryan Lawler 1
   Mario Gosselin 1
   Jack Smith 1
   Mike Bliss 1
   Jimmie Johnson 1

This is also the first year that I have tracked the manufacturer's standings. NASCAR gives points based on the order of the makes - so in last night's race Chevrolet came in "second", even though their first truck finished THIRD behind two Toyotas. That doesn't make a whole lt of sense to me, so I scored them based on where the highest-finishing truck was. (So last night Toyota got first-place with the pole and the most laps led, Chevrolet got third while leading a lap, Dodge fifth, and Ford sixth.)

1 Toyota 488
2 Chevrolet 433
3 Ford 287
4 Dodge 124

No big surprise there - Toyota won 13 races to Chevrolet's ten, with more poles (11 vs. 6) and more most-laps-led bonuses (13 vs. 9).

Breaking down the clinching scenarios

2008-11-13T07:28:00.000-08:00

Ugh - the formatting sucks on this but it'll do for now, I suppose.

Sometimes I think NASCAR thinks we are all stupid. (OK, that's a LOT of the time.) The minute the Phoenix race was over we were told the championship-clinching scenarios for Jimmie Johnson, right?

- finish 36th without leading a lap, or
- finish 38th while leading at least one lap, or
- finish 39th while leading the most laps

Well, NASCAR is kind of leaving out an important part of the equation here: where Carl Edwards finishes. I realize they are trying to get people to tune in and all that, but here is the REAL deal. While all of the above statements are TRUE, the thing NASCAR isn't telling you is this:

If Carl Edwards does not finish in the top-three OR if he fails to lead a single lap Sunday, Jimmie Johnson is the NASCAR Sprint Cup champion.

I haven't seen that ANYWHERE. Jimmie Johnson could break his wrist while flipping the switch to fire his engine, and if Carl finishes fourth - Jimmie is the champ. Again. (Again.)

(Sounds a lot less possible now, doesn't it? I thought so.)

In fact - here's what you need to know - the comprehensive list of what would happen given ALL of the possibilities Sunday.

IF CARL EDWARDS FINISHES THIRD...
- AND leads the MOST laps AND Jimmie finishes 43rd WITHOUT leading a single lap - CARL is the champion.

(Sidenote of awesomeness: Technically, Carl and Jimmie would be tied but Carl would win the tiebreaker with eight wins vs. Jimmie's seven. That extra win? How about Las Vegas - where Carl's oil deck lid vanished and he was docked 100 points AND the bonus points for the "win". A tainted win decides the championship because NASCAR "won't take away wins"? The prospect makes me tingly.)

IF CARL FINISHES SECOND, AND...
- LEADS NO LAPS - Jimmie is the champ.
- LEADS A LAP BUT NOT THE MOST LAPS - Jimmie would have to finish 43rd without leading a single lap for Carl to win the championship. (Same tiebreaker scenario.)
- LEADS THE MOST LAPS, Jimmie wins the championship if he:
- finishes 42nd while leading a lap OR
- finishes 41st

IF CARL WINS...
- BUT DOESN'T LEAD THE MOST LAPS, Jimmie wins the championship if he:
- finishes 42nd while leading the MOST laps, OR
- finishes 40th while leading a lap OR
- finishes 37th while leading the MOST laps.

IF CARL WINS AND LEADS THE MOST LAPS, THEN the clinching scenario NASCAR is laying out, where Jimmie needs to:
- finish 36th without leading a lap, or
- finish 38th while leading at least one lap, or
- finish 39th while leading the most laps

...is legit.

I mean, it's ALREADY a foregone conclusion that Jimmie will win the championship, but I feel like NASCAR is leaving the door WAY more open than it actually is. And the one thing I hate about NASCAR is the way they constantly take advantage of the ignorance of their fans.

(Don't freak out about the "ignorance" comment, btw. I am NOT calling NASCAR fans "ignorant" like some kind of insult. I'm just saying there is a lot of stuff out there NASCAR fans don't know - like a REALLY good understanding of the points, as an example - and NASCAR kind of uses that to create false drama where there is really none.)

Also - I would be remiss if I didn't point out that if they did the Chase MY way, Jimmie would have to finish SECOND to clinch the championship if Carl won Sunday. Here are those standings right now.

2008 ST 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 TOTAL
Jimmie Johnson 20 21 14 25 10 15 25 21 2 25 178
Carl Edwards 25 18 18 21 1 1 18 25 25 19 171
Greg Biffle 0 25 25 18 4 12 2 5 14 3 108
Kyle Busch 40 0 0 0 6 19 0 12 11 8 96
Jeff Burton 5 15 5 8 19 25 1 0 3 6 87
Jeff Gordon 0 1 9 15 0 9 15 7 21 0 77
Matt Kenseth 0 0 21 12 3 0 7 15 6 1 65
Kevin Harvick 0 4 11 10 5 3 9 2 9 10 63
Denny Hamlin 5 6 0 3 0 2 12 18 0 16 62
Clint Bowyer 5 2 7 2 16 4 5 0 17 2 60
Dale Earnhardt Jr. 5 12 1 1 2 0 21 3 0 13 58
Tony Stewart 0 8 2 0 25 5 0 1 1 0 42

That would make for a pretty fun race Sunday, wouldn't it? (Of course, what's going to likely happen is Jimmie cruises to a 15th or so finish while Carl wins - giving Jimmie the real title while Carl wins doing it this way. Oh well.)

People who deserve a good smacking

2008-03-25T06:34:00.000-07:00

3/25/08 - Definitely still ticked off about the formatting issues. This post was done after the Martinsville '06 race, when several drivers still had a legitimate shot at winning the Nextel Cup in what went on to be Jimmie Johnson's first championship season. People were all over themselves to say how great the Chase was doing, when really NASCAR was just lucky a bunch of drivers had trouble at the beginning of the Chase.

I've about had it with hearing that this year's Chase proves "the Chase is working", like this guy. Do you know how lucky NASCAR is to have eight guys within 100 points of the lead after six races, and how lucky they are that it APPEARS they will have another tight finish for the Championship?

If they would have looked at the past history of their points-structure, they would have been able to see how they Chase was likely to play out. Sure, there would be some occassions where the added pressure would create some mistakes, but all they would have had to do is see how their standing looked after ten races in a typical season and they would have had their answers.

Here are a couple of lists, going back 20 seasons. This is how many drivers were within 100 points of the points lead after six races.

Year    Drivers 
2006    2                        
2005    0
2004    3
2003    0
2002    1
2001    3
2000    2
1999    2
1998    3
1997    1
1996    3
1995    1
1994    2
1993    1
1992    4
1991    0
1990    1
1989    5
1988    5
1987    0

Do a couple of things stand out? How about the fact that the most they have ever had is FIVE within 100 points. That is how lucky NASCAR is that they have eight close drivers now. There have been NINE years (45%) that one or less drivers have been within 100 points of the lead after six races, meaning this isn't the norm, but the 2004 Chase where Kurt Busch had a 96-point lead with four races to go is the norm. The average number of drivers who were within 100 points after six races is 1.95, or barely below TWO.

Here's another snazzy list, showing the points standings after ten races of each season.

Year    2nd    3rd    4th    5th
2006    -55    -99   -176   -208                        
2005   -127   -148   -229   -252
2004    -25    -27    -96   -137
2003    -44   -152   -168   -207
2002   -143   -152   -161   -163
2001    -66   -111   -119   -150
2000    -20    -73   -120   -132
1999    -55   -154   -200   -205
1998    -36    -47    -73   -123
1997    -39    -52   -150   -215

What can we learn from this? For starters, the second-place guy finished, on average 61 points behind the leader, which means not only has NASCAR been somewhat lucky to have 8-point and 35-point margins in their two Chases, but at the same time it shows that the 2005-scenario, where Tony Stewart had a sizable point-cushion to lean on (52 points) is going to be the usual one, and I don't remember too much drama while Smoke hardly contended for the win at Homestead last year.

This also shows that if NASCAR was trying to create dramatic finishes every year involving multiple drivers, there was a better way to do that. (Like maybe giving the Chasers their own points-system? Maybe?) In five of those ten seasons the third-place driver finished over 100 points out, and four of those seasons had that driver 148 points or more behind the leader. That is just how the NASCAR point system works. You have to go back to 1989 to find as many as five drivers within 100 points of the lead after only SIX races, and after ten races in '89 the points were not that close any more as the fifth-place driver (Sterling Marlin if you were curious) was 105 points out.

My question is this: did NASCAR even look at these numbers before they tried to make the Chase the cure-all to their boring points races? Could they not have come up with a cooler solution than this? Shouldn't they have anticipated that this might be the result? They have set the Chase up to be a big letdown like a Super Bowl blow-out.

The next time someone exclaims "the Chase is working", feel free to sock them one, because this year's title picture isn't reflective of the Chase "working" at all, but instead it's refelctive of how lucky NASCAR is that this year's Chasers have been, so far, largely off-form.

Yes, the formatting is pissing me off

2008-03-25T06:31:00.000-07:00

I'm trying to figure out how to deal with the formatting when I copy-and-paste the posts from my FOXsports.com blog, and it is frustrating. The tables don't carry over so I have to reformat them using [pre] tags, and I haven't yet figured out a good way to circumvent it without retyping everything.

Tweaking JJD's Modified Chase for the Nextel Cup

2008-03-20T06:31:00.000-07:00

3/20/08 - originally posted 10/23/06

This is the post where I "fixed" the Chase to the (then) Nextel Cup. I am not a fan of the Chase-concept, but I think if they are going to go ahead and have it they should figure out a way to make the Chasers compete against each other separately from the rest of the pack. And Jimmie Johnson was totally screwed by the format of the 2004 Chase.

I literally thought of applying the F1 points to the Chase in a moment of epiphany, but something had been bugging me about the way it was working. On the one hand, it seems perfectly logical to me to take the ten Chasers and only ranks them against each other. On the other hand, a scenario where nine Chasers have horrid days and the one Chaser having a good day decides riding around in sixth is OK because he'll score the maximum points didn't exactly fill me up with excitement.

I was poking around Jayski on Saturday and I clicked on their "Rookies" link, where they described the Rookie of the Year-scoring system. I think it's kind of silly that they don't just give the guy who has the most points the ROTY award, but they have a point-system they use and it gave me the PERFECT the antidote to the scenario I described above.

NASCAR scores the rookies based on their finishes among each other. (Sound familiar?) They award he highest finishing rookie ten points, nine to the second-place rookie, then eight and so on down to the tenth-highest rookie finisher getting one point. (Familiar at all?) I personally prefer my original way of scoring using 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1-0-0, as it puts a higher premium on finishing first and puts a bigger penalty on having a bad day.

However, NASCAR also offers bonus points for the rookies if they finish in the top-10, with ten for a win down to one for tenth, and THAT is the solution to several of the things that I was looking to fix, such as:

- Getting extra credit for winning the overall race.
- Encouraging the Chasers to pass as many cars as possible.
- Making the points even more fluid with a maximum of twenty per race.

It's worth noting that I applied these bonus points to the last two seasons and only one position changed in the standings between both years, and Jimmie Johnson and Tony Stewart remained the 2004 and 2005 champions. However, it actually jumbled the top-5 in this years standings considerably.

Here they are without the bonus points after Martinsville:

2006 ST 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 TOTAL
Jimmie Johnson 8 0 4 4 1 8 10 35
Matt Kenseth 10 4 5 1 8 3 3 34
Kevin Harvick 7 10 1 3 6 2 4 33
Jeff Burton 2 5 10 8 0 6 0 31
Denny Hamlin 5 6 6 2 3 0 8 30
Kasey Kahne 0 1 0 0 10 10 5 26
Mark Martin 3 3 3 10 5 0 0 24
Jeff Gordon 1 8 8 0 0 1 6 24
Kyle Busch 6 0 0 6 4 4 2 22
Dale Earnhardt Jr. 4 2 2 5 2 5 1 21

Now, Mark Martin received ten points for beating the other Chasers at Kansas, but he finished third, which is only the second time in the Chase that the top Chaser didn't finish in the top-2. (Elliott Sadler finished fourth while beating the other Chasers at Kansas in '04.) It stands to reason that Martin's "win" should count less than an actual race win.

Here are the NEW AND IMPROVED Modified Chase for the Nextel Cup standings:

2006 ST 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 TOTAL
Jimmie Johnson 17 0 4 4 1 17 20 63
Jeff Burton 3 9 20 14 0 14 0 60
Kevin Harvick 14 20 1 3 11 2 6 57
Matt Kenseth 20 5 6 1 15 3 3 53
Denny Hamlin 10 13 8 2 3 0 17 53
Kasey Kahne 1 1 0 0 19 20 9 50
Jeff Gordon 2 16 16 0 0 1 12 47
Mark Martin 6 3 3 18 8 0 0 38
Kyle Busch 12 0 0 10 4 9 2 37
Dale Earnhardt Jr. 8 2 2 6 2 12 1 33

(Note: I've obviously changed the points-reset to reflect the modifications in the scoring.)

I think this would be awesome for several reasons. One, because I'm a total geek (and I was working while the race was on) I was able to do kind of an "as they run now"-points total. At one point There were six Chasers in the top-7 of the race, then they all pitted and Gordon was winning with the nearest Chaser outside the top-10, and the points were going crazy. Second, while Jimmie Johnson ended up winning in 2004 by 13 points (he scored 109 out of a maximum of 120 points in the last six races), Tony Stewart's 2005 title was won by a four-point margin over Greg Biffle. Dale Earnhardt Jr's spin from seventh yesterday cost him seven points. It also puts the premium on beating the other Chasers while rewarding winning and consistent top-10 finishes, and creates a difference between, say, Matt Kenseth's finish at Loudon where he finished fifth among the Chasers while finishing tenth overall, and Kyle Busch's finish at Charlotte where he finished fifth among the Chasers but in sixth overall.

I'm going with this points set-up for the Chase from now on.

Leave the Busch Series alone

2008-03-19T18:02:00.000-07:00

3/19/08 - I originally did this post 10/19/06. I'd say my point still stands today.

I have to admit, I'm getting pretty tired of hearing about "Buschwhackers". Pop Quiz: Who were the champions of AAA baseball this year? You could only know that if you (a) live in the championship town (if so, congratulations), (b) are a big fan of the Major League-organization that is connected to that team, or (c) related to one of the players on the team. If you want to make the Busch series JUST LIKE AAA baseball, take the Nextel Cup guys out. Stuff like this? Come on, now.

Harvick's Busch Series Championship Illustrates Need For Reform

With five races left on the Busch series schedule, Kevin Harvick had a 729 point lead over the rest of the contenders for the Busch championship.

His ninth-place finish in Friday's Dollar General 300 at Lowe's Motor Speedway boosted that lead to 775 points and guaranteed Harvick the Busch series title.

Along with locking in the championship a full four races before the end of the season, Harvick has also won seven of the 31 Busch races this season - nearly a fourth of all the races run.

In theory, he could sit out the rest of the season and still bring home the championship trophy.

OK, those are just a bunch of stats, basically, so let me toss a couple more out there. Harvick's 2006 Busch campaign includes:

- Seven wins (Carl Edwards has four, and he's the only other guy with more than two.)
- Seventeen top-3s (Edwards, Denny Hamlin, and Matt Kenseth have eight each. Eight.)
- Twenty-seven top-8 finishes. (Put another way, FOUR NOT top-8 finishes.)

Essentially, he's KILLED the series and is an extremely worthy champion.

While I don't begrudge Harvick a second Busch title, his dominance does serve to illustrate big problems with the racing series, mockingly referred to by many as "Cup Lite" because of the preponderance of Nextel Cup drivers.

Currently, eight of the top 10 drivers in the Busch series are Cup regulars, including Harvick, Carl Edwards (2), Clint Bowyer (3), Denny Hamlin (4), J.J. Yeley (5), Kyle Busch (6), Greg Biffle (8), and Reed Sorenson (10).

Do you know how many Busch starts those guys have skipped? Five, combined. Four by Biffle and one by Sorenson. The top six drivers have started every Busch race. They are Busch-regulars as well as Cup-regulars.

Paul Menard and Johnny Sauter are the only non-Cup regulars in the Busch top 10.

The cream usually does rise to the top.

Buschwhackers - as Cup racers in the Busch series are known - have won all but two of the 31 Busch races this season. Paul Menard and David Gilliland are the only non-Cup regulars to notch Busch wins so far this year.

If you discount those eight guys you take away seventeen total wins, leaving fourteen, and taking out Menard and Gilliland's wins leave twelve spread among true "Buschwhackers". Twelve out of 31 isn't a big crime. Would rather have not seen Tony Stewart run through the grass and win at Daytona? How about Kurt Busch and Robby Gordon's slam dance at the Glen? Martin Truex and Dave Blaney have had lousy Cup seasons but each have a Busch win. Does anybody mind that?

In one Busch race this year, over half of the competitors - 24 of 43 entrants - were Cup drivers.

And all those Busch guys were so upset they decided to do...nothing.

The situation poses a growing dilemma for NASCAR executives and track administrators.

Do tell.

The presence of the Cup boys in the Busch series draws added viewers to TV broadcasts and generates revenue at ticket offices.

I think you've just illustrated precisely why this ISN'T and will never be considered an actual "dilemma" by NASCAR.

But fans, along with many drivers, complain that the increased number of Buschwhackers has changed the nature of Busch racing and made it harder for smaller teams and less experienced drivers to compete - an opinion borne out by this year's Cup-dominated numbers.

I can't tell you how many times I've watched a Busch race this year wishing the Cup guys weren't in it. Oh, wait. Yes, I actually can: zero.

Cup drivers cite a number of reasons for participating in the Busch series, including increased seat time at particular tracks, especially since NASCAR has scaled back test sessions this season.

Some drivers say it is simply the love of racing that brings them to Busch.

Why not? It would be counter-intuitive for a guy who, say, HATES spending time in the car wanting to run extra miles in a Busch car. It's so hard to win a race and testing is so limited, why not let the guys run extra races if they want. Who loses? Busch-owners who aren't good enough to compete? Go race ARCA or Late Models instead.

Earlier this season, NASCAR President Mike Helton stated that changes were in the works for the Busch series in 2007, but emphasized that the races would remain open to all comers: "I don't think NASCAR is going to change its philosophy on the Busch series or the truck series being open to whoever wants to participate in it," Helton said. "We're not going to change that philosophy, I don't think, in any short term. But what we do need to pay attention to is how we can make the rules and regulations and the operational procedure issues that NASCAR can control … so that the Busch series can learn from the involvement from the Cup participants and not be damaged by it."

Helton may have been alluding to one of several proposed solutions to the Buschwhacking controversy, such as limiting the number of Busch races that a Cup driver can compete in, restricting the total number of Cup entrants per race, or creating a separate points system for the Busch series regulars so that they are not overshadowed by their stronger and wealthier Cup counterparts.

Bravo, Mike Helton. Complaining about the Cup guys "taking over" the Busch series is a pretty myopic view, in my opinion. If you are a Richard Childress or Jack Roush or Rick Hendrick or DEI, you see the Nextel Cup field expanding, which is going to put your Cup crew guys (not just drivers) in high demand. How can you find and train replacements who are ready to plug in? By racing in the Busch series, that's how. How are you going to be sure that your Busch guys are preforming? Not by putting a ham-n-egger in the seat to wheel the car, but by putting as talented a guy as is available.

It's also worth noting that two of the higher-profile Busch owners are Kevin Harvick and Dale Earnhardt Jr., who both had younger guy in their cars for over half the season and had to let them go in favor of more experienced (read: Cup) guys to see how their teams were really performing.

Despite the growing outcry, Kevin Harvick feels he has no reason to apologize to the Busch racers for his success this season.

"They need to quit griping and start learning how to win," Harvick said. "That's what all of us had to do. This is not something that's new. It's just something that's more widespread through the media."

Go Kevin. That's telling it like it is.

The only way to truly separate the Busch series would be to run the races at the same time as the Cup race in a totally different place. You know who would watch those races? No one, because they would all be watching the Cup races, of course. The top-6 Cup/Busch guys have shown that they will fly form track-to-track, if necessary to compete in both series.

And it's worth noting that 2006 marks the first and only time that a Cup guy has actually run all of the Busch races and won the Busch series championship, so it is REALLY broken? I don't think so.

A point-system that makes sense

2008-03-19T14:25:00.000-07:00

3/19/08 - This was my first post on 9/11/06. (DUN, DUN, dun...) I don't particularly remember what got me so fired up that day, but I was obviously pretty ticked off, and my blog was born.

[NOTE: I originally posted this on the ThatsRacin.com forum, and I got a request to post it here, so there you go. All comments welcome, of course.]

Let me start with this: I really have no problem with the "fairness" of the NASCAR points system. All of the guys play by the same rules, so throw "fairness" into the discussion clouds the issue. What the NASCAR points system ISN'T is sensible. A point system is only as good as it is in the MOST ridiculous of circumstances. Did you know that (in a non-Chase-world) a guy could lead EVERY lap of 24 races and finish last in the other 12, and he would LOSE the title by over 100 points to a guy who just rode around and finshed eighth in every race? That's CRAZY.

I think we can ALL agree on some key points:

- Winning a Nextel Cup racing is friggin' hard in this age of so many top teams and overall series depth, and it's about to get harder with the Toyota teams coming in.

- When there is a "big one" on a superspeedway, there really isn't any difference in the finishing positions of the guys who got wrecked and are 32nd through, say, 38th. However, in NASCAR's current world that's an 18-point difference settled over basically semantics, and since they've had a title decided by eight points, to have the potential of a title decided because one car got wrecked a little bit worse in a big one than another, makes little sense.

- A guy who rides around in 20th all day doesn't deserve more points than a guy who ran 3rd all day but got wrecked with two laps to go.

I think these are some legitimate beefs that you may or may not agree with:

- NASCAR currently punishes teams for bad finishes more than they reward teams for good ones. Don't think so? Before the California race Matt Kenseth had as many wins as JJ (4), more seconds (3-2), more thirds (3-1), and more top 5s (13-8). How could JJ be ahead of Matt in points? Well, the answer is that Matt's worst finish is 38th and JJ's worst is 32nd. If you take that 18 point difference away Matt is ahead. Shouldn't the guys' 23 (out of 24) BEST finishes count more than their ONE worst finish?

- There was a time when a guy like David Pearson would show up at half of the races and with seven or eight of them, so I can see why this "reward all of the competitors and punish the guys who cherry-pick"-mentality came from, but that's hardly the case anymore. Every guy going for the title shows up at EVERY race, barring injury, and even injured they make silly starts to collect points. When Tony Stewart was hurt last year, shouldn't he have had the chance to heal up for a couple of weeks out of the car instead of risking further injury to get the points for 25th-place?

- Kasey Kahne has five wins out of 25 races. If he wins tonight and doesn't make the Chase, and wins a couple of the races in the Chase he'd have, say, NINE wins with NO chance to win the title. You might be able to rationalize that to another NASCAR fan, but that's a hard concept to explain to a non-NASCAR fan.

Here's what I'd like to see: A points-system that rewards guys for winning and finishing up front. Period. And, just coincidentally, I have an idea for one. (One that ditches the Chase, becuase it's just not necessary.)

- Award points to the top 12 finishers. 20-16-14-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. Why the top 12? Well, guys like Michael Waltrip, Dave Blaney, Travis Kvapil, and Scott Wimmer have a combined ZERO top-12 finishes. Joe Nemechek's finish? 13th. Jeremy Mayfield's? 13th. TODAY with NASCAR's math, a win and a bad luck 40th finish give you NINETY less points than two fifths. Not bad, right? Well, in twelve races you could win six and finish 40th six, and be a whopping 540 points behind the guy with twelve fifths. That is nonsense, and I think this a fair balance, rewarding wins and consistency.

- Bonus points: one for winning the pole, one for leading a lap, and two for leading the most laps. Why a point for the pole? Well, it IS competitive and someone "wins" the pole. This gives a guy who wins the pole and leads the most laps four bonus points, so if he breaks or gets wrecked he would receive as many points as a guy who finishes a ride-around-all-day ninth. Seems fair to me, and better than the first guy getting eighty points less than the second.

- I didn't think this up because of the Chase, either. How's this scenario? Right now, say Dale Jr. won all eleven remaining races and led EVERY lap for the rest of the year (in a non-Chase world where the points are NOT reset). All Matt Kenseth would have to do is finish FIFTH in every race to keep a points-lead large enough to win the title. (5343-5326, btw.) You want to live in a world where a guy wins ONE-THIRD of the races and doesn't win the title over a guy who won four? Just because it happened before doesn't make it right.

I've tracked the points using my system all year. Here are the top-15.

Matt Kenseth         236
Jimmie Johnson       212
Tony Stewart         198
Kasey Kahne          184
Jeff Gordon          177
Kevin Harvick        171
Kyle Busch           160
Dale Earnhardt Jr.   155
Carl Edwards         145
Greg Biffle          133
Denny Hamlin         132
Jeff Burton          126
Kurt Busch           113
Mark Martin          109
Ryan Newman           73

Edwards and Biffle ahead of Hamlin? Hamlin's got two wins to Biffle's one and Edwards' zero, yes. But Edwards has finished second twice, third twice, and fourth three times, while Biffle has only five finished fourth or better and Hamlin has four. Hamlin sits high in points right now because he's got a whopping TEN finishes between ninth and twelfth.

The best part of this system is with 24 points maximum each weekend, can you guess how many guys are mathematically eliminated from the Championship as of right now? ZERO. David Gilliland could win every pole and lead every lap for the rest of the year and he'd have 264 points, and if none of the guys on the list had a top-12 finish for the rest of the year, he'd be the Nextel Cup Champion. Ridiculous? Yes, but a guy with eleven wins losing to guys who have five or less is also ridiculous.

Since a guy who wins the pole and leads every lap scores 24 points and the guy who finishes second scores 16, any driver can make up eight points on the field in any given week, so right now anyone 88 points back or closer (right now Junior is 81 back) would control his own destiny, and would win the title by leading every lap for the rest of the season. Right now, Kasey Kahne couldn't even do that if he's not lucky enough to make the Chase.

I really think this is a foolproof way to go. You can punch SO many holes in NASCAR's current system that it makes it hard for the non-NASCAR fan to understand the logic. I've run this back through every season since 1960, and it's easy to argue for every champion that I got.

Now, I know what you're thinking, namely, "1960?! What are you some kind of huge geek?" Yes, but that's beside the point. I started doing past seasons to see if Mark Martin would get his ever-elusive championship my way. Answer: No, and he only ended up with one second-place instead of four. I also ended up with EVERY actual NASCAR champion (except for good ol' BP, God bless him, who basically won in 1973 because he ran every race, only winning one, while David Pearson won eleven that year and Yarborough and Petty won ten between them) in the top three and usually the top-two until 2004, when Kenseth (the real champ) finished fifth. (A lot of guys won either way, but not too many.) Some other oddities (while noting that circumstances aren't taken into account like, for example, 2004 when Kenseth clinched before the last race and wound his motor too tight and blew in the meaningless final race that year):

- In the Chase era, Tony Stewart still would've won the 2005 title, but Jimmie Johnson (eight wins) would've won the 2004 title over Jeff Gordon (who actuall scored the most points that year but lost to Kurt Busch).

- Jeff Gordon would have five championships, including four straight from '95-'98, taking the '96 title away from Terry Labonte who won two races that year to Gordon's ten.

- Dale Earnhardt keeps five championships, losing the '80 crown to Cale Yarborough (who had one more win, three more top-fours and 14 poles to Dale's zero) and the '93 crown to Rusty Wallace, who won ten races to Earnhardt's six.

- Incidentally, that fact is why I kept going back, thanks to racing-reference.info, so I could see how many titles the King would've had compared to the Intimidator. The King would've had six championships, losing his '64 and '72 titles but picking up the '63 title, a year in which he won 14 races and the actual champion (Joe Weatherly) won only three.

This would be the list of champions since 1963, which would've been Petty's first title my way. Still a decent list in the grand scheme of things.

SIX - Richard Petty
FIVE - Dale Earnhardt, Jeff Gordon, Clae Yarborough
THREE - Rusty Wallace, Darrell Waltrip, David Pearson
TWO - Tony Stewart, Ned Jarrett
ONE - Jimmie Johnson, Ryan Newman (over Kenseth), Bobby Labonte, Dale Jarrett, Davey Allison (over Kulwicki), Bill Elliott, Terry Labonte, Bobby Allison, Bobby Isaac

[NOTE 2: Here's the update after Richmond, or "Bristol" if your name is Bill Weber. The number after the points is where they ranked last week.]

 1 Matt Kenseth       242  1
 2 Jimmie Johnson     213  2
 3 Kasey Kahne        199  4
 4 Tony Stewart       198  3
 5 Kevin Harvick      192  6
 6 Kyle Busch         179  7
 7 Jeff Gordon        177  5
 8 Dale Earnhardt Jr. 155  8
 9 Carl Edwards       145  9
10 Greg Biffle        141 10
11 Denny Hamlin       134 11
12 Jeff Burton        131 12
13 Mark Martin        119 14
14 Kurt Busch         113 13
15 Ryan Newman         73 15