2009 Sprint Cup Standings, F1 Style

[slorydn1]

In light of the blistering arguments in the classic points thread, it's time to muddy the waters even more. Here are the full 2009 Sprint Cup Standings based on the current Formula 1 points system where only the top 8 finishers recieve points (10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1), truly a GO or GO home scenario.

Surprisingly enough, Jimmie Johnson won under this system also, to wit:

1) Jimmie Johnson 124 7 wins
2) Mark Martin 117 5 wins
3) Tony Stewart 116 4 wins
4) Jeff Gordon 114 1 win
5) Denny Hamlin 111 4 wins
t6) Kurt Busch 71 2 wins
t6) Kyle Busch 71 4 wins
8) Kasey Kahne 57 2 wins
9) Greg Biffle 56 0 wins
10) Juan Montoya 55 0 wins
11) Matt Kenseth 50 2 wins
t12) Ryan Newman 44 0 wins
t12) Carl Edwards 44 0 wins
14) Clint Bowyer 38 0 wins
t15) David Reutimann 34 1 win
t15) Brian Vickers 34 1 win
t15) Kevin Harvick 34 0 wins
18) Jeff Burton 33 0 wins
19) Marcus Ambrose 31 0 wins
20) Joey Logano 22 1 win
21) Brad Kesolowski 16 1 win
t22) Jamie Mcmurray 15 1 win
t22) Dale Earnhardt 15 1 win
24) Sam Hornish 14 0 wins
25) Martin Truex 9 0 wins
26) AJ Almendinger 8 0 wins
27) Robby Gordon 6 0 wins
t28) Casey Mears 5 0 wins
t28) Elliot Sadler 5 0 wins
t28) David Ragan 5 0 wins
t31) Bobby Labonte 4 0 wins
t31) Scott Speed 4 0 wins
t31) Michael Waltrip 4 0 wins
34) Max Papis 1 0 wins

Yes, you read that right.....Max Papis scored a point, finishing p8 at Watkins Glen. What I find interesting is that part timer Brad Kesolowski finished ahead of Dale Jr.

Sorry the columns are all messed up, I still haven't mastered that in this format, hopefully it came out clear enough that y'all get the idea.

Some sharp eyed F1 fans will note a difference in my standings and the real deal, the way I dealt with ties. Instead of wins, I used the real Latford driver's points system position.

Let the games Begin :beer: :D :s mokin:

[slorydn1]

t22) Dale Earnhardt 15 1 win

Thats what I get for typing this while I watch TV....that should be 0 wins.....

Excuse me while I go bash my head against the wall

[UltimateDanGTR]

most intruiging slorydn.

i wonder under the F1 style point system how far Johnshon was behind the leaders with 10 races to go? that would be very interesting to know.

I spose if you look at it this way, Jimmie's 4th championship seems more deserved, although i cant help but think that naturally, without the chase format Tony Stewart would have been champion. however, he didnt deal with the chase well enough IMO and Johnson took full advantage of this. again.

anyway, thanks for sharing that with us slorydn

[slorydn1]

most intruiging slorydn.

i wonder under the F1 style point system how far Johnshon was behind the leaders with 10 races to go? that would be very interesting to know.

I spose if you look at it this way, Jimmie's 4th championship seems more deserved, although i cant help but think that naturally, without the chase format Tony Stewart would have been champion. however, he didnt deal with the chase well enough IMO and Johnson took full advantage of this. again.

anyway, thanks for sharing that with us slorydn

Actually I can tell you that...although I don't have the full list as it looked after Richmond any more, I can tell you that JJ scored 60 points in the last 10 races, and Tony Stewart, who was the points leader at the time only scored 17 points in the last 10, so it was Stewart with a 99-64 lead over Johnson after Richmond, which, if I remember correctly, had Johnson in P4...

I'm going to do some digging, I may still have that list saved somewhere as an email attachment to my brother or something.....

[slorydn1]

UltimateDan, I was not able to find the whole list, however simple math I have recompiled the Top 10 drivers standings after Richmond:

1) Tony Stewart, 99, xx
2) Jeff Gordon, 83, -16
3) Mark Martin, 81, -18
4) Denny Hamlin, 65, -34
5) Jimmie Johnson, 64, -35
6) Kyle Busch, 60, -39
7) Kurt Busch, 45, -54
8) Greg Biffle, 40, -59
9) Carl Edwards, 39, -60
10) Brian Vickers, 34, -65

So actually, Johnson was P5 coming into the last 10 races, 35 points behind Tony Stewart. What I find interesting, and illustrates what most have been saying about the 48 team laying back during the "regular season", is that Johnson scored almost as many points (60) in the last 10 races as he did in the first 26 races (64).

[Mark in Oshawa]

UltimateDan, I was not able to find the whole list, however simple math I have recompiled the Top 10 drivers standings after Richmond:

1) Tony Stewart, 99, xx
2) Jeff Gordon, 83, -16
3) Mark Martin, 81, -18
4) Denny Hamlin, 65, -34
5) Jimmie Johnson, 64, -35
6) Kyle Busch, 60, -39
7) Kurt Busch, 45, -54
8) Greg Biffle, 40, -59
9) Carl Edwards, 39, -60
10) Brian Vickers, 34, -65

So actually, Johnson was P5 coming into the last 10 races, 35 points behind Tony Stewart. What I find interesting, and illustrates what most have been saying about the 48 team laying back during the "regular season", is that Johnson scored almost as many points (60) in the last 10 races as he did in the first 26 races (64).

My point was and is, you can do points anyway you choose, but under the old system JJ won, under THIS system he won, and under the Chase he won. HE won. People keep trying to find ways to stop him without actually beating him on the race track.

As for him laying back the first 26 events, look to any sport with a playoff system and there is always teams that win when they are not the best team going into the playoff. The New England Patriots won every game but the Super Bowl 2 years ago. No one would argue who follows the NFL they should be considered champions over the NY Giants who had the gall to lose 3 games in the regular season.

Do away with the chase and JJ just steps up his points production. He doesn't gamble on fuel at Michigan and gains more points by decent 10th place finishs or better that he would have had if he had fuelled with everyone else. Heck, if he went into the pits in the second Michigan race with Jr, he likely would have won anyhow. Sure they race different when they have the spot in the points chase locked up but don't tell Kyle Busch you can cruise into the top 12.....he will tell you otherwise.

[slorydn1]

My point was and is, you can do points anyway you choose, but under the old system JJ won, under THIS system he won, and under the Chase he won. HE won. People keep trying to find ways to stop him without actually beating him on the race track.

As for him laying back the first 26 events, look to any sport with a playoff system and there is always teams that win when they are not the best team going into the playoff. The New England Patriots won every game but the Super Bowl 2 years ago. No one would argue who follows the NFL they should be considered champions over the NY Giants who had the gall to lose 3 games in the regular season.

Do away with the chase and JJ just steps up his points production. He doesn't gamble on fuel at Michigan and gains more points by decent 10th place finishs or better that he would have had if he had fuelled with everyone else. Heck, if he went into the pits in the second Michigan race with Jr, he likely would have won anyhow. Sure they race different when they have the spot in the points chase locked up but don't tell Kyle Busch you can cruise into the top 12.....he will tell you otherwise.

I wasn't arguing that. JJ won the championship this year in any points system u choose. What I do find issue with is the media's assertion that he is the greatest ever because he won 4 champs in a row in a system that was DESIGNED to hand him the championship (an unintended consequence, i'm sure). I say its designed for him because a) the tracks in the chase re his best tracks, as noted by his performance at those tracks when the race them in the first part of the season. They don't race at any of the tracks that give him problems. B) Nascar did away with any kind of testing, so the best team STAYED the best team (Imagine that). Under the old deal, he would still be a 4 time champion now, but he would NOT have one 4 in a row, not even 3 in a row. But, Jeff Gordon would be a 6 timer, and Kurt Busch would be a NO timer.

Any way, this exercise here was to show how much bs the chase as a whole is. Yes JJ won the championship in this deal, too. But people like Brian Vickers were "locked" into the top 12 because of an artificial cut off date in the middle of the year, and ended up tied with Kevin Harvick who finished 19th in the real points and was p15 in F1 points, yet Kyle Busch, who had only 4 less f1 points than the eventual champ, and would have ended up tied for p6 in the f1 deal or p9 in classic points, yet was only p13. The chase as a whole is a mess, and should never have been instituted to start with. I think its poetic justice that the classic points were CLOSER than the chase BS.

People keep making the argument that he just "stepped it up" in the playoffs. I'm saying this is car racing, there shouldn't BE any playoff's. In football, team a faces team b at b's stadium, and the brawl it out for 60 minutes. At the end of the game, both teams records are adjusted, and they move on to another opponent the next week. Those records are used to determine playoff seeding, and you may beat out a team that you never even faced that year based on that record, so playoffs make sense. In racing, you race the same 35 or so drivers week in and week out, 36 races a year at all different venues in all different conditions (as long as its dry, lol) and whoever does the best over the ENTIRE season, wins. This year, that was Jimmie Johnson, and my hat goes off to him and the 48 team for that.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I wasn't arguing that. JJ won the championship this year in any points system u choose. What I do find issue with is the media's assertion that he is the greatest ever because he won 4 champs in a row in a system that was DESIGNED to hand him the championship (an unintended consequence, i'm sure). I say its designed for him because a) the tracks in the chase re his best tracks, as noted by his performance at those tracks when the race them in the first part of the season. They don't race at any of the tracks that give him problems. B) Nascar did away with any kind of testing, so the best team STAYED the best team (Imagine that). Under the old deal, he would still be a 4 time champion now, but he would NOT have one 4 in a row, not even 3 in a row. But, Jeff Gordon would be a 6 timer, and Kurt Busch would be a NO timer.

Any way, this exercise here was to show how much bs the chase as a whole is. Yes JJ won the championship in this deal, too. But people like Brian Vickers were "locked" into the top 12 because of an artificial cut off date in the middle of the year, and ended up tied with Kevin Harvick who finished 19th in the real points and was p15 in F1 points, yet Kyle Busch, who had only 4 less f1 points than the eventual champ, and would have ended up tied for p6 in the f1 deal or p9 in classic points, yet was only p13. The chase as a whole is a mess, and should never have been instituted to start with. I think its poetic justice that the classic points were CLOSER than the chase BS.

People keep making the argument that he just "stepped it up" in the playoffs. I'm saying this is car racing, there shouldn't BE any playoff's. In football, team a faces team b at b's stadium, and the brawl it out for 60 minutes. At the end of the game, both teams records are adjusted, and they move on to another opponent the next week. Those records are used to determine playoff seeding, and you may beat out a team that you never even faced that year based on that record, so playoffs make sense. In racing, you race the same 35 or so drivers week in and week out, 36 races a year at all different venues in all different conditions (as long as its dry, lol) and whoever does the best over the ENTIRE season, wins. This year, that was Jimmie Johnson, and my hat goes off to him and the 48 team for that.

Good points. That said, the system is the same for everyone, and I will quibble with the assertion the 10 races are his best tracks in a sense. Not that the results don't show that, because they do, but I would like anyone to name a type of track Jimmie doesn't do well at. He wins on internmediate cookie cutters, he owns Martinsville, he has won Superspeedway events, and although he hasn't won on a road course, he has a pole there and usually is in the top 10 on them. Again...where is he weak?

My issue with Instant Classic and other detractors of the 48's success is they keep blaming the chase, they think it doesn't reward people racing, and encourages people not to race hard in the first 26. That is a fallacy. Jimmie won three or four races in the first 26, more than half the guys in the chase did, and more than some would have who didn't make the Chase. He has been gambling on fuel mileage it seems every time they go to Michigan and he loses, but he was still trying to win. Hardly someone taking it easy.

The f1 system holds up pretty good for the top guys, but as you go down, the limited way the points pay out in f1 doesn't hold up in a series where a 20th is a respectable finish. THat said, the top guys in this f1 system are the top guys in the Chase, and the top guys in the old system. Shovel points around in any fashion, the best drivers are the best drivers.

[UltimateDanGTR]

UltimateDan, I was not able to find the whole list, however simple math I have recompiled the Top 10 drivers standings after Richmond:

1) Tony Stewart, 99, xx
2) Jeff Gordon, 83, -16
3) Mark Martin, 81, -18
4) Denny Hamlin, 65, -34
5) Jimmie Johnson, 64, -35
6) Kyle Busch, 60, -39
7) Kurt Busch, 45, -54
8) Greg Biffle, 40, -59
9) Carl Edwards, 39, -60
10) Brian Vickers, 34, -65

So actually, Johnson was P5 coming into the last 10 races, 35 points behind Tony Stewart. What I find interesting, and illustrates what most have been saying about the 48 team laying back during the "regular season", is that Johnson scored almost as many points (60) in the last 10 races as he did in the first 26 races (64).

thanks for this info slorydn :)

this just proves that JJ was more on fire than i realised at the time in those last 10 races. credit to johnson.

interestingly something which i hadn't noticed previously is the busch brothers finishing on equal points with this system. now there's a thing....

[The instant classic]

i dare someone to use the F1 points system and go back into Nascar history i wonder how many titles some guys would have won?

[Mark in Oshawa]

i dare someone to use the F1 points system and go back into Nascar history i wonder how many titles some guys would have won?

go to it. I remember reading a thread similar to that a long time ago. The two series tho are not proportional and F1 doesn't pay points out to the last car on the track so it will be very biased towards top 10 finishes. You do that and Jimmie will win just as many times I suspect. He had the most top 10's this year

[The instant classic]

go to it. I remember reading a thread similar to that a long time ago. The two series tho are not proportional and F1 doesn't pay points out to the last car on the track so it will be very biased towards top 10 finishes. You do that and Jimmie will win just as many times I suspect. He had the most top 10's this year

i dont follow F1 and to be honest i couldn't tell you one guy in F1.but i have alittle bit of understanding of the way they do the points, i look on nascar.com and went to the past seasons, and just picking
2000.2001.2002.2003, beside Gordon still being the champ in 2001, all the others wow
Tony Stewart - 2000 champ
Matt Kenseth - 2002 champ
Ryan Newman - 2003 champ
i know its all about how many wins you can get in a season with F1, not to sure if you finsh 2nd or 3rd if you get any points, if so it might change Tony,Matt, and Ryan

[Mark in Oshawa]

i dont follow F1 and to be honest i couldn't tell you one guy in F1.but i have alittle bit of understanding of the way they do the points, i look on nascar.com and went to the past seasons, and just picking
2000.2001.2002.2003, beside Gordon still being the champ in 2001, all the others wow
Tony Stewart - 2000 champ
Matt Kenseth - 2002 champ
Ryan Newman - 2003 champ
i know its all about how many wins you can get in a season with F1, not to sure if you finsh 2nd or 3rd if you get any points, if so it might change Tony,Matt, and Ryan

It isn't based on just wins. If you are going to do this, you will have to spend some time and go race on the stats page and do it race by race for each season.

Points in F1 are paid for the top 8 finishers. That is in a 20 car field. NASCAR pays points from 1st to 43rd. Although f1 favours winners with 10 points, you get 8 for second, 6 for third, 5 for fourth, 4 for 5th, 3 for 6th, 2 for 7th and 1 for Eighth. You can win more races in f1 than the other guy and still lose if he is always in the points and you DNF. Same as NASCAR. I remember this was done by someone who took the time to work out NASCAR points race for race (no chase) and in the top 5, the same 5 guys were in the same order for this year if I am not mistaken (the thread was not long ago). If you do it for previous seasons, you will likely find a similar answer.

If you run well more often than the other guys, it would take a really skewed system towards winning races to have a radically different result. Every series I have looked at or followed tends to reward points for doing well, not necessarily winning...

[The instant classic]

It isn't based on just wins. If you are going to do this, you will have to spend some time and go race on the stats page and do it race by race for each season.

Points in F1 are paid for the top 8 finishers. That is in a 20 car field. NASCAR pays points from 1st to 43rd. Although f1 favours winners with 10 points, you get 8 for second, 6 for third, 5 for fourth, 4 for 5th, 3 for 6th, 2 for 7th and 1 for Eighth. You can win more races in f1 than the other guy and still lose if he is always in the points and you DNF. Same as NASCAR. I remember this was done by someone who took the time to work out NASCAR points race for race (no chase) and in the top 5, the same 5 guys were in the same order for this year if I am not mistaken (the thread was not long ago). If you do it for previous seasons, you will likely find a similar answer.

If you run well more often than the other guys, it would take a really skewed system towards winning races to have a radically different result. Every series I have looked at or followed tends to reward points for doing well, not necessarily winning...


i will have to try that, i should try and watch more F1 and learn the points and rules etc..but for whatever reason i just can't get into it
when i was checking from wins only, how different nascar history turn out to be :eek:

[Mark in Oshawa]

i will have to try that, i should try and watch more F1 and learn the points and rules etc..but for whatever reason i just can't get into it
when i was checking from wins only, how different nascar history turn out to be :eek:

this is the whole point to my giving you the debate over the merits of the chase vs the old system. No points system will make everyone happy, and if you don't like the winner under one system, you will have to really make some mathematical gymnastics to make it so you have a radically different result.

The champs are champs under most systems you can apply. Since racing is more about finishing well often rather than winning or blowing up, any points will likely reward people who finish in the top 10. There is no getting around that.

As for not liking f1, the best era to be watching it for the spectacle was the way guys in the late 70's and early 80's used to slide the cars before the ground effects got out of hand. Watch any old footage of Gilles Villeneuve on you Tube or read some of his stunts that journalists like Nigel Roebuck described. Villeneuve used to bounce off the armco all the time at Monaco, just like the old NASCAR guys used to give the guardrail at the old Darlington speedway a brush....

[Lee Roy]

Are you going to recalulate the NASCAR points standings using the new proposed F1 points system if it's adopted?

How about the previous F1 points system? And the one previous to that?

[The instant classic]

Are you going to recalulate the NASCAR points standings using the new proposed F1 points system if it's adopted?

How about the previous F1 points system? And the one previous to that?

what was the previous F1 points system like? it would be interesting to use it with Nascar and see how history changes

[Mark in Oshawa]

F1's point system hasn't changed a lot for years....it used to be 9 for a win and points went to 7th place....

[UltimateDanGTR]

F1's point system hasn't changed a lot for years....it used to be 9 for a win and points went to 7th place....

6th place ;)

up until 1990, the points went 9-6-4-3-2-1 for the top 6.
from 1991 onwards, it was 10-6-4-3-2-1
since 2003, it has been 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

[Oli_M]

The fact is, before the season starts, all the teams know exactly what the points system will be. They know exactly how the champion will be decided.

It is then up to them to decide how they feel the best way to win the championship is - maybe its to go all out for wins and risk a bunch of 35th places, or perhaps to be conservative the whole year and just aim to make the top 10 but do so every race. Maybe its to focus on certain tracks where they believe they can outscore their main competitors.

Whatever it is, they then try to stick to that plan, decided upon based on how the championship will be scored. There's NO POINT saying "but if this scoring system was used, XYZ would be champion" because how can we know that a different points system would not have meant a completely different approach from teams, possibly still with the same champion?!

At the end of the day, the teams and drivers have to race to the scoring system they are given. Whoever gets the best score on THAT SYSTEM is champion, everyone else is not.

[Lee Roy]

6th place ;)

up until 1990, the points went 9-6-4-3-2-1 for the top 6.
from 1991 onwards, it was 10-6-4-3-2-1
since 2003, it has been 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

And next year the proposal is to have the following system:

25-18-10-8-6-5-3-2-1

http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-fia-to-vote-on-new-points-system/

Yet, I don't hear F1 fans whining and wringing their hands everytime the points are changed.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Lee Roy; I think it is because F1 fans follow it almost blindly, while NASCAR fans question everything.....

[The instant classic]

whining and wringing their hands everytime the points are changed.

LOOOL i like that saying i could use it sometime at work :D