Does the points system need revising?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Does the points system need revising?


Will Power won his second IndyCar driver's championship, beating Josef Newgarden by 16 points. However, Will Power only won one race, while Josef Newgarden won 5.

Part of winning a championship is being consistent and getting good points finishes and Will Power was certainly consistent, with 12 top 5 finishes and 13 top 10 finishes. Josef Newgarden had 8 top 5 finishes and 12 top 10 finishes. However, the ultimate goal in any race is to win.

The table below shows the current points allocation, plus the extra points for Pole position etc., but does the points system adequately reward the race winner?



If there were a greater points difference between 1st and 2nd place and 55 points were awarded for a race win, instead of 50, then just on race wins alone and excluding the potential extra points, Josef Newgarden would have got another 25 points, giving him a total of 569 and the championship. Will Power would have got a total of 565. That's very close but I think better reflects the efforts for winning and for consistency.

[joeb]

I don't see a table that you referenced. I don't understand most series point schedules though. The FIA system makes enough sense for me, other series just confuse me. Imsa changed a couple ofyears back by multiplying all the points by 10 for no apparent reason.

I would be all for simplifying the indycar points

[broadrun96]

The IMSA points made ZERO sense and frankly I could not care any less who the season champ is there, feels like a pointless bit of the long season but I get they like the trophies.

Indy seems fine, the argument for winning is the point ignored the same thing one Mr Herta has this season, you can't win if you break your equipment. Power did the best with his equipment across the season, you get trophies for winning. You get, and deserve, nothing for not finishing. I think it better if you're not running at the end of the race, no points at all. The point is to cover the given distance the fastest, if you didn't cover the distance then you failed. I get then issuing points for cars lapped starts to make no sense but I feel running means you could at least get there.

Current tally shows it's far better to be Top 5 as you would expect than consistently 6-10, see the 13 Top 10s to 12, but 12 Top 5s to 8.
Now I do NOT like the double Indy 500, or cancelled double season finale points. Points should be points flat. If they want flexible points I could see points over distance, longer race gets more points and shorter gets proportionately fewer. Winner of 1 of double header weekend would get fewer than a "full race distance" event as the double headers are generally shorter. Iowa was 491 miles (223 and 268) vs WWTR at 325 and Texas 375. That's 4 of 19 races and then the variety of road course speeds means varied race lengths so not really linear there. But if they want to make it complicated.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by joeb

I don't see a table that you referenced. I don't understand most series point schedules though. The FIA system makes enough sense for me, other series just confuse me. Imsa changed a couple ofyears back by multiplying all the points by 10 for no apparent reason.

I would be all for simplifying the indycar points

Strange, I can see it. I'll attach it to this post.

[Teretonga]

[QUOTE=bjohnsonsmith;4126142]Does the points system need revising?


Will Power won his second IndyCar driver's championship, beating Josef Newgarden by 16 points. However, Will Power only won one race, while Josef Newgarden won 5.

Part of winning a championship is being consistent and getting good points finishes and Will Power was certainly consistent, with 12 top 5 finishes and 13 top 10 finishes. Josef Newgarden had 8 top 5 finishes and 12 top 10 finishes. However, the ultimate goal in any race is to win.



I noticed a reference in an article on The Race about the Newgarden situation with regard to his five wins.
The writer had gone over the results using many of the various FIA series points systems and some others. Only in 0ne of them did Newgarden outscore Power.
Driving consistently across a season is as much a skill as driving faster or winning most races.
Lots of points scoring systems reward consistency over flashes of brilliance but inconsistency. That is not surprising. Being consistent deserves to be rewarded as much as winning.

Secondly, it is worth remembering that all motorsport at the international and national level is a team effort.
Winning the championship is not just a reward for the driver but everyone on that team who worked on or contributed to that result across the season.
Consistency and reliability should be rewarded more than inconsistency.

A third point is that if the points system was different drivers and teams would approach the championship differently so simply assuming the results would automatically been the same isn't a valid assumption. The approach by every team and driver would have been different even if only marginally in some cases.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Strange, I can see it. I'll attach it to this post.

Thanks for reposting the table. I guess the key thing for me is how much of a premium in points is winning? 1st place gets 25% more points than 2nd, that seems like a decent enough reward.

I wouldn't mind seeing the bonus point for leading a lap done away with. People stay out on different strategies and lead one lap before pitting themselves. Going from 18th to 1st when everybody in front of you pits doesn't feel like something you should be rewarded for.

[broadrun96]

Yeah, I could see leading the most but just for leading one lap seems like points for all

[bjohnsonsmith]

[QUOTE=Teretonga;4126471]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Does the points system need revising?


Will Power won his second IndyCar driver's championship, beating Josef Newgarden by 16 points. However, Will Power only won one race, while Josef Newgarden won 5.

Part of winning a championship is being consistent and getting good points finishes and Will Power was certainly consistent, with 12 top 5 finishes and 13 top 10 finishes. Josef Newgarden had 8 top 5 finishes and 12 top 10 finishes. However, the ultimate goal in any race is to win.



I noticed a reference in an article on The Race about the Newgarden situation with regard to his five wins.
The writer had gone over the results using many of the various FIA series points systems and some others. Only in 0ne of them did Newgarden outscore Power.
Driving consistently across a season is as much a skill as driving faster or winning most races.
Lots of points scoring systems reward consistency over flashes of brilliance but inconsistency. That is not surprising. Being consistent deserves to be rewarded as much as winning.

Secondly, it is worth remembering that all motorsport at the international and national level is a team effort.
Winning the championship is not just a reward for the driver but everyone on that team who worked on or contributed to that result across the season.
Consistency and reliability should be rewarded more than inconsistency.

A third point is that if the points system was different drivers and teams would approach the championship differently so simply assuming the results would automatically been the same isn't a valid assumption. The approach by every team and driver would have been different even if only marginally in some cases.

You don't have a link to that article?

[Teretonga]

[QUOTE=bjohnsonsmith;4126503]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

You don't have a link to that article?

Matt Beer's editorial section in this article on Powers title 'Did he win it or did others lose it?'


https://the-race.com/indycar/did-pow...ivals-lose-it/

[bjohnsonsmith]

[QUOTE=Teretonga;4126559]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Matt Beer's editorial section in this article on Powers title 'Did he win it or did others lose it?'


https://the-race.com/indycar/did-pow...ivals-lose-it/

Thanks.

[tux]

It needs a Nascar playoff system, with the top 4 in the championship after the last pit stop of the final race moved to the first 4 places after a "competition caution"..

[fieldodreams79]

My brother always says NASCAR drivers get points for putting on their driving suits and gloves correctly

I agree with a previous post that only F1 points system makes sense to me, but in the end, I've always felt that the most consistent driver on the year deserves the title so this year doesn't upset me in the least bit. Winning races is great and perhaps could be awarded a little more in this series and others, but if you want to give the overall driving title to the guy that wins the most races, then do that and scrap points altogether. First tie breaker being most 2nd places, 3rd etc.

I just wonder how much time/money gets spent on setting up and tracking points anyways.

[JHamilton]

I've never put much thought into it because I'm fine with a consistent season overcoming race wins - it's how Nascar worked for a long time and is really the basis of Scott Dixon's career. However, after seeing that chart, I'm not sure how I feel about the 15th place finisher earning 30% of the winners points.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by JHamilton

I've never put much thought into it because I'm fine with a consistent season overcoming race wins - it's how Nascar worked for a long time and is really the basis of Scott Dixon's career. However, after seeing that chart, I'm not sure how I feel about the 15th place finisher earning 30% of the winners points.

It's about providing a reward for the lower order in order to keep everyone on task in terms of racing. If you only had points to 8th and the guys who had no chance of getting 7th or 8th simply retired or cruised around would that make you happy?
The NASCAR original system rewarded yearlong consistency.
The present system was done to provide more interest at the end of year but for me its been self-defeating. I've lost interest in following NASCAR.

Personally, I liked the CART system more than any other ACCUS or FIA system.
20-16-14-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

[NaBUru38]

With 24-26 full-time entries, IndyCar should give points for the top 15 or so.

Say 25-18-15-12-11-10...

[rwintle]

I'd vote for tossing out the double points at Indy (and thank goodness they dumped them for the final round). Sure, it's the most important event, but it comes with enough cachet and glamour.

Definitely not in favour of a points system that has sliding scales for events of different lengths. It's already confusing enough to remember how many points are on offer. Can you imagine if you had to look it up for every event? How baffling would it be to even a dedicated fan to figure out who needs to score what to win the championship as the season nears its end?