Comparing Point Systems

[macdaddy]

Had some time on my hands today...

Analyzed the box scores from every race this year, and calculated points according to the former scoring system. I'm pretty-sure that it's accurate, I've taken into account last year's possible bonus points, including qualifying and "most laps led".



There were five instances where final championship positions would have been swapped. The most interesting of which would be Mazzacane/Smith. Gaston beat Guy by 20 points in the current system, yet would have been 1 point behind him using the former. There was also a significant difference between Sperafico and Besnard.

Only three drivers received points under the current system, that wouldn't have last year. All of the fulltime drivers finished in the top-12 at least three times.

I just found it kinda interesting, I was always curious...

[evo]

Wonder if there is any chance at all they will go back to the old, and far less confusing point system. I hope so.

[Snrub]

I think what's important is also the differences between the positions. The old point system rewarded consistancy and top performances. I don't think 2004 was the best test of the new system because it was very consistant due to the performance differences between the teams. I bet if we were to compare '99-01 where the championships were incredibly close we'd see a very different picture. Another problem with the current points system is that I have no idea how many points are given out to a driver for a given performance. There's something to be said for simplicity.

Someone (Jordi?) has a quote in their sig that says "The championship is not conclusive proof of anything." Unfortunately it feels like that's true but for the wrong reasons. Bourdais dominated all season. If he'd crashed in the last race does anyone feel like Junquiera would have justifyably been the champion?

[Omega99]

Yeah, that's an interesting question. On one hand, it's good to see that the new points system didn't interfere with the championship significantly, or really at all (in fact I'd bet they researched it before hand to make sure it didn't) but on the other, the purpose of the new system was to create more exciting racing a the back of the pack because "something was at stake", but I don't believe it did at all. A backmarker is still a backmarker under any points system.

[BootsOntheSide]

Mazzacane and Sperafico don't deserve to be ahead of Smith and Bsenard, no doubt about it. The former two spent most of the season running right at the back; the latter two made an impression in a limited number fo races. Although there isn't a huge difference (only one change in the top 10) I still think the proportional gaps (and, as a result, the points of the season at which particular championship positions would be sealed) is much fairer under the old system. 12 out of 18 is the absolute most who should get any credit for running a trouble-free race at the back.

[Snrub]

Besnard might have finished 7th in one race, but that was a fuel run and he was way off the pace, the sort of result fitting of the two others mentioned. Didn't Mazzacane finish 6th in TO in a semi-legit fashion and competed in more than one race? Don't get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for Mazzacane and I don't think it's fair to critisize Besnard.

I most definately agree that every position doesn't deserve points. Backmarkers will finish 12th or better from time to time due to attrition. There's no need to give them a pat on the back for finishing something like 16th.

[macdaddy]

Not that knowing the answer will have a profound impact on my life, but I'm curious...

Under the former point system, where a driver was awarded one bonus point for "leading the most laps", how were the points allocated when there was a tie for that honour in a race? This was the case at RoadAmerica this year, and in my chart above I awarded one point to each driver. (Tagliani and Tracy)

[f1manoz]

No matter what, the old points system was far better and not as confusing. Plus, I'll never really support a points system that awards points to everyone.

[Jordi]

Originally Posted by Snrub

Someone (Jordi?) has a quote in their sig that says "The championship is not conclusive proof of anything." Unfortunately it feels like that's true but for the wrong reasons. Bourdais dominated all season. If he'd crashed in the last race does anyone feel like Junquiera would have justifyably been the champion?

I had it... no longer. It was a quote by Jim Clark. Wise guy he was.

I preferred the old system better and have said it ever since. However, I might calculate the points from 1999 or 2000 and see how it would have been. Would certainly be interesting.

[N I Tram]

I want the old system back, partly for tradition and partly because it produces a fairer set of results. The overall changes may only be minor, but we can so close to the championship going the wrong way due to the changes. Giving points to everyone is rediculous.

[Speedworx]

It just goes to show that the new system didn't really change things. All it did was increase the total points available.

[macdaddy]

But it COULD easily have changed things drastically.
Remember that Junqueria could have been crowned champion at the finale.

[Kicking-back]

And that would not have been a fair representation of the season.

I'd like them to bring back the traditional CART system next year, rather than throwing points around like confetti at a wedding.

[BootsOntheSide]

Does anyone prefer the new system? It seems like everyone is in agreement that it produces excessive poitns and doesn't reward success enough.

[Jordi]

Exactly. Has anyone seen someone speaking in favour of the new system?

[captain crunch]

I'll speak in favour of the new points. True, the fact that most of the points awarded are odd numbers makes it a little more confusing to add up in your head, and the "most places gained" bonus point isn't needed, but with this system everyone is awarded points. The advantage to this is we don't arrive at the end of the season with half the grid sitting on zero points. If we did, we'd assume, looking at the standings, all those drivers were as good as each other, when they obviously aren't. This points system means we can rank all the drivers in order at the end of the season, instead of having an 8-way draw for 16th place.

And another point, there should be some sort of team's championship as well.

[GBoehm]

I also support the points system this year, Bourdais won many races this year, but many times Bruno finished seconed behind him, that consistancy needs to be noted.

[Jordi]

I think the old system rewarded consistency enough. You shouldn't get any points for being last.

[Hazard]

Yep. The old system rewarded the better back markers more than just the presence of them.

Hopefully a revision will take place, but at least unlike the F1 system, it hasn't exactly fiddled with the top runners in the championship.

[N I Tram]

Originally Posted by Jordi

I think the old system rewarded consistency enough. You shouldn't get any points for being last.

Precisely how I see it. Finishing second should get you, at the most, the 80% of the winner's points it got you in the old system. If the idea of awarding points to everyone was intended to bring in new entrants to fill the field, it didn't work. If Bruno had become champion without ever beating Seb to win a race, it would've been a travesty. Maybe some people have fallen into the NASCAR philosophy of points too much.