sean
Assistant Moderator
Posts: 29
|
Post by sean on Oct 10, 2018 21:30:25 GMT -5
I just think the other six megawinners had either too little competition in their heyday (relative to the peak fields from 2000-11) or too many starts and stops in their careers to post a decade-long cross-section than that, but all those drivers except Waltrip certainly seem to have had more longevity than Johnson, especially if Johnson has stopped winning. I certainly still take Pearson, Earnhardt, Petty, and Allison higher (I think in that order), but maybe I jumped the gun putting Johnson over Gordon and Yarborough. Johnson has clearly jumped Waltrip, no debate though (when considering differences in field strength I actually think Waltrip and Tony Stewart are neck-and-neck for 8th, and at least Stewart's decline was linked with injuries while Johnson's wasn't.)
|
|
|
Post by JSPorts on Oct 10, 2018 21:57:09 GMT -5
I don't view Johnson's decline as a negative against him, but I just see an overall Hendrick decline. I mean, Byron is the defending Xfinity champion and he's done nothing. Bowman's better than a 16th-place driver or wherever he was in full-season points. Elliott's better than 12th or wherever he was. Sure, he's won twice, but he shouldn't have won Dover and Watkins Glen isn't a place where the equipment is as important. Look at the team's wins by year:
2018: on pace for 2 2017: 4 2016: 5 2015: 9 2014: 13
2014 was the last year Hendrick was truly the best team in the sport. The Gibbs/Toyota dominance began in 2015, and didn't relent until this year, when SHR took over. But an even steeper Hendrick decline began in 2016, starting around Sonoma. Sure, Johnson's performance was better in the 2nd half of the year, but still not what we once saw from them. Earnhardt never recovered, and the 88 has only looked like a contender once (Phoenix that fall) since then. The 5/24 hasn't looked like a contender at all in that period, and Kahne/Byron (though not in the best career points to be having peak success) should've done better than they have.
The conclusion I draw from that data is that Elliott is perhaps underrated. Hendrick has been on the decline essentially his whole career, yet he's still turned in excellent performances. This also makes me reconsider my season-long position that Chevrolet has struggled because of the new Camaro. Hendrick is the most visible Chevy team, and they've certainly struggled. But it's becoming more evident that those struggles are part of a larger decline, over multiple seasons. The other Chevy teams (RCR, JTG, LFR) haven't really done that much worse than they did a year ago, and in some cases they've done better. Ganassi has struggled, but they're Hendrick-affiliated, so that's not as surprising in light of the overall decline. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think this can be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by JSPorts on Oct 10, 2018 22:11:02 GMT -5
I will say, though, Sean, that I've underrated Gordon because I never really liked him as a driver. But he's grown on me as time has passed, and I really do value his insights into the sport now. For example, I drove around in my car when I had time to kill last week because he was on SiriusXM NASCAR Radio and I really just wanted to hear him talk. In hindsight, he really did have a great career. Maybe the fields weren't as deep as the ones Johnson competed against, but the volume of wins he put up also exceeded Johnson's. I still think I'd take Johnson over him all-time, just because of how Johnson continually beat him in equal equipment (Johnson beat him in full-season standings 10/14 years) and Johnson's 7 championships (I know the last was somewhat of a fluke, but he still had to earn it, which nobody else did, and he still had 6 legitimately, and could've had a 7th in full-season points if they weren't always in Chase mode.)
|
|
|
Post by seanford on Oct 11, 2018 22:15:21 GMT -5
Chase Elliott or Kyle Larson? Which one has a higher ceiling?
|
|
|
Post by JSPorts on Oct 11, 2018 22:56:14 GMT -5
Larson, for sure, I believe. He just has more natural talent, car control & raw speed. Chase is pretty good, but Larson is the only one of the young guys who I currently believe could be a future 50+ race winner. If you had asked me last year, I would've thrown Jones into that category, but I'm not sure yet. I imagine he'll get there and he's probably #2 of that group, but his youth and inexperience are still showing. Larson didn't win until he was 24, and didn't win consistently until he was 25. Jones won his first race at 22, so I don't think we should write him off yet.
|
|
|
Post by JSPorts on Oct 11, 2018 23:34:01 GMT -5
I see Blaney & Elliott on about the same level. I think they'll both win 20-30 races and 0-2 championships.
|
|
|
Post by seanford on Oct 12, 2018 1:11:20 GMT -5
Keep in mind jones won a wreck fest, he hasn’t shown much dominance throughout the year and hasn’t shown nearly enough consistency as Elliott his first couple years. Elliott has shown he can consistently win this year at the age of 22. (Should’ve had a win and a spot in the final 4 last year if it wasn’t for Hamlin dumping him). Seems like chase’s choke rubbed off onto to Larson this season. But then again Larson had not shown any form of consistency until (age 25) 2017. If it wasn’t for that 2016 Michigan win he might have missed the chase. Even if you look at last year, Elliott had superior average finish than Larson even without a single win. (Though he did blow an engine twice).
|
|
|
Post by seanford on Oct 12, 2018 1:22:42 GMT -5
I will say, though, Sean, that I've underrated Gordon because I never really liked him as a driver. But he's grown on me as time has passed, and I really do value his insights into the sport now. For example, I drove around in my car when I had time to kill last week because he was on SiriusXM NASCAR Radio and I really just wanted to hear him talk. In hindsight, he really did have a great career. Maybe the fields weren't as deep as the ones Johnson competed against, but the volume of wins he put up also exceeded Johnson's. I still think I'd take Johnson over him all-time, just because of how Johnson continually beat him in equal equipment (Johnson beat him in full-season standings 10/14 years) and Johnson's 7 championships (I know the last was somewhat of a fluke, but he still had to earn it, which nobody else did, and he still had 6 legitimately, and could've had a 7th in full-season points if they weren't always in Chase mode.) Well if there was never a chase Gordon would’ve been a 7 time champion, the same way Earnhardt and petty won theirs. Johnson would’ve had 3-4.
|
|
|
Post by Mile501 on Oct 12, 2018 4:48:25 GMT -5
Well if there was never a chase Gordon would’ve been a 7 time champion, the same way Earnhardt and petty won theirs. Johnson would’ve had 3-4. Actually, based on more in-depth research I did on that subject about a year ago, Johnson and Gordon would have most likely won 5 championships each if NASCAR had never instituted a chase/playoff format. See more here: www.racing-reference.info/showblog?id=3139
|
|
|
Post by pokemon2112 on Oct 12, 2018 5:29:31 GMT -5
I just think the other six megawinners had either too little competition in their heyday (relative to the peak fields from 2000-11) or too many starts and stops in their careers to post a decade-long cross-section than that, but all those drivers except Waltrip certainly seem to have had more longevity than Johnson, especially if Johnson has stopped winning. I certainly still take Pearson, Earnhardt, Petty, and Allison higher (I think in that order), but maybe I jumped the gun putting Johnson over Gordon and Yarborough. Johnson has clearly jumped Waltrip, no debate though (when considering differences in field strength I actually think Waltrip and Tony Stewart are neck-and-neck for 8th, and at least Stewart's decline was linked with injuries while Johnson's wasn't.) Personally I can't really see Earnhardt as being better than Petty. I mean, sure Petty raced in an era with less competitive depth but at the same time I doubt it had so little competitive depth that his win advantage over Earnhardt would be negated. I could see Pearson though, since there's no telling how he could've done if he ran full time most of his career.
|
|
|
Post by JSPorts on Oct 12, 2018 7:54:13 GMT -5
I just think the other six megawinners had either too little competition in their heyday (relative to the peak fields from 2000-11) or too many starts and stops in their careers to post a decade-long cross-section than that, but all those drivers except Waltrip certainly seem to have had more longevity than Johnson, especially if Johnson has stopped winning. I certainly still take Pearson, Earnhardt, Petty, and Allison higher (I think in that order), but maybe I jumped the gun putting Johnson over Gordon and Yarborough. Johnson has clearly jumped Waltrip, no debate though (when considering differences in field strength I actually think Waltrip and Tony Stewart are neck-and-neck for 8th, and at least Stewart's decline was linked with injuries while Johnson's wasn't.) Personally I can't really see Earnhardt as being better than Petty. I mean, sure Petty raced in an era with less competitive depth but at the same time I doubt it had so little competitive depth that his win advantage over Earnhardt would be negated. I could see Pearson though, since there's no telling how he could've done if he ran full time most of his career. Most of the argument for Pearson revolves around his win percentage, but the issue with that is that Petty had a bunch of uncompetitive years at the end of his career which tanked his win %. And yes, I'm aware that Pearson didn't, but those years (for Petty) ranged from age 48-age 55. Pearson only had 41 starts over that age range for himself, and he didn't win any of them, either. From 1960-1989 (the years Pearson was active on the Cup circuit), Petty's win percentage was 18.74% and Pearson's was 18.29%, nearly identical. Petty won his first race before Pearson and his last race after Pearson. Won his first championship before and last after. I don't really like the argument that Pearson's part-time schedule means he would've been better than Petty, either, for two reasons. First, in that part-time window while Pearson was still winning (about 1970-1980), Pearson's win percentage was STILL lower than Petty's (again very close - 25.49% for Petty vs. 24.62% for Pearson). Plus, when a team could pick-and-choose which races it ran, it had more time to focus on and prepare for those races than a team like Petty's did, when they were racing every week somewhere different. Pearson's team only had to nail the setup at about half the tracks, and they had almost double the time to prepare their cars for those races. I believe his performance wouldn't have continued at such a high level had he been full-time. Sure, he still would've won a bunch of races (probably more than he did), but his dominance in the big races that he started wouldn't be very pronounced.
|
|
|
Post by Mile501 on Oct 12, 2018 8:25:08 GMT -5
The Petty-Pearson debate is something else I did an in-depth blog about a couple of years ago. The conclusion I ultimately came to is that Pearson seemed to have a slight edge on Petty, but that there was not a fully convincing case one way or the other, and the debate will no doubt continue for as long as people are still interested in NASCAR. See more here: www.racing-reference.info/showblog?id=2629
|
|
|
Post by chevyfan98 on Oct 12, 2018 10:03:09 GMT -5
I used to not even consider that anyone could be better than Petty because of the ginormous gap between him and everyone else in wins, but the more I’ve learned about NASCAR’s history I think Pearson was better. Petty had the second biggest equipment/team advantage of anyone in the history of the sport (his father being the only one who had a bigger advantage) and even at that Pearson actually had a slight head-to-head advantage over Petty. You could probably even make the argument for Johnson or Gordon just due to how much deeper their competition was.
|
|
|
Post by seanford on Oct 12, 2018 13:59:54 GMT -5
Well if there was never a chase Gordon would’ve been a 7 time champion, the same way Earnhardt and petty won theirs. Johnson would’ve had 3-4. Actually, based on more in-depth research I did on that subject about a year ago, Johnson and Gordon would have most likely won 5 championships each if NASCAR had never instituted a chase/playoff format. See more here: www.racing-reference.info/showblog?id=3139I disagree, I’ve done my research The 2004 season would’ve been this 1. Jeff Gordon 5042 (5) 2. Johnson 4995 3. Dale Jr 4869 2005 Tony Stewart 5199 (2) Greg Biffle 4984 Jimmie Johnson 4771 2006 Jimmie Johnson 5158 (1) Matt Kenseth 5154 Kevin Harvick 4838 2007 Jeff Gordon 5455 (6) Jimmie Johnson 5102 Tony Stewart 4749 2008 Carl Edwards 5236 (1) Jimmie Johnson 5220 Kyle Busch 4980 2009 Jimmie Johnson 5156 (2) Jeff Gordon 5090 Tony Stewart 5085 2010 Kevin Harvick 5274 (1) Jimmie Johnson 4989 Denny Hamlin 4954 2011 Carl Edwards (2) Kevin Harvick -78 Tony Stewart -87 2012 Brad Keselowski (1) Greg Biffle -19 Jimmie Johnson -28 2013 Jimmie Johnson (3) Kevin Harvick -41 Matt Kenseth -49 2014 Jeff Gordon (7) Joey Logano -37 Brad Keselowski -74 2015 Kevin Harvick (2) Joey Logano -21 Dale Jr -99 2016 Kevin Harvick (3) Joey Logano -27 Kyle Busch -56 2017 Martin Truex Jr (1) Kyle Busch -45 Kevin Harvick -63
|
|
|
Post by Mile501 on Oct 12, 2018 14:18:57 GMT -5
Actually, based on more in-depth research I did on that subject about a year ago, Johnson and Gordon would have most likely won 5 championships each if NASCAR had never instituted a chase/playoff format. See more here: www.racing-reference.info/showblog?id=3139I disagree, I’ve done my research You're just going by straight full-season point calculations, which is fine, but I went beyond that to try to figure out (as best as possible) how things would have realistically played out if there were no chase. We all know that drivers race differently under different formats, so the work I did was to attempt to figure that out. Simply looking at the numbers doesn't go far enough.
|
|