Sprint Cup Series Winners, By Decade: Were the 2000's The Most Competitive?

[slorydn1]

In honor of the "Turn of the Decade", I have put together a list of the number of drivers who have races and championships in each decade. Again, since I am completely inept at getting these columns straight on here, Let me explain what they are: Decade, Race winners, Multi Race winners, Championships, Multiple Champions.

2000's: 43,33,6,2
1990's: 29,25,5,2
1980's: 29,19,6,2
1970's: 23,17,4,2
1960's: 55,35,5,4
1950's: 66,36,5,4
1949: 6,2,1,0

Now, just looking statisticly alone, one would instantly say the 50's was the most competitive decade, followed by the 60's. BUT, comparing the 2000's to the early history of nascar is like comparing apples to oranges. I have only been following Nascar since 1979, and wasn't really hardcore until the late 80's, so people like Lee Roy or Bobby would be much more knowlegable about the early history, but from my recollection from 1949 thru the late 1960's there would be 2 or 3 races PER WEEK on all different types pf venues (a lot of them dirt)and not every driver would show up to every race, so more opprotunities would open up for other people to win that may not have normally have had a chance with a Petty or Pearson not racing that race.
So, to compare apples to apples, you really can only go back to the "Winston-Nextel-Sprint" Cup era, and looking at it that way, the 2000's kicked butt, even with all the competitive dis-advantages that were out there.
Interesting side note for all those numerologists out there: I find it interesting that there were 43 different race winners this decade, exactly equaling the number of drivers in the field for (almost) every Cup race:43. :beer:

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think that the 90's and 00's are the most competitive era. The depth of field now is 20 plus cars in EVERY race that can be considered if things go right serious threats to win. That doesn't mean they do, but lets face the reality that some really good drivers finish up into the top 25 in points. Race winners and future race winners. No other race series on earth is as deep in the ways Sprint Cup is now...

[harvick#1]

No other race series on earth is as deep in the ways Sprint Cup is now...

I dunno, F1 has become extremely competitive all around. at least the last 2 years :laugh:

[Mark in Oshawa]

I dunno, F1 has become extremely competitive all around. at least the last 2 years :laugh:
No...I would not say that. 10 cars would be the equivalent, and most races it is clear from the word go who is going to win. f1 isn't that competitive....

[slorydn1]

Wow.

That's all I can say.

A season and a half since I created this thread has gone by. 53 points races have been run. In those 53 races we have had exactly 19 winners, and fully 12 of those 19 drivers have won multiple races. The WHOLE DECADE of the 1970's saw 23 winners, with 17 of them being multiple race winners. Just 4 more drivers are needed to win races and the "20-teens" will be tying the whole decade of the 1970's.

Considering all the different track types out there I could EASILY think of more than 4 more drivers who havent won yet in 2010 and 2011 winning THIS YEAR before its done, and definitely by the end of next year. I mean, you have previous winners who haven't won yet this decade (Mark Martin, Jeff Burton, Kasey Kahne and Joey Logano come to mind instantly without really having to think about it too hard or look it up-I'm sure there are more).

Then you have drivers like Paul Menard, Marcos Ambrose and AJ Allmendinger knocking on that door, ready to kick it down.


Then looking ahead to the next several years, as drivers like Jeff Gordon, Mark Martin, Jeff Burton, and Tony Stewart retire out of what are considered top tier seats (and arguments could be made that Matt Kenseth, Dale Jr, Greg Biffle and maybe even Kevin Harvick might not still be full time in Cup in their top tier seats by the end of the decade-who might be in those top tier Hendrick, Roush and RCR seats by then?

Although it feels like it most weeks, it's not always the Hendrick,Gibbs, Roush, RCR, Penske, Stewart-Hass show. MWR and Petty are making some strides, could they get up to that next level by the end of the decade? Or, as as drivers like Regan Smith and Trevor Bayne have proven already, one of the low level teams can get that fuel mileage/rain shortened/restrictor plate/road course shocker from time to time.

Like I said. Wow.

[Bob Riebe]

Wow.

That's all I can say.

A season and a half since I created this thread has gone by. 53 points races have been run. In those 53 races we have had exactly 19 winners, and fully 12 of those 19 drivers have won multiple races. The WHOLE DECADE of the 1970's saw 23 winners, with 17 of them being multiple race winners. Just 4 more drivers are needed to win races and the "20-teens" will be tying the whole decade of the 1970's.

Considering all the different track types out there I could EASILY think of more than 4 more drivers who havent won yet in 2010 and 2011 winning THIS YEAR before its done, and definitely by the end of next year. I mean, you have previous winners who haven't won yet this decade (Mark Martin, Jeff Burton, Kasey Kahne and Joey Logano come to mind instantly without really having to think about it too hard or look it up-I'm sure there are more).

Then you have drivers like Paul Menard, Marcos Ambrose and AJ Allmendinger knocking on that door, ready to kick it down.


Then looking ahead to the next several years, as drivers like Jeff Gordon, Mark Martin, Jeff Burton, and Tony Stewart retire out of what are considered top tier seats (and arguments could be made that Matt Kenseth, Dale Jr, Greg Biffle and maybe even Kevin Harvick might not still be full time in Cup in their top tier seats by the end of the decade-who might be in those top tier Hendrick, Roush and RCR seats by then?

Although it feels like it most weeks, it's not always the Hendrick,Gibbs, Roush, RCR, Penske, Stewart-Hass show. MWR and Petty are making some strides, could they get up to that next level by the end of the decade? Or, as as drivers like Regan Smith and Trevor Bayne have proven already, one of the low level teams can get that fuel mileage/rain shortened/restrictor plate/road course shocker from time to time.

Like I said. Wow.How many races were in each season in the seventies? If you are going to compare apples to apples, if they are not the same, nor track sizes are the same, there is no real comparison if one is going eliminate the fifties.

[Lee Roy]

Bob is right. Any comparison before the 1980's is mostly irrelevant.

[Mark in Oshawa]

How many races were in each season in the seventies? If you are going to compare apples to apples, if they are not the same, nor track sizes are the same, there is no real comparison if one is going eliminate the fifties.

in the 50's, and 60's there was more races won by less drivers, so I would say those were not as competitive years. The 70's? Considering Richard Petty's reign of terror (if you were not a 43 fan!) and the challenge of David Pearson, Bobby Allison and Cale Yarborough; there was no room left really for many other drivers most weekends.

Despite Jimmie's championships, on a week by week basis, most races have always 10 drivers you could point to as possible winners if not more...I just don't see how anyone can argue the 2000's on forward isn't seen as a more competitive time in the sport. The depth of possible cars that can win a race is now 20 cars deep. That certainly wasn't the case in the past. Look at results from the earlier years and you see names you NEVER heard of even if you are a big fan of the sport finishing with top 10's. Now you can have quality guys like Jeff Gordon or Dale Jr. struggling to win races in top equipment.

[Bob Riebe]

Despite Jimmie's championships, on a week by week basis, most races have always 10 drivers you could point to as possible winners if not more That- at its best- is rationalizing, and more likely simple BS making the numbers fit what one wants, rather than what they say.

If one is going to put numbers up, use them.

If you do not like what the numbers say, then do not put them up.
Do not say, "Despite what the numbers say, this is what they really mean."

[slorydn1]

How many races were in each season in the seventies? If you are going to compare apples to apples, if they are not the same, nor track sizes are the same, there is no real comparison if one is going eliminate the fifties.

There were a total of 336 Cup series points races from 1970-1979.

That's 48 in 1970 and 1971, 31 in 1972, 28 in 1973, 30 per year from 1974-1978, and 31 in 1979.

That's an average of 33.6 races per year, not that far off of the current 36 races per year that exist now, not that this fact makes any difference in what it was I was trying to point out.

I wasn't comparing a season to a season. I was comparing a season-and-a-half to an entire decade.

In case you weren't able to figure it out on your own, let me help you out a little. I was doing that on purpose. Comparing the fact that 19 drivers have already won over the span of just 53 races versus 23 drivers winning over the span of 336 races.

I'll make it even simpler for you (and I apologise for not doing this when I made the "20-teens" post for I was at work being distracted by 911 calls and the like so I didn't take the time to calculate the rates for you-my bad).

19 winners in 53 races is right around a new winner every 2.8 races. 23 winners in 336 races is a new winner approximately every 14.6 races.

My orginal intent wasn't really to compare to the 70's directly when I started typing that particular post, but since it took me over an hour to complete it my mind really started to wrap around the fact that 19 winners was only 4 winners short of that entire decade....and in only a year and a half-so I ran with it.

Now for eliminating the 50's and 60's....I really didn't fully read (again I should say) what I posted in January of 2010 when I dug this thread back up. I rememberd that I had posted a thread on this topic, so I went back and found it-then started typing. Looking at it now, what I said does look a little misleading. I wasn't throwing out those two decades. Its just after eyeballing the high raw numbers of winners and knowing that they ran way more races per decade back then than they do now I just really decided that trying to compare them to the later years wasnt particulary useful because of the way the scheduling was back then. I think one could agree that if I was merely trying to twist the numbers to fit my argument then I could have just left them out entirely and most people would have been none the wiser; but I didn't do that. I threw them out there so people could make of them whatever they wanted. I could tell just by glancing at them that I would still be right in the ballpark of being correct, anyway.

But since it seems to have offended you in some way, I'll put em back in, and I'll even be nice enough to to do the calculations for you since you don't seem to have the time:

1949*: 6 winners in 8 races, or 1 per 1.3 races
1950's: 66 winners in 417 races, or 1 per 6.3 races
1960's: 55 winners in 522 races, or 1 per 9.5 races
1970's: 23 winners in 336 races, or 1 per 14.6 races
1980's: 29 winners in 296 races, or 1 per 10.2 races
1990's: 29 winners in 309 races, or 1 per 10.6 races
2000's: 43 winners in 358 races, or 1 per 8.3 races
2010's: 19 winners in 54 races, or 1 per 2.8 races
ALL NSCS: 180 winners in 2300 races, or 1 per 12.78 races

I added 1949 back in there so that all 2300 cup series races would be accounted for, and all but the largest axe grinders would agree that 8 races is an extremley small sample, too small to be of any real statistical significance-one could merely pull out the first 8 races of this year and counter that with 7 winners in 8 races-but that wouldn't be very beneficial either. Keep in mind also that barring a nuclear holocaust or asteroid strike the "20-teens" will continue on whereas the whole of the 1940's has already occured, and constisted of only those 8 races in 1949. Therefore they are set in stone-the numbers will not evolve further.

So, there you go, the explanation I shouldn't have had to make.


As for you, Lee Roy- I don't believe Bob was merely saying that anything before the 1980's was irrelevant. I believe he was saying that since I "left them out" that I had made the 50's and 60's irrelevant because I "didn't like what the numbers say".

Actually the numbers support what I am saying now about the 20-teens (but in all fairness, not the 2000's it looks like the 1950's has them beat). It's just that (as I said above) I don't feel that the true comparison between the very early history to the way they do it today fits very well only because all the top drivers go to all of the races, versus guys like Petty, Pearson, Yarborough, Flock (etc) maybe going to races 1 and 2 and skipping race 3 (etc). But even with that practice going on, the 60's, at least, still didn't measure up to the level of competition that there is today. Like Mark says, any number (maybe upwards of 25(?) ) could win any given race, with 10-15 having a truely realistic shot, versus a select few back in the day.

[Bob Riebe]

You cannot ignore or bypass such statistics as how many different teams have done the winning, how many cars is one team running, how varied were the tracks, i.e. size, configuration, type of surface in one decade versus another.

If one owner has four drivers, and each wins a race, is a lot different than four totally separate teams winning races.

The vast difference in types of tracks run fifty years ago, compared to today, the availability of, or lack of, competition components, and rules regarding what vehicles could be used and how they could be prepared, makes any such comparison, some what interesting but for all practical purposed, voids any serious comparison of which was more competitive.

Jimmie Johnson is one race short of winning twenty percent of all the races for the past five years, not including this year.
All the drivers of the team he drives for, have won a hair over one-third of all the races since the chase started; therefore saying decade a is more competitive than b,c,d, e or others, does not really hold water.

[slorydn1]

You cannot ignore or bypass such statistics as how many different teams have done the winning, how many cars is one team running, how varied were the tracks, i.e. size, configuration, type of surface in one decade versus another.

If one owner has four drivers, and each wins a race, is a lot different than four totally separate teams winning races.

The vast difference in types of tracks run fifty years ago, compared to today, the availability of, or lack of, competition components, and rules regarding what vehicles could be used and how they could be prepared, makes any such comparison, some what interesting but for all practical purposed, voids any serious comparison of which was more competitive.

Jimmie Johnson is one race short of winning twenty percent of all the races for the past five years, not including this year.
All the drivers of the team he drives for, have won a hair over one-third of all the races since the chase started; therefore saying decade a is more competitive than b,c,d, e or others, does not really hold water.

I fully understand what you are saying and had taken this into account when I made my original post. I can see we are really going to disagree on this one.

The races "are what they are" so to speak.

The teams and drivers can only race where NASCAR and its "partners" (I always laugh when they say that, don't you?) say the next race is being held at. Yes, in the 50's and 60's there were a large number of short track races, a great many of which were being held on dirt tracks which paid very little prize money (even in 1950's and 60's dollars) to the competitors with very little or no sponsorship money (except for the factory teams).

SO maybe we don't disagree as much as it sounds like we do when talking about the very early history.

But most people recognize the period from roughly 1972 onwards as the "Modern Era" and the basic track "mixture" is very similar, though not exact, obviously, to today. I say roughly, because I've heard several say it didn't start until 1975 when the Latford points system came along, but most commentators who seem to have been around for a long time (I'm talking about the Mike Joy's, BP's (I miss him) Ken Squires of the world) usually refer to 72 as the beginning as the model of 1 race per week on all paved tracks that we all know today pretty much started then. In any event, I believe the years of the Modern Era are directly comparable; as well do most of the commentators I’ve heard speak of these things in the media.

The major area we are going to disagree on is whether or not the "team" structure (multiple cars per owner versus one car per owner) really invalidates a comparison between the decades. When you say I can’t "ignore or bypass" those types of things I disagree. I'm not ignoring it, per se; I just don't agree that it carries as much weight when looking over the historical record as you do. I believe a driver and a car (and when I say car, I'm talking about the vehicle, it's crew chief, pit crew, engineering staff (etc) assigned to that particular car number) are a team and that team has got to go out on race day and get it done, just like all the winners before them had to, regardless if they are the 78 which is a single car operation or the 29 who has 3 other "teammates". Harv wants to go out there and beat Jeff Burton every bit as badly as he wants to go out and beat Jeff Gordon.

Although, yes, each driver gets a great deal of engineering information that is gleaned from his teammates set up notes, it's still up to each individual driver-crew chief combo to "get it done". Although they all say the right things to the camera when asked, I really don't believe for 1 second that Kevin Harvick, for instance, gives a rats behind that Clint Bowyer does well in any way except for what intel Gil Martin can get from Shane Wilson that might possibly help the 29 car at the next race. I’m pretty sure that Jeff Gordon hasn't been all that ecstatic with the way Jimmie Johnson has been beating him week after week, either.

Then again, back in the day, when instead of one owner having multiple cars, each owner had a car, and a few had two, most of the drivers had friends on other teams. And they all would sit and bench race in the infield and although not revealing a whole lot of engineering info to each other they would still pass info back and forth amongst each other that was a little more generic, and back in those days generic might still help out a lot. DW calls it Co-Opetition- you help me a little I may beat your doors off with it, but I'll help you out a little too. So although they didn't have multiple teams with huge engineering staffs under one roof, they really didn't need all that back then.

As for the Hendrick Superpower, yeah, I cannot deny that he (really 2 of his cars, the 24 and 48) have won the lion’s share of the races since JJ went Cup racing in 2002. But it has always been that way. All decades had that one team that was head and shoulders above the rest in the equipment and driver(s) it put out on the track. First Petty Enterprises, then Junior Johnson, then RCR, then Hendrick. This is what I meant when I said "...the 2000's kicked butt, even with all the competitive dis-advantages that were out there....." in the opening post. Yep JJ and Jeff Gordon won a boat load of races, more than any other 3 drivers put together since 2002. The other drivers for Hendrick during those years never really did set the world on fire (even Shrub didn’t win a TON of races at Hendrick, it was when he went to Joe Gibbs Racing that he really started to shine), and Mark Martin had one good season, (2009) with them. Vickers won a plate race there by dumping his own teammate at Talladega in 2006 (ooops). June bug lucked into a fuel mileage deal at Michigan way back in 2008 and hasn’t won since. Casey Mears did the same in the Coke 600 in 2007. Terry Labonte and Joe Nemechek both won a race way back in 2003. So it really comes down to just the 24 and 48. So, is it the owner, or the just the 2 drivers and their teams?

[Lee Roy]

As for you, Lee Roy- I don't believe Bob was merely saying that anything before the 1980's was irrelevant. I believe he was saying that since I "left them out" that I had made the 50's and 60's irrelevant because I "didn't like what the numbers say".



My point is that the racing in NASCAR (teams, tracks, schedules, and most particularly the money involved) during the 50's and 60's was very much different than the racing in NASCAR from the 1980's on. The 1970's were a transition between the two eras. (All my opinion, of course.) Trying to compare these eras is not quite "apples and oranges", but not too far from that.

[slorydn1]

My point is that the racing in NASCAR (teams, tracks, schedules, and most particularly the money involved) during the 50's and 60's was very much different than the racing in NASCAR from the 1980's on. The 1970's were a transition between the two eras. (All my opinion, of course.) Trying to compare these eras is not quite "apples and oranges", but not too far from that.

I can agree with that when discussing Championships, for sure. It wasnt until 1975 when every race had the same points structure. Difffernt mixtures of tracks could very easily affect the outcome of a championship season. And it was't until the 70's that a driver could make a real comfortable living racing in the top series, and the 80's before crew members could rise to a level that racing was all they did. So yeah, I can agree with that part of it...

[00steven]

In modern NASCAR there are 15 to 20 drivers who can compete for a win any given raceday. Just look at Brad Keselowski or Regan Smith, they both have wins and aren't even in the top twenty in points! Sure, guys like Johnson, Kyle Busch, Edwards, and Harvick dominate some of the time. But, for the most part, the sport is very competitive.