Re: FAQ (Paxton Points)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Somebody") wrote 

> I notice that a lot of people arguing with PPS generally push the *concepts*
> to extreme and argue with that.

I've noticed that too.  :)


> They ask "should DNFs not count at all?" -- 
> PPS does not say this.  It merely softens the blow somewhat -- with the
> bonus effect of removing rolling wrecks.

Gotta give McGaha credit here.  He has a different philosophy on
things.  He has expressed it clearly and supported it rationally.  I
disagree with him on a philosophical level about what makes a champ,
but at least he's dealing in the real world.

All the "what about 10 wins and 26 DNF's" are just telling me those
folks can't muster much of an argument against PPS.



> People say "should winning matter
> over all else?"  -- PPS does not say this either, it says winning is
> important and gives a big boost.

I'd note here that Kurt Busch was second on the win list but finished
ninth in the PPS standings.  He had more bad days than his good ones
could overcome and it showed up in the standings.




> If you can finish second all year long
> you're probably going to win the PPS championship.

Probably so.  Second pays 160 Paxton Points.  160 times 36 races is
5760 points.  Newman scored 4970.




> What I like about the PPS is the blend it gives.  Winning counts for more,
> DNF's hurt less.  Mediocre consistancey earns you less.

BINGO.  I like to think PPS is indeed a good blend of all the
different factors that determine one's overall level of success on the
track.


> Note that the final standings in PPS are close too.  If MK could have just
> squeaked in another win or two he could still have won it.  Ryan's poor
> finishes still hurt him.  Ryan was *not* winning it until very late in the
> game, something like 5 or 6 races to go if I recall.

That is correct.  Kenseth was the PPS leader until he blew up at Dega
in October.  His remarkable consistency up to that point kept him in
front, but it didn't give him an insurmountable lead.  When he came
back down to earth, the guy who was winning a lot was right there to
capitalize.




> I agree that the DNF's cost Ryan the
> cup and that's why MK got it.

Yep.  Newman had seven more wins, six more top-5's and five more
DNF's.  It is crystal clear which factor determined the championship.



> I just don't feel good that the champion is
> picked not based on how well he raced but rather how often he had a bad day.


My sentiments exactly.  Hopefully there will be a change for next
season.