Malibu Barbie’s Pre-Race Worksheet
I’m curious about how people ‘research’ and use stats to handicap NASCAR. There’s so much information out there and it can be interpreted in a multitude of ways, but which is most useful?
Life-time stats? COT stats? Practice times? Qualifying position? Current point standing? Crew chief reports? Track type? Personal life? They all play a role in handicapping a race.
For me, I’ve found that the advent of the COT era has really changed up the playing field. [Okay, to be honest, I only experienced one year without the COT, as I'm a latecomer to NASCAR, despite having watched it some when I was growing up.] That first year, 2006, seemed relatively easy to predict what a driver might do. And the outstanding rookie duo of Denny Hamlin and Clint Bowyer, along with their relatively low salaries, made team selection a breeze. I found myself doing most of my research at NASCAR.com by selecting drivers with the highest average finish at whatever track was being raced upon for that particular week, which my salary cap would accommodate. The result was a third place, overall, finish at my first ever try at fantasy sports. Woo-hoo! Too bad I moved in the middle of the year to a non-paying state and couldn’t collect on the prize.
I now usually do the bulk of my ’stats’ research at Racing-Reference.info. I find the ’Top Active Drivers at [insert track here]‘ which they post each week especially helpful. These days, I tend to limit my stat relevancy to the COT era. The car is just too different to give long term precedence to older stats. And let’s face it, some teams have downright struggled with the conversion to the COT car, as evidenced by Kasey Kahne’s stupendous drop in performance from 2006 to 2007, due to an aero mistake in the engineering.
Kahne’s stats:
| YEAR | WINS | T5 | T10 | POLES | LED |
| 2006 | 6 | 12 | 19 | 6 | 744 |
| 2007 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 374 |
2007 of course, was the test year of the COT, with 16 of the 36 races run in the Car of Tomorrow. Of Kahne’s 374 laps led that year, 305 came in a single race, Bristol in late August, shortly after the discovery of the engineering snafu on the Evernham cars. 2008 saw Carl Edward’s team ‘discover’ the body shift yaw that allowed him early dominance, as well as the extra horsepower Toyota brought to the track that allowed Kyle Busch to win 8 Sprint Cup races, while 2009 has seen a resurgence of the Dodge’s due to the new R6P8 engine and the abysmal performance of the RCR team.
The COT was supposed to reduce all teams costs and level the field by making the cars more similar, but in reality, the teams with deep pockets are still rising to the top, along with their ’satellite’ teams [Stewart-Haas Racing], while the poorer squads are finding it not only difficult to compete, their numbers are rapidly dwindling. It is a shame to see so many teams [and talented drivers] reduced to a start-and-park mentality. Toyota should see a significant jump in performance next year because of the withdrawal of support from American automakers.
Oops, sorry, this post was supposed to be about handicapping a race, I’ll jump off my soap box now…..
So, back to the subject at hand, I compare driver’s stats over the COT era, comparable tracks from this season, and a driver’s performance over the last 4 to 6 races, all of which helps me develop a trend. I’ve included a recent ‘worksheet’ which I did for the Chicago race.
The bottom area of the worksheet [where the pink arrows are] show the results for the four similar tracks to Chicago, with an average finish [AF] at the bottom of the column, then an AF over the COT era for just the Chicago track, and finally an AF for the past four races.
The center part of the sheet has to do with salary cap information for my Sandbox team, and the top area was some Pick ‘Em research.
I also like to attend the Mark Garrow [from ESPN] pre-race chats. Besides the entertaining banter, the crew chief reports can be a valuable source of information. They give you insight into the state of mind of the driver, whether the crew chief is confidant and who else they think could run strong for the week. If I’m on the fence about a driver, this can often help me decide.
An example of how I use my ’stats’ handicapping is demonstrated with the ’bet’ I made with Garrow at the last pre-race chat over the finish positions of Logano and Ragan [which I 'won' btw...!] It was based on the bottom section of information from my worksheet which had Logano with an AF of 16 over similar tracks this year, and an AF of 18 over the past four races. Ragan’s AF’s for the same were 30.5 and 24.75. They had similar practice times. There was nothing to suggest that Ragan would have a break out race, and he didn’t. Logano ended up 18th, and Ragan 25th, approximately where their AF’s said they would.

Warm fuzzies [or cold ones] and driver bias are things that have no rational explanation. Warm fuzzies are the weird dreams you have the night before a race that impel you to take Brad Keslowski at Talladego, or a cold fuzzie in your gut that tells you to drop Jeff Gordon at Daytona. Driver bias is something everyone should strive to overcome, let the stats and facts guide your choices. Of course this is easier said than done after you select Mark ’Wrinkled Raisin Man’ Martin at Atlanta & Talladega, instead of Michigan & Chicago. I can never get him right, always a week behind, and a definite bad bias against him on my part, he didn’t even rank a column on my worksheet. Dale Jr. is another example of bias for many people; Jr.-nation expectations die hard [or never in some cases].
I’d love to hear any great handicapping tips you might have!
Good luck this weekend, let’s hope the rubber is right this year!
xox, mb















xox, mb