Should wins in shortened races count?

After Joey Logano won the race at Pocono, there was quite a lot of discussion regarding whether or not it was his first "legit" win. Thinking farther back, I can remember quite a few times when it was suggested that winning a rain-shortened race shouldn't count. So I decided to do a little digging and figure out just what the win totals would really be like if the "EFR Shortened Races Don't Count" rule were put in effect. My main source was Racing Reference, along with a bit of Nascar.com and Wikipedia.

It should be noted that this data includes as many shortened races as I could find, but there is a possibility that I missed some. The data does not include races that were scheduled to be shorter due to the energy crisis. These races technically went their full scheduled distance. I only counted races that failed to make it to their scheduled distance.

Spoiler:

Interesting things to note:
-9 races were stopped due to a crash
-66 races were stopped due to rain
-16 races were stopped due to darkness
-4 were stopped due to track problems (i.e. "Incoming Tide", "Track Deterioration")
-2 were stopped due to dust
-3 were shortened due to scoring errors
-Drivers with larger numbers of wins should obviously have more shortened races won, and that is generally true, with the exceptions of Bobby Allison, Dale Earnhardt, and Jimmie Johnson.
-Jeff Burton swept both Darlington races in 1999, both by rainout
-Greg Biffle is the last driver to win due to "Darkness"
-Bobby Labonte's win in the Southern 500 is not listed on Racing Reference as being shortened, but both Wikipedia and Nascar.com confirm that it was
-Lee Petty has won under the most different circumstances at 5
-Richard Petty is the only driver to win a race due to "Fog"
-Tim Flock was the last driver to win a race that was shortened by "Incoming Tide"
-John Soares, Norm Nelson, and Royce Haggerty have their names forever obliterated from the Nascar history record by losing their only career wins.

Conclusion:

Spoiler:

What do we think? Should shortened races count as wins? And if not, what about as Top 5's, Top 10's, etc. And if those don't count, should the races just be stripped from the record and no points be awarded? I'm not even going to touch that last one, too much data to pour through, too little time.

here's the way I see it, drivers like Tony Stewart and his "Win" at Auto Club, he led a good portion of the race, and any driver that led a good portion of a shortened race, I'll count as a win, because they pretty much dominated, but for people like David Reutimann and LOLgano, pitting under a caution for rain when you are a midfielder does not count as a win in my opinion.

The leader at the end of the race is the winner regardless of whether the race is shortened. The way I see it is this, and I'm really using Reutinmann and Logano's rain wins to say this.

Strategy is as part of racing as much as the actual racing. Using Logano's win as an example. How many cars or teams thought about taking a risk and staying out? Or David's win, he was the only one who stayed out when the yellow came out for rain. Or Kurt Busch win at New Hampshire in 2008?

The way I see it a win is a win regardless of how it is gotten. What I'd like to know is the guys that would've won races had they been shortened. The two cases I can think of is Tony Stewart at Kansas in '07, and Dave Blaney in this years 500.

Yes you count them, you're going to send fans home from a race that had over half the race completed with no winner? That would never fly.

I'm not sure calling the Petty family "the biggest bunch of talentless hacks in the history of NASCAR" is a very fair statement. Kyle maybe, but I think Richard and Lee sorta had another win here or there.

Oh, and Fontana this year was a rain shortened race.

Pocono races were always as long as 200 laps. I don't see why NASCAR shortened the race especially since the speeds were much higher on the track and lap times were increasing. I's say that Logano's win was a legitimate one, but it's just that amount of laps that was decreased for the race.

To say a driver has not won a race due to shortened circumstances is not quite right. If Senna had passed Prost in the 1984 Monaco GP, and the race had been called off, how on earth would you say Senna should not count that race as a victory?

A win is a win, as long as it's in the legal paramaters. Don't like it? Try and convince the rules should be changed.

Personally, I believe a race should be run to distance. If you cannot complete the original set distance that day, continue it the next. There is no reason someone should win a 500 mile race that lasted 395 miles, or however long it lasts.

Blake Camphausen wrote:Personally, I believe a race should be run to distance. If you cannot complete the original set distance that day, continue it the next. There is no reason someone should win a 500 mile race that lasted 395 miles, or however long it lasts.

I don't think sponsors would stand for that. If a car wins a shortened race, whether they ran near the front or not, the sponsor can use that in advertisements. They don't care how the race is won, as long as it's won.

crl wrote:

Blake Camphausen wrote:Personally, I believe a race should be run to distance. If you cannot complete the original set distance that day, continue it the next. There is no reason someone should win a 500 mile race that lasted 395 miles, or however long it lasts.

I don't think sponsors would stand for that. If a car wins a shortened race, whether they ran near the front or not, the sponsor can use that in advertisements. They don't care how the race is won, as long as it's won.

But they didn't "Win" they were declared the winner, but they did not complete the objective that rewards someone with a win. (That objective being to complete a prescribed distance quicker then everyone else.) They were simply declared the winner because they were the closest to that objective before they were forced to stop. That is why I have a problem with wins being awarded for a shortened race.

Blake Camphausen wrote:

crl wrote:

Blake Camphausen wrote:Personally, I believe a race should be run to distance. If you cannot complete the original set distance that day, continue it the next. There is no reason someone should win a 500 mile race that lasted 395 miles, or however long it lasts.

I don't think sponsors would stand for that. If a car wins a shortened race, whether they ran near the front or not, the sponsor can use that in advertisements. They don't care how the race is won, as long as it's won.

But they didn't "Win" they were declared the winner, but they did not complete the objective that rewards someone with a win. (That objective being to complete a prescribed distance quicker then everyone else.) They were simply declared the winner because they were the closest to that objective before they were forced to stop. That is why I have a problem with wins being awarded for a shortened race.

OK, here's a hypothetical situation: the crash that claimed Dan Wheldon happens past halfway, and the officials and drivers decide to call the race off. The guy who's leading is declared the winner, even though the trophy will probably go in the trash. Do you have a problem with that?

crl wrote:OK, here's a hypothetical situation: the crash that claimed Dan Wheldon happens past halfway, and the officials and drivers decide to call the race off. The guy who's leading is declared the winner, even though the trophy will probably go in the trash. Do you have a problem with that?

Regardless of the side one may have on this, isn't that an...er...extreme example?

crl wrote:

Blake Camphausen wrote:

crl wrote:

Blake Camphausen wrote:Personally, I believe a race should be run to distance. If you cannot complete the original set distance that day, continue it the next. There is no reason someone should win a 500 mile race that lasted 395 miles, or however long it lasts.

I don't think sponsors would stand for that. If a car wins a shortened race, whether they ran near the front or not, the sponsor can use that in advertisements. They don't care how the race is won, as long as it's won.

But they didn't "Win" they were declared the winner, but they did not complete the objective that rewards someone with a win. (That objective being to complete a prescribed distance quicker then everyone else.) They were simply declared the winner because they were the closest to that objective before they were forced to stop. That is why I have a problem with wins being awarded for a shortened race.

OK, here's a hypothetical situation: the crash that claimed Dan Wheldon happens past halfway, and the officials and drivers decide to call the race off. The guy who's leading is declared the winner, even though the trophy will probably go in the trash. Do you have a problem with that?

That is a completely different situation. A situation where weather prevents a finish and gives someone a victory and a situation in which a driver's life is taken preventing a finish is NOT the same thing. I do not have a problem with that because if a driver was killed, its likely something due to the track or the car, and that means the other drivers safety could be at risk. Then stopping the race at the track makes sense. But stopping the race for rain, and not restarting it the next day, to me makes little to no sense to me.

There's still strategy involved there. You don't see people saying that a win shouldn't count if the driver ahead of them runs outta gas right? Count 'em in

I'd rather not comment on this because I'm biased, by usually saying Stewart's win at California this year counted but Logano's doesn't, but saying the Petty family is a bunch of talentless hacks is just downright disrespectful.

Spannerhead29 (Nelson) wrote:I'd rather not comment on this because I'm biased, by usually saying Stewart's win at California this year counted but Logano's doesn't, but saying the Petty family is a bunch of talentless hacks is just downright disrespectful.

Kyle Petty was a talentless hack, But I can't blame him at times when Petty equipment weren't equal with winning teams. He wrecked 2 people in an All-star race to try and win but failed to even win...

bartman97 wrote:

Spannerhead29 (Nelson) wrote:I'd rather not comment on this because I'm biased, by usually saying Stewart's win at California this year counted but Logano's doesn't, but saying the Petty family is a bunch of talentless hacks is just downright disrespectful.

Kyle Petty was a talentless hack, But I can't blame him at times when Petty equipment weren't equal with winning teams. He wrecked 2 people in an All-star race to try and win but failed to even win...

Kyle Petty was nothing more than Michael Waltrip with better equipment at times.

Spannerhead29 (Nelson) wrote:I'd rather not comment on this because I'm biased, by usually saying Stewart's win at California this year counted but Logano's doesn't, but saying the Petty family is a bunch of talentless hacks is just downright disrespectful.

I'm reasonably sure that was sarcasm, making fun of how people tend to blow winning "shortened" races way out of proportion, when almost all of the great drivers benefited from it too.

bartman97 wrote:Kyle Petty was a talentless hack

See the 2007 Coca Cola 600 for proof of the following statement.

flyingturns89 wrote:

bartman97 wrote:Kyle Petty was a talentless hack

See the 2007 Coca Cola 600 for proof of the following statement.

Doesn't really prove anything since he was in the top 20 for 300 laps, and in the top 10 for the last 100.

Cardinals5 wrote:

Spannerhead29 (Nelson) wrote:I'd rather not comment on this because I'm biased, by usually saying Stewart's win at California this year counted but Logano's doesn't, but saying the Petty family is a bunch of talentless hacks is just downright disrespectful.

I'm reasonably sure that was sarcasm, making fun of how people tend to blow winning "shortened" races way out of proportion, when almost all of the great drivers benefited from it too.

This

It should be noted that of all the drivers that won shortened races (55), only 3 never won a race "legitimately" (5.45%). That kind of discredits anyone claiming that a driver or team who wins a shortened race lacks talent

Mystrsyko wrote:It should be noted that of all the drivers that won shortened races (55), only 3 never won a race "legitimately" (5.45%). That kind of discredits anyone claiming that a driver or team who wins a shortened race lacks talent

Therefore if you haven't won a race, you are talentless? So what about Alex Zanardi? He never won an F1 race, still considered one of the top drivers of all time. Sam Hornish Jr? Never won a NASCAR race, still a very talented driver. I can safely say, that Joey Logano is very talented, and you can't make the judgement because you aren't a Sprint Cup Driver, nor have you won a race

Milan655 wrote:

Mystrsyko wrote:It should be noted that of all the drivers that won shortened races (55), only 3 never won a race "legitimately" (5.45%). That kind of discredits anyone claiming that a driver or team who wins a shortened race lacks talent

Therefore if you haven't won a race, you are talentless? So what about Alex Zanardi? He never won an F1 race, still considered one of the top drivers of all time. Sam Hornish Jr? Never won a NASCAR race, still a very talented driver. I can safely say, that Joey Logano is very talented, and you can't make the judgement because you aren't a Sprint Cup Driver, nor have you won a race

Sam Hornish Jr. won at Phoenix last year.

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous thread on the entire forum with the worst assumptions ever about race distances. Congratulations...?

Honestly, other than Logano's first win (and maybe the '03 Daytona 500, but I'd have to see that race again, it's only been, oh, ten years), I can't think of a shortened race that wasn't a deserved win (IE, the driver put themselves in position to win and circumstances dictated they win).

The best ever shortened race win was an IRL race in 1997 (Walt Disney World) when Tony Stewart had an oil leak for a good lap and a half, didn't realize it, spun in his own oil and wrecked. Eddie Cheever took the lead and it rained IMMEDIATELY afterwards. Cheever won and never led a green flag lap...

Cynon wrote:The best ever shortened race win was an IRL race in 1997 (Walt Disney World) when Tony Stewart had an oil leak for a good lap and a half, didn't realize it, spun in his own oil and wrecked. Eddie Cheever took the lead and it rained IMMEDIATELY afterwards. Cheever won and never led a green flag lap...

oooh oooh oooh I got a better one

2002 O'Reilly 300!

Mike Wallace stays out after a pit-stop because it might rain, it looks like the rain lets up so he pits and Jeff Purvis takes the lead, then it's starts raining harder and Purvis gets the win, and Wallace finishes 27th last car on the lead lap, but neither lead a lap under green

Cynon wrote:This is quite possibly the most ridiculous thread on the entire forum with the worst assumptions ever about race distances. Congratulations...?

Haha, thank you!

I full agree with you, I think a win is a win and it is fully deserved, no matter how it's gotten (i should look into "fuel milage" wins while I'm at it) and winning a shortened race is no indication of talent, or a lack thereof. My intention with this thread was to poke fun at the folks who think this way by taking their assumptions to their logical conclusion. Obviously, once you extrapolate out beyond the Lolgano hate, you see just what a ridiculous idea it is

Mother of Invention wrote:

Cynon wrote:The best ever shortened race win was an IRL race in 1997 (Walt Disney World) when Tony Stewart had an oil leak for a good lap and a half, didn't realize it, spun in his own oil and wrecked. Eddie Cheever took the lead and it rained IMMEDIATELY afterwards. Cheever won and never led a green flag lap...

oooh oooh oooh I got a better one

2002 O'Reilly 300!

Mike Wallace stays out after a pit-stop because it might rain, it looks like the rain lets up so he pits and Jeff Purvis takes the lead, then it's starts raining harder and Purvis gets the win, and Wallace finishes 27th last car on the lead lap, but neither lead a lap under green

Same race Michael Waltrip flipped over.

In Formula 1, when a race shortened, the points are halved up to a point in the race distance, but the driver is still awarded the win. When shared drives were still allowed, the points were also halved, but both drivers were credited with one win. When I figure out my own championships, however, I always count wins from shared drives and shortened races as half-wins. I find that to be a fair compromise.