Why "Consistency" In NASCAR Is Overrated

It's about that time of year again in the NASCAR world. The Cup Series playoffs are about to begin, meaning full-season points standings will no longer be used as the primary barometer of performance after the next two races. Many fans do not like this, as they feel a playoff system is unnecessary and the title should simply be awarded to the most consistent driver all year long.

There's one problem with that, though: the entire objective of racing is to win and to put oneself in position for wins as often as possible. Doing so is a game of risk versus reward. Drivers who more often compete for wins can also be more prone to mistakes or bad luck. This costs them not only the win but a shot at finishing the race at all. This is also something unique to auto racing -- if a football quarterback throws an interception, or a basketball player turns the ball over, they can still make up for it on the next possession.

If a NASCAR driver wrecks, though, their day is often done, and they are treated in the finishing order as having performed worse than those who just rode around at the back of the field. This brings up the duality of "consistency" in NASCAR -- if the championship should reflect consistent performance over the course of the whole season, then shouldn't the same be said about performance in individual races?

Look at it this way: every race in NASCAR is not really one singular race, but rather many different races accumulated together. Each time there is a caution flag, the field is reset, and often not with the same running order as when the caution came out. The results of a race are ultimately determined by the results of that race's final run, with everything before that run largely rendered irrelevant.

It's simply part of the nature of the game, and a reason to stress the importance of avoiding mistakes on the track. At the same time, though, when a driver makes a mistake that hurts their finish, it must be acknowledged that it is usually heavily influenced by the accumulation of external factors leading up to that point. The most extreme example today is Kyle Larson, who is often criticized for his propensity to crash out of races, usually while battling near the lead. Larson is clearly the most talented driver in the field, but many fans will dock his performance for inconsistent results.

In a way, though, Larson is actually the most consistent driver in NASCAR. Every single week, no matter the track, he can always be counted on to be a threat. He doesn't always finish up front, but he always competes, and most of his mistakes are from reacting to circumstances he didn't create which require him to take risks. Sometimes those risks end badly for him, but many other times, they maximize his chances of winning.

Under a full-season format -- at least, using the points systems NASCAR has used throughout its modern era -- drivers are penalized for taking risks. A bad finish hurts more than a win helps, which is the opposite of the way it should be. It benefits only the "consistent" drivers, the ones who are usually somewhat close to the front but largely irrelevant when it comes to battling for victories. In other words, a driver doesn't need to actually be great to win a full-season championship -- they just need to always be "pretty good."

In any sport, being a champion should require greatness, and that's precisely why NASCAR's playoffs exist. In 2003, Matt Kenseth won the Cup Series title without doing anything that was risky. He won one race, very early in the season when the stakes were lower, and led only 354 laps all year -- not even in the top 10 of all drivers. He jumped out to a massive points lead by simply avoiding mistakes and bad luck, hiding out around 10th place each week while letting everyone else beat up on each other.

In 20 years since then, every single Cup Series champion has earned no fewer than three wins, while Ryan Blaney's 562 laps led in 2023 were the fewest in that category by any playoff champion. To win the playoffs, there's no way to run and hide from the rest of the field. There has to be a higher gear a driver can reach, and they have to be able to reach that gear under intense pressure. Much more often than not it's the cream that rises to the top, the drivers who are most consistently competing for wins.

In conclusion, consistency is important in NASCAR. What fans tend to think of as "consistency," though, is not. It's merely the absence of bad luck, which is not something that requires greatness. It only requires "pretty good"-ness, and consistency is only valuable when the level at which one is consistent is one of greatness.