NASCAR FORUM

Comments

  • stevietpfl

    Morning Grind co-host, Lead NASCAR Analyst

    • 931

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2015 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    • 2015 FAWBC Finalist

    There’s been a lot of talk about NASCAR this year being too chalky, and with the off-week, I’m interested in everyone’s thoughts on how to improve it.

    I’ve said multiple times, I think adding a 7th driver would actually increase overlap. I really think adding stage points would change the whole strategy, and make you use guys you’d typically fade. Would certainly increase the player pool every weekend, and you wouldn’t be able to knock it down to 15-20 driver every week. I was a huge fan of the pass differential points, but I understand why DraftKings decided to get rid of them.

  • Stewburtx8

    • 2012 FanDuel WFBC Finalist

    @stevietpfl said...

    There’s been a lot of talk about NASCAR this year being too chalky, and with the off-week, I’m interested in everyone’s thoughts on how to improve it.

    I’ve said multiple times, I think adding a 7th driver would actually increase overlap. I really think adding stage points would change the whole strategy, and make you use guys you’d typically fade. Would certainly increase the player pool every weekend, and you wouldn’t be able to knock it down to 15-20 driver every week. I was a huge fan of the pass differential points, but I understand why DraftKings decided to get rid of them.

    Agree completely that adding another driver does NOT decrease overlap. They tried the same thing in soccer going from 8 players to 11 players and it increased overlap, especially on the top picks for the week as it just became too obvious to fit them and you had little reason to fade them when you have many other spots to fill.

    Also agree (and have mentioned it before) that adding scoring for stage points is the best path to improve Nascar DFS.

  • EvilSurge

    I think a scoring adjustment could simply be the difference.

    Less value for PD, maybe cutting that in half, and a +5 for the winner would make finishing spots more important and take some of the chalk off the good drivers starting in back and possibly add more emphasis to drivers who could win instead of just the pole.

    Slightly lowering dominator points would also give more emphasis to finishing spot.

    I would assume you don’t want it to be completely variant and biased towards finishing so PD and dominator points still should be a factor, but maybe not as much.

  • jcrowlonghorn

    This could be totally out of left field, but you could add in points for lowest pit times…I think that would bring a large amount of variance.

  • billholler

    @EvilSurge said...

    I think a scoring adjustment could simply be the difference.

    That is all that is needed even though I have no serious complaints about the way it is now. No reason to only have 1 point separating each finishing position from 2nd through last and only 4 points difference between the top 2. I believe there have been 2 large field GPPs so far this season that were won without the winning LU having the winning driver. Make it more like PGA where 1st place gets 10 points more than 2nd and 2nd-7th get 2 points more than the spot below them.

  • EvilSurge

    @billholler said...

    That is all that is needed even though I have no serious complaints about the way it is now. No reason to only have 1 point separating each finishing position from 2nd through last and only 4 points difference between the top 2. I believe there have been 2 large field GPPs so far this season that were won without the winning LU having the winning driver. Make it more like PGA where 1st place gets 10 points more than 2nd and 2nd-7th get 2 points more than the spot below them.

    The difference is PGA finishing position is clearly earned cumulatively thru strokes over the full course of a tourney.

    While a top 2-7 finish is clearly still earned, I think you’d need to look at how often randomness plays in…. like should an OT restart where someone leaps from 12th to 7th as guys get umjumbled be truly seen as “earned”. I just don’t know the answer to that as far as how often that happens and would it create more variance. Over the course of a season sure it’s earned, but race by race I would think it could be random, and that’s why I think rewarding top spot could simply be the “safest”.

    I do think the fact that the race winner is not in the winning lineup at times seems counterproductive, and that in itself could detract the average DFS player who would question that.

  • billholler

    @EvilSurge said...

    The difference is PGA finishing position is clearly earned cumulatively thru strokes over the full course of a tourney.

    While a top 2-7 finish is clearly still earned, I think you’d need to look at how often randomness plays in…. like should an OT restart where someone leaps from 12th to 7th as guys get umjumbled be truly seen as “earned”.

    40 cars in a race, especially a race with multiple wrecks, yes a top 7 finish is earned (in most cases). Doesn’t really matter how you got it. The purpose of this discussion was to find a way to eliminate what is perceived as too much chalk. Scoring change in place differences just seems like the easiest solution.

  • dirtysouth1

    How about having to pick before qualifying? Especially this year as the chalk comes from teams sitting out their qual run or inspection issues. DK might not like an event that closes on a Friday and actual event is Sunday though. Or do it like FD golf and do picks for qual and race. I’m enjoying it as is though.

  • Cooper08

    • Blogger of the Month

    @EvilSurge said...

    I think a scoring adjustment could simply be the difference.

    Less value for PD, maybe cutting that in half, and a +5 for the winner would make finishing spots more important and take some of the chalk off the good drivers starting in back and possibly add more emphasis to drivers who could win instead of just the pole.

    Slightly lowering dominator points would also give more emphasis to finishing spot.

    I would assume you don’t want it to be completely variant and biased towards finishing so PD and dominator points still should be a factor, but maybe not as much.

    If you lower PD value then the drivers such as McDowell, Ragan, etc will see a significant decrease in ownership. This would basically eliminate 4-6 drivers on avg from what is already a small pool to begin with.

    I agree with others and have said before all that needs to be done is add stage points. This will change ownership drastically as well as players ending up with multiple teams.

    If scoring stays same, not sure if DK can pull it off, but don’t release pricing until after qualifying. Pricing could then be based off qualifying. If priced appropriately then drivers like Jones, Kahne, JJ, Bowyer could have been over 10k or at least mid 9’s this past week. Very few make actual lineups until qualifying is completed and most entries are purchased after qualifying.

  • bbbomb

    • Blogger of the Month

    @stevietpfl said...

    I’ve said multiple times, I think adding a 7th driver would actually increase overlap.

    Wouldn’t adding a 7th driver decrease the number of ties, which is the ultimate goal? It would increase overlap in the sense that each driver would be owned at a higher percentage, but the number of unique lineups would also increase dramatically. The same thing happened with MMA when they moved from five fighters to six, it has increased individual ownership % but decreased the amount of ties significantly.

  • EvilSurge

    @Cooper08 said...

    If you lower PD value then the drivers such as McDowell, Ragan, etc will see a significant decrease in ownership. This would basically eliminate 4-6 drivers on avg from what is already a small pool to begin with.

    I agree with others and have said before all that needs to be done is add stage points. This will change ownership drastically as well as players ending up with multiple teams.

    If scoring stays same, not sure if DK can pull it off, but don’t release pricing until after qualifying. Pricing could then be based off qualifying. If priced appropriately then drivers like Jones, Kahne, JJ, Bowyer could have been over 10k or at least mid 9’s this past week. Very few make actual lineups until qualifying is completed and most entries are purchased after qualifying.

    I don’t think it would drastically decrease their ownership. For roster construction you’d still have to use them due to salary constraints OR you’d have to try a more balanced approach placing more value on the middle tier. It would still spread out ownership off of the specific value plays even if other certain drivers take a hit.

    If the guys you’re mentioning here simply have less PD value, their ownership would’ve dropped. It’s not like any were “that” cheap, but their chalkyness changes dramatically if they’re worth less.

  • yisman

    when did they get rid of place differential? I didn’t see any announcement

  • Mjwheeler3833

    Initially, I thought adding stage points was a must… But as time went on I hated the idea more and more!

    Here is why:
    Prior to this year what happened after a driver won? They typically went into R&D mode for the “chase” or they would push the limits on pit road (Denny Hamlin). They would essentially change their priorities for the regular season and would collect as much valuable information that they could for their chase car vs strictly focusing on putting a car in victory lane.

    With stage racing there is just too much incentive for drivers to go into full “chase/playoff” mode because the reality is the playoffs already started for guys that have won races since they can carry stage wins to Homestead for the Final Four. So I honestly feel that when we get to tracks like Pocono, Sonoma, Watkins Glen we will REALLY see where this will come into play. Stage 2 will ONLY have guys racing for the stage win that have already locked themselves into the playoffs because the guys that are on the outside looking in will be coming down pit road prior to the pits closing (2 laps before caution) to position themselves for track position for the final stage. If I am leading stage 2 and don’t have a win under my belt yet I am 100% coming down pit road to position myself for the race win. Basically the way I am picturing it, the stage 2 winner will end up around P20 as they begin stage 3…

    What’s the big deal with all of that? It makes the finishing position of races harder and harder to predict the deeper the season goes (track dependent for varying strategies of course) AKA more luck / less skill…

    @DK_Wheels

  • stevietpfl

    Morning Grind co-host, Lead NASCAR Analyst

    • 931

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2015 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    • 2015 FAWBC Finalist

    @bbbomb said...

    Wouldn’t adding a 7th driver decrease the number of ties, which is the ultimate goal? It would increase overlap in the sense that each driver would be owned at a higher percentage, but the number of unique lineups would also increase dramatically. The same thing happened with MMA when they moved from five fighters to six, it has increased individual ownership % but decreased the amount of ties significantly.

    With the current format, adding a 7th driver would decrease possible lineup selection and add more overlap imo.

    We can eliminate 10-15 drivers each week, so we’re building lineups with 20-25 drivers at 6 per lineup. The chalk will stay the chalk.

  • Billy4fingas

    I like the idea of setting he prices after qualifying. But with some of the races going to same day qualifying (atleast pocono this year) there is no way this could happen.

  • stevietpfl

    Morning Grind co-host, Lead NASCAR Analyst

    • 931

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2015 FanDuel MLB Playboy Mansion Finalist

    • 2015 FAWBC Finalist

    @yisman said...

    when did they get rid of place differential? I didn’t see any announcement

    Pass differential was taken away last year. Not place differential.

  • billholler

    @Billy4fingas said...

    I like the idea of setting he prices after qualifying. But with some of the races going to same day qualifying (atleast pocono this year) there is no way this could happen.

    I like that idea too but seems like extra work for DK with no real incentive for them to do that. Also don’t think they would risk the overlay since any entries prior to qualifying would be reservation only entries. In most cases, would only give them about 18 hours to fill a large GPP once salaries are released.

  • billholler

    Other question, why change it? The top few spots have been unique lineups almost every week. The way it is now just makes it harder to win without an optimal lineup.

  • Cooper08

    • Blogger of the Month

    @EvilSurge said...

    I don’t think it would drastically decrease their ownership. For roster construction you’d still have to use them due to salary constraints OR you’d have to try a more balanced approach placing more value on the middle tier. It would still spread out ownership off of the specific value plays even if other certain drivers take a hit.

    If the guys you’re mentioning here simply have less PD value, their ownership would’ve dropped. It’s not like any were “that” cheap, but their chalkyness changes dramatically if they’re worth less.

    i believe DK uses NASCAR for there scoring system, could be wrong. If NASCAR has a stat avg running position by lap this could be used in many different ways to score points.
    -get points by group, if avg running position for race is 2-6 you get 5 points, 7-11 4 points, 12-16 3 points, 17-21 2 points, 22-26 1 point, worse than 27 0 points.
    -could just say the best avg running position gets 40 points all way down to 1 point for the worse.
    -could make it part of PD, instead of finishing position you get PD for starting position minus your avg racing position.

    If used avg racing position it would help if you ran good all race and get caught up in a late lap wreck or pit issue as you wouldn’t be penalized as bad as you are with finishing position. Using any form of avg race position would reward drivers starting and finishing 3-12 and negate people who start in back and finish high.

  • Slah

    • 2015 NASCAR Live Final Champion

    @Mjwheeler3833 said...

    Initially, I thought adding stage points was a must… But as time went on I hated the idea more and more!

    Here is why:
    Prior to this year what happened after a driver won? They typically went into R&D mode for the “chase” or they would push the limits on pit road (Denny Hamlin). They would essentially change their priorities for the regular season and would collect as much valuable information that they could for their chase car vs strictly focusing on putting a car in victory lane.

    With stage racing there is just too much incentive for drivers to go into full “chase/playoff” mode because the reality is the playoffs already started for guys that have won races since they can carry stage wins to Homestead for the Final Four. So I honestly feel that when we get to tracks like Pocono, Sonoma, Watkins Glen we will REALLY see where this will come into play. Stage 2 will ONLY have guys racing for the stage win that have already locked themselves into the playoffs because the guys that are on the outside looking in will be coming down pit road prior to the pits closing (2 laps before caution) to position themselves for track position for the final stage. If I am leading stage 2 and don’t have a win under my belt yet I am 100% coming down pit road to position myself for the race win. Basically the way I am picturing it, the stage 2 winner will end up around P20 as they begin stage 3…

    What’s the big deal with all of that? It makes the finishing position of races harder and harder to predict the deeper the season goes (track dependent for varying strategies of course) AKA more luck / less skill…

    @DK_Wheels

    I don’t really understand how that’s an argument against stage points. That sounds more like a pro-stage points stance than anti.

    And either way, it seems like a strategy you would be able to use with a huge edge if it plays out the way you expect it to.

  • Mjwheeler3833

    Except you cant predict which drivers will be in position after ~50% of the race to take advantage of this… #Bingo
    End of the day, i’ll play with whatever rules they throw our way…

  • EvilSurge

    @Billy4fingas said...

    I like the idea of setting he prices after qualifying. But with some of the races going to same day qualifying (atleast pocono this year) there is no way this could happen.

    The real issue with that is like Bill Holler said… it’s a lot of extra work, and ESP to dictate the actual pricing. What do you consider, and it’s no longer a vegas odds type thing? Just starting down from pole or are you taking things Into consideration. It’s not as straight forward as a blanket price raise for MLB adjusting for coors or NFL guys vs good and bad defenses. If you price up a “value” play you’ve now actually just made a stance for that players value in that race if that makes sense. Don’t think DK wants to price a specific player according to who seems like a better play for example. Yes they might price up coors, but I believe it’s everyone.

    Maybe NASCAR can simply get people thru inspection and have them qualify.

  • Slah

    • 2015 NASCAR Live Final Champion

    @Mjwheeler3833 said...

    Except you cant predict which drivers will be in position after ~50% of the race to take advantage of this… #Bingo
    End of the day, i’ll play with whatever rules they throw our way…

    Unless I’m misinterpreting your post, you’re saying the drivers who have booked wins will be foregoing finishing position and racing for stage points, and the ones who haven’t won will forego stage points for final finishing position.

    Whatever the scoring system is, if those are your beliefs, you will have to account for all of that when building your teams.

    It seems like you’d just like to be able to take the drivers with wins out of play when building rosters? Narrowing the field of viable drivers only increases overlap.

  • yisman

    @stevietpfl said...

    Pass differential was taken away last year. Not place differential.

    ok thanks, I misread your post

    most people didn’t understand pass differential anyway so they got rid of it.

  • BDholla89

    • 318

      RG Overall Ranking

    • Ranked #42

      RG Tiered Ranking

    • x2

      2017 DraftKings FHWC Finalist

    Easy fix, make all drivers have the price of $8,333

    (In before someone says “wow BD I want whatever your smoking”)

  • billholler

    @BDholla89 said...

    Easy fix, make all drivers have the salary of $8,333

    I would still fade Jr

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

Subforum Index

RotoGrinders.com is the home of the daily fantasy sports community. Our content, rankings, member blogs, promotions and forum discussion all cater to the players that like to create a new fantasy team every day of the week.

If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, crisis counseling and referral services can be accessed by calling 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537) (IL). Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER (NJ/WV/PA/MI), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO), 1-800-BETS OFF (IA), 1-888-532-3500 (VA) or call/text TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN).