Numbers game

By DAVID GREEN

As an old saying goes, figures don't lie -- but liars figure. That's not to say that all statistical analyses are anything other than an attempt to quantify something, with the best of intentions guiding them. But it should make all of us a little wary of using statistics (or "statics," as the late Dizzy Dean called them) as the be-all, end-all measurement of anything.

The latest statistical analysis of concern to race fans is NASCAR's promotion of the heightened level of competition in its premier series.

Not surprisingly, it paints a glowing picture of what great entertainment Cup Series racing is. Had the numbers suggested something other than that, it's a safe bet there would have been no press release about it.

The fact that this Web site and this blog exist are testimony to the fundamental accuracy of this statistical analysis. If stock car racing were not pretty darned good entertainment, it would not be so immensely popular as attendance, television ratings and interest of corporate sponsors attest.

Quantifiable statistics are a part of the appeal, for sure. That it has been 13 years since a Cup Series race winner lapped the field; that the average number of leaders in each race has increased from 5.4 in the 1970s to 9.8 in races since 2000; that five different drivers won in a 30-race 1974 season, compared to 13 winners in 19 races so far this year -- surely these and other factoids trumpeted by NASCAR public relations have a good deal to do with the status of their sport these days.

I have one fundamental question about the report. I'm not sure why it traces statistics only to 1970 -- the 22nd season for what is now the Nextel (soon-to-be Sprint) Cup Series. It's almost as if the organization began at that point, and the 1949-1969 seasons never happened.

But more fundamentally, I wonder whether the statistics, out of context, aren't just downright misleading.

Take the 1974 season, for example, when "only" five drivers went to victory lane. Those five drivers were Richard Petty (10 wins), Cale Yarborough (10 wins), David Pearson (7 wins), Bobby Allison (2 wins) and Earl Ross (1 win). Don't try to tell me, based on statistics or any other criterion, that 1974 wasn't a very, very interesting season.

Four of the greatest drivers in the overall history of the sport, not just since 1970, going at it hammer and tong; one of them (Pearson) competing in only 19 races, yet winning almost 37 percent of them (.368, as measured in the manner of a baseball batting average); and a rookie from Canada scoring a whopper of an upset to take the only victory the Big Four didn't claim.

All of that, by the way, without the distraction of a weekly rap sheet of "criminal" violations.

Even if I hadn't witnessed it, it would take only a few minutes of research to lead me to conclude that the statistic of "only" five different winners is largely irrelevant, except to a statistician, in assessing the entertainment value of the 1974 NASCAR season.

There's nothing wrong with NASCAR trotting out these glowing statistics. To once again quote Dizzy Dean, "It ain't braggin' if you can do it."

Proclaiming this as the "Golden Age" of NASCAR racing, however, might be just a bit of a stretch.