Last Lap: How did Kenseth's year compare?

Now that Matt Kenseth has officially hoisted the hardware -- and thereby reduced this weekend's Ford 400 to an anticlimactic assault on second place, if not a glorified formality -- the time has come to dissect his championship campaign and rank it accordingly among those of his predecessors.

First, may we cast aside our personal opinions regarding the Winston Cup point system -- Heaven knows they're infinite -- and evaluate Kenseth's season for what it was. Remarkably consistent.

Gripe all you want about his having just one victory, no one's listening.

Because when it comes to statistics that truly matter in this arena, he had a season for the ages. Eleven top-fives, 25 top-10s (the most since Dale Jarrett tallied 29 top-10s in 34 starts in 1999) and just one DNF, courtesy a blown engine at Talladega.

Strictly for the sake of comparison, here's how the past four champions fared en route to their respective titles:

Last season, Tony Stewart garnered three victories, 15 top-fives and 21 top-10s, but failed to finish six races. In 2001, Jeff Gordon had six victories, 18 top-fives and 24 top-10s with two DNFs.

Bobby Labonte won the 2000 title on the strength of four wins, 19 top-fives and 24 top-10s.

	Dale Jarrett rode a slew of top-five finishes to the 1999 title. Credit: Autostock

But most impressively, Labonte finished all but nine laps of the 2000 season and finished every single race. Meanwhile, Jarrett's 1999 season included four wins, an amazing 24 top-fives and 29 top-10s. Just once did he fail to finish.

Hmm. On paper, Kenseth's season doesn't carry the dominance of those before him, doesn't really even seem dominant enough to provide a championship -- especially when you consider that Ryan Newman has eight victories, the most since Gordon posted 13 wins during a record-setting 1998 campaign.

But this was no typical year. Jarrett's 1999 numbers are mind-boggling, but like it or not, NASCAR 1999 was a far cry from the current state of the sport. As recently as two years ago, a team could be off a bit and still recover to post a solid finish.

These days, you can't be off. At all. If you're not totally dialed in, you're doomed. If your car is setup well, you may get a top-five. Last week, Jimmie Johnson said that in second half of each given event, even the slightest mistake will cost you victory.

To excel these days, perfection is necessary both in the cockpit and on pit road. Pretty tall order. That's why Kenseth's performance is so sterling. Not since Benny Parsons' lone title in 1973 has a driver won the title with just one victory, making his string of top-10s critical.

Entering the 2003 Winston Cup Series campaign, no driver in the modern era had ever led the championship standings for more than 25 consecutive weeks, which Sterling Marlin achieved last year before suffering a season-ending neck injury.

Enter Kenseth, who led the series with five victories in 2002, then eased into the current season's points lead following the fourth race at Atlanta. Thirty-two weeks later, he's yet to relinquish it.

At the end of this season, Kenseth will have been the points leader for 33 straight weeks. Where would you rank his season compared to those of past champions?

lowes48man: In my opinion, what defines Kenseth's title season has nothing to do with how he won it. It has everything to do with whom he beat out to win it. Much like other sports, it is difficult to compare banner years of today with those of yesteryear.

Ten years ago, it was a given that only a handful of drivers could legitimately string together the consistency required to win the points title. Since the late 90's, NASCAR has experienced a growth of talent that the number of contenders has grown exponentially, and it continues to do so.

As Junior, Jimmie, Harvick, Newman, and Busch attempt to win title No. 1 in 2004, you will have guys like Vickers and Wimmer joining the talent pool. That is what makes Matt Kenseth's 33 consecutive weeks at the top so impressive. He dominated over a larger pool of talented drivers.

	Tony Stewart passed the torch to Matt Kenseth at Rockingham. Credit: Autostock

This is impeccable analysis, and carries significantly more merit than any gripe about a lack of victories. That's tired. To me, JJ nailed it. The most impressive -- and certainly most under appreciated -- aspect of Kenseth's title run is the world-class group of individuals he beat.

Most of you griped and moaned about his good luck and lack of victories and methodical approach. Now, forgive my idiocy, but this diminishes his accomplishment how? Come on.

Heck, take that argument and turn it around. You can praise Kenseth for winning the title with but one win just as easily as you can trash him for it. He only won once and still beat Newman by 300 points, despite Newman's impressive victory total. Kenseth only won once and still clinched with one race to go.

Why? Newman is feast or famine. If the Alltel Dodge isn't in Victory Lane, it's on the roll back.

Kenseth, meanwhile, played the game. He finished and finished well. Hence, I rank his championship season among the most impressive in history.

As was stated earlier, this ain't your Daddy's NASCAR. It doesn't always have to be pretty or spectacular, just effective.

"I'd take a championship with no victories," Gordon said. "I'm sure he'd like to get more victories ... but that certainly does not take away from the championship. They've done an excellent job this year, and they've been the most consistent and best team all year."

	Jeff Gordon's 13 wins in 1998 remains a record that seems untouchable. Credit: Autostock

Gordon's won four of them. He should know.

bf1977: Kenseth's run was actually a lot more mediocre than it comes across. Consider the recent champions: '02 Stewart, avg. finish: 12.6, 4,800 points; '01 Gordon, avg. finish: 10.9, 5,112 points; '00 B. Labonte, avg. finish: 7.4, 5,130 points; '99 Jarrett, avg. finish: 6.7, 5,262 points.

'03 Kenseth, avg. finish: 9.3 (thru 35 races) 5117 points (estimated on a 9th- place finish in last race). Also, in '99 and '00, there were two less races to earn points in. Regardless of how the other drivers fared, Matt's run was pretty much a example of how to get the job done without being too glamorous.

Compare that to Stewart's run, which was an example of how to back into it. Last year's field was weak, this years was a lot better and Kenseth managed to just be slightly better. Dale Jarrett's run, statistically was far superior, even though they'll both have won the championship by roughly the same margin.

Somebody needs to get the Michelin Man a gig on NBC. This is great stuff, his numbers are accurate and his formula for comparison ? total points in a season -- seems the most legitimate criteria.

Gordon's unfathomable 1998 season resulted in a modern era record 5,328 points in just 34 races (are you kidding me?), which at the time made him the first driver to surpass 5,000 points in a single season since Richard Petty did so in 1974. Since '98, however, Stewart is the only champion not to top the 5,000-point plateau.

Kenseth will do so regardless where he finishes Sunday, and he did it with just one win. Jarrett and Labonte earned four wins apiece and Gordon had 13 in '98 and six in 2001.

Once again, if you look at it in those terms, Kenseth's season is absolutely amazing.

3forlife: It was definitely a dominant run for Kenseth, one that was filled with almost no poor performances. However, his only getting 1 victory will keep it from being among the best. Want proof? Look at how many times the "what if" paragraph on Ryan Newman with his 8 wins this season has been posted in different articles in the past several weeks on NASCAR.com.

People focus on victories, that's what the sport is about. While Kenseth achieved the biggest victory of them all this season, it can't be considered one of the best when it was only the second time this year that people saw him celebrate.

The subsequent banter following this response was so entertaining, I'll leave it to other fans to rebut this one:

GoKenseth: By your reasoning then, Matt should've been champion last year, right?

Roy's got a valid point, 3-man. Kenseth's five victories led the series in 2002. So by your standards...

	Bobby Labonte completed all but a handful of laps when he won the title in 2000.

phillybrown: The sport is also about consistency and rewards consistency -- as an Earnhardt fan, you would of course recognize that Rusty Wallace's year in 1993 involved 10 or 11 wins compared to Dale's 3 or 4 or 5 -- can't remember an exact number.

Dale ran strong nearly every week and Rusty did not - thus championship number 6 for Dale and a strong second for Rusty - Rusty's win total takes nothing away from Dale's title in my opinion...

Agreed, Larry Brown. Funny, isn't it, that everyone remembers 1993 for Big E's title and not for Rusty's series-leading 10 wins? Wonder how many people will readily discuss Newman's output come 2013?

Maybe one. This guy:

StreetDreamr: Rank it? I doubt if I'll even remember this championship run 10 years from now! Why? Probably because I detest Jack Roush so much.

I'll go double-or-nothing on my current bet with you guys. (Yes, the blue hair one). Betcha Tai Streets hasn't even met Roush.

And for the record, fear not: I'm going to live up to my end of blue hair bet. Thanks a lot, Matt.

antgail: Not at all an interesting or exciting championship. NASCAR is an exciting sport and it should foster such a champion. Did not happen this year.

Though I'm sensitive to Adam Ant's lack of excitement regarding points race -- or lack thereof as it were -- saying it hasn't been at all interesting is a bit overboard.

Sure, for a time it was monotonous -- a 436-point lead has a way of affecting it as such ? but following the two-week span last month when Kenseth forfeited half his lead to Harvick? Man. Suddenly, the 17 boys had a chink in the armor. Suddenly, an aura of vulnerability overshadowed them.

Suddenly, the points race was enticing.

Marty Smith  •  Email  •  Archive

Think about it. One more bad finish and six drivers are in the hunt. It wasn't to be, but it made for solid drama, nonetheless.

Pebs1: Matt Kenseth, while a good driver and probably a good guy, does not deserve to be Cup champion...plain and simple. I believe that the points system needs to be redone so drivers who do not merit a championship do not receive one.

The entire reason for everything cup teams do, from building Taj Mahal shops, to three cars for every track, to securing sponsorships, to multi-million dollar parts inventories, to uniforms, teams, marketing, etc. is TO WIN RACES!

The driver who wins the most races should be awarded the most points. End of story. While I am a Kevin Harvick fan, I believe that Ryan Newman should be the champion this year.

Not worthy of being champion because he had one win? Again, this is ludicrous. If it's so easy to finish races with the car intact each week then why can't everyone do it ? especially your boy Newman, who failed to reach the finish six times in 2003?

"If you can go back on some of our six DNFs: 'Woulda, coulda, shoulda,' we could have had a lot more points and been there challenging him," Newman said last Sunday. "But nevertheless, they've done a good job working with the points system we currently have."

Series highs in victories, top-fives and, unfortunately for Newman & Co., DNFs. Newman is right, the 12 team is the consummate example of woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Jimmy_John: My word for it would be more like "Boring". Not taking anything away from Matt, he is a great driver, the winner of the Winston Cup season should be the team that is out there trying to win every week. Compare the stats to Ryan Newman.

Ryan has 8 wins, Matt 1; Ryan has 17 top 5's, Matt 11; Ryan has 21 top 10's, Matt 25 (Ok one for Matt).

Ryan has 11 poles, Matt? (I know, they don't count) So it seams the point system rewards the driver that is conservative and will not take a risk to WIN, as you might end up in a DNF, and that would kill your points. Being conservative to ensure you make top 20 should not (in my opinion) be the goal?

Let's see. Newman won, in my estimation, some four or five times by using impeccable pit strategy, not by merely outgunning the field. And, let's see, Newman won at Dover due mainly to the Lucky Dog pass.

Come on, Jimmy, there's more to it than numbers on paper. You've got to come stronger than that, man.

rickd: Yeah, he definitely was about consistency, dominating the field in points with some really good up front finishes and good fortune much of the time on the track.

Being that this is also the first Roush championship I think Matt Kenseth compares pretty well with other past champions, leading the field in points most of the way through the season.

I would rank him close to the top by performance. He beat some tough competition. Judging by the respect the other drivers have given him for what he accomplished compares him highly to other champions.

Rick Dees sums it up pretty well, here. If Kenseth's peers are so impressed with his effort and (more than) willing to accept the season's outcome without a gripe, who are we to judge?

Newman, Johnson, Earnhardt and Harvick all had amazing seasons, but knew coming in that consistency is the key, not necessarily victory. Congratulations to Team DeWalt.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to purchase some hair dye...

Marty's mailbag appears every Tuesday at 3 p.m, unless he files it late.

The opinions listed here are solely those of the soon-to-be-blue-haired writer.