Spin doctors from NASCAR’s communications department recently released an impressive list of statistics supporting the argument that this is indeed the  “Golden Era” for its top series.
The three-page NASCAR release was no doubt created in response to some vocal criticism from the media and some fans that the Nextel Cup Series has become predictable.

...any so-called “Golden Era” must be either clouded and romanticized by memory, a lack of knowledge about it or both.

Some of the cited statistics are very interesting and inarguable — and we’ll get to them shortly. But one thing NASCAR’s communications department failed to realize when creating the release is that any so-called “Golden Era” must be either clouded and romanticized by memory, a lack of knowledge about it or both.
NASCAR public relations gurus have created a spin that Tony Stewart would be proud of.
Here are a few of the stats NASCAR put together to support its “Golden Era” theory:
• In 1970, 22 races finished with one car on the lead lap, something that happened only twice in the 1990s and hasn’t happened at all since 1995.
• The percentage of cars on the lead lap has grown from 6.3 percent in 1976 to 30.7 percent in 1996 to 43.6 percent in 2006.
• The number of race leaders per race on the average has nearly doubled since the 1970s, which averaged 5.4 leaders per race. This decade averages 9.8 leaders per race.
• Seven of the top-10 race finishes since 1993 have occurred since 2000, including Jamie McMurray’s victory over Kyle Busch at Daytona just a couple of weeks ago, which is ranked second.
• Since 2000, no driver has won more than eight races in a season. Nineteen different winners were crowned in 2001, compared to just 12 winners in 48 races in 1970 and five in 30 races in 1974. This season boasts 13 different winners in 19 races.
The statistics are certainly valid and make a compelling argument, but let’s take a look at the stories behind the numbers.
Do better finishes necessarily follow better races? Are better finishes the result of having better drivers? Or is it the result of a combination of rules changes and improved technology? I argue for the latter.
When Cale Yarborough was winning races by seven laps over other drivers way back when, pit stops were hardly the precision science they’ve become. There was no such thing as a restrictor plate to bunch the fields on superspeedways. The (alleged) “competition cautions” had yet to be invented. And the “lucky dog” was the one under the kitchen table.
Equipment that lasted 400-500 miles was the exception rather than the norm, so the improvements in technology have far outweighed any improvement among drivers.
If there were some sort of “Strat-O-Matic” simulation league out there, I would still take Yarborough over either Busch, David Pearson over Junior and Bobby Isaac over Jimmie Johnson. If anything, a youth movement in today’s sport that puts marketability ahead of driving ability and previous accomplishment has diluted the talent pool.
Still, the numbers don’t lie, whatever the reasons behind them.
But what about the number of race winners? Thirteen different winners in 19 races?
NASCAR has evolved — or devolved — into a team sport. Powerhouse teams such as Rick Hendrick and Roush Fenway are every bit as dominant as individual drivers such as Richard Petty and Pearson were 30 years ago.
This year, Hendrick drivers, racing in similarly prepared cars with equal equipment, have won 10 of 20 races. Roush Fenway and Richard Childress drivers have won three times each, leaving two victories for Joe Gibbs Racing and one each for Chip Ganassi and DEI. In today’s team-driven sport, that leaves just as many have-nots — maybe more when you factor in the top 10s by the rest of the powerhouse drivers — as 30 years ago.
It is inarguable that the races are closer and the entertainment level, especially for television, has been raised. NASCAR couldn’t survive today’s professional sports climate with one car finishing on the lead lap nearly half the time. Parity, whether manufactured or just perceived, is good for the sport.
But not every pie chart tells the entire story, and the term “golden era” shouldn’t be tossed around without a hard look beyond the numbers and more than a cursory nod to hazy memories.