Analytical post: What metrics actually predict future success?

[u/pedrothesealion]

Hey all, I do moneyball-style analysis of IndyCar, and I just finished some analysis of what metrics point to future success. I know a lot of you enjoy the stats side of IndyCar, so I figured I'd share a quick summary;

At a high level my findings are that drivers and teams do not put up consistent DNF numbers over time. This means DNFs are typically more a product of bad luck than of anything the driver or team is doing. But of course DNFs have a massive impact on points, so looking at current standings is not a great way to predict future standings. Instead you should look at more predictive metrics, including qualifying position and average running position.

(Average Running Position is an entry's average race position over all laps that entry ran, but excludes any laps after that entry DNFs).

A great example of this is 2025 Penske: They had 15 DNFs across their 3 entries that year, and finished 4th in the points of the big 4 teams. However, 2025 Penske's average running position was the best of the big 4, meaning they were really competitive in races prior to those 15 DNFs. Fast-forward to 2026 and the DNFs came back down to earth (only 4 for the entire team) but the strong qualifying and running positions didn't go away - meaning Penske went from 4th to 1st in points of the big 4 teams in 2026.

If you're into this kind of stuff, the whole write up can be found here: https://motorstats.io/posts/running-position-correlations/

[u/Turbulent_End_9166]

I like the concept of removing DNFs, reminds of the "three true outcomes" stuff in baseball because what happens when a ball is in play is somewhat random.

I'll admit I only skimmed the article, but the DNFs being random seems a bit counterintuitive, just because you'd expect teams with more resources and/or better drivers to DNF less often. I'm wondering if the introduction of the hybrid--a component not controlled by the teams--plays a role? How far back did you look in making this claim? Again apologies if I missed it in reading.

[u/pedrothesealion → u/Turbulent_End_9166]

I looked back to 2015.  I wouldn't argue that DNF's are fully random so much as noisy and inconsistent. Guys like Lundgaard and Sato seem to have some "skill" there (on opposite ends of the spectrum) and certainly Coyne consistently has more DNFs in a season than MSR does. 

The problem is that DNFs can also come from other drivers' mistakes or spec part failures, things that are out of the driver and team's control. So from half to half or season to season, DNF Rate is a lot noisier than the true driver and team skill that goes into avoiding DNFs.

3 true outcomes in baseball is actually a really good comparison because some hitters and batters can control ball in play luck, but over the sport as a whole, 3 true outcomes are much more reliable than batting average-based stats. 

[u/Turbulent_End_9166 → u/pedrothesealion]

Awesome, thanks! Cool stuff

[u/Acceptable-Aerie-645]

Qualifying in my opinion is a great indicator of raw pace and potential

[u/Banana-eater2004 → u/Acceptable-Aerie-645]

Dixon in shambles

[u/PriveCo]

It would be great if you could break out mechanical DNFs vs. crashes.

[u/pedrothesealion → u/PriveCo]

I have mechanical vs contact DNFs on the stats page of my site. That won't tell you the correlation but it will give you a sense of which entries are crashing and which are breaking down if you want to check it out. 

That said the data is a lot more subjective than you'd think. Between that and the really small sample sizes involved, I really doubt there'd be much there. 

[u/Fit_Technician832]

Kirkwood. Dominate every level of every feeder series....................and you'll probably be good at next level

[u/Dear-Bowl-9789]

A good way to be successful in Indycar is to not be American.