I see the sheets gave out -3.25, his thoro must be -5?
It\'s getting kind of weird with the big neg #\'s all the time.
We gave him big enough (like about the biggest number we have ever given out), but not that big. In general, they are getting faster every year, and it\'s a pain in the butt-- I\'ve been considering adding 3-4 to the whole data base for a while, but I\'ve been hoping the testers would catch up to the drugs (no Bob, this is not directed at you or Congaree. I forgot to mention the best part of the conversation when he called up screaming at me a couple of weeks ago. Me: \"You should yell at Friedman. He lists you with the drug guys all the time, talks about the BB \'Magic\'\". Baffert: \"Who\'s Friedman\"?)
Having given this some thought recently, I have to give Ragozin some credit. The idea of making lower numbers better was inspired (and I don\'t know of anyone else who does it). Aside from the sheet being less cluttered, it would be awkward to look at a 2 point move between say 86 and 88-- at the lower end of the scale the 2 points looks more significant. It might just be that I\'m used to it (which is why I went that way when I opened my own shop), but I don\'t think so.
TGJB
That is the best argument in support of the very counter-intuitive backward sheet\'s scale that I have yet heard. Unfortunately, once you cross into negative territory, you lose that property to some degree. Also, if horses are getting faster, it becomes difficult to maintain an intuitive feel for the figures. I guess that is one reason you might want to consider shifting the scale to the right. How much is the question? What should \"0\" represent? Currently, it is completely arbitrary and has no definable, consistent or intuitive meaning. Simply shifting right 5 points will only be a Band-Aid and will not solve your long-term problem.
I have a suggestion that I think makes a lot of sense. Simply take all of the figures assigned in your database over the last year and determine the current 99.999 percentile (i.e., the figure that represents a level that is achieved or exceeded only once for every 100,000 figures assigned). Assign this \"0\" and shift everything accordingly. That would anchor your scale to something measurable and fairly intuitive. It would also allow you to consistently shift the scale in the future (say annually or as frequently as you think it needs to be updated). That way \"0\" would always represent a figure that is achieved only once in every 100,000 efforts. When a horse earns a \"0\" you would have a sense of what it means (like the proverbial \"100 year flood\") and the meaning would never change even if horses get faster or slower in the future.
Think about it.
Chris
Chris, you are right, with all the current neg #\'s you see these days it kind of muddles the read sometimes. When I started 6yrs back you never saw the #\'s you consistently see now. The \"0\" was always the holy grail.
The only beef I have with the TG and Ragozin approach is the use of quarter points and the superscript symbols required to display them. Why not just multiply everything by 4 so all the figures will be whole numbers?
You guys raise a good point but you have to be very careful here.
For example what if the NYSE ordered a 1 for 2 reverse stock split on all listed stocks and the NASDAQ a 1 for 5. The Dow would be at 17000 and the NASDAQ back above 5000 and yet nothing is really any better.
As far as the number 0 not really meaning what it once used to, yes and no. When Monarchos ran a 0 in the Fla Derby it meant something same thing holds true for Point Given when he ran a 0 in the Santa Anita Derby.
Horses moving deep into negative territory, well go ask Left Bank if it took anything out of him.
If my memory is ok, Left Bank did earn the best # on thoro, I still don\'t like the increase in neg#\'s.
At this pace within 2yrs we will be at -8\'s.
the year:2005
THE RIDDLE: After the -8, What does a \"O\" mean
ANSWER: an ugly \"bounce\"