sheet bashing

[T Severini]

Obviously the coming race or coming figure...is the only number that counts. But knowing where they have been is the cornerstone to projecting where they will go.
In that regard, your site has been, is and continues to be the gold standard for laying that keystone.

Opinions can be volatile. People can get their pride up and loyalties can defy logic, but the fact remains that your information is there after the race for anyone to see and that fact speaks volumes as to the issues of credibility and integrity.

But...even a blind squirrel stumbles across an acorn every now and then!

[moosepalm]

The discussion needs to be framed in methodology, not isolated outcome, no matter how significant the race.  Given that this is not an exact science, the predictive ability does not come with a money back guarantee.  A number is reached through application of a methodology, and to the extent that anything can be determinative in this arena, it is through a comparison of the factors that compose that methodology.  Now, even if one accepts the superiority of one methodology over the other, which I do, it is certainly possible for reasonable minds to differ about the validity of certain numbers within the methodology (see Miff, etc.)  It is also possible for someone to say not all numbers are created equal within that methodology, owing to extrinsic factors such as pace (also see Miff, etc.).  But, if you\'re going to do an end zone dance for your numbers, you need to do it on methodology superiority, not the results of one race, for which many variables come into play.

That\'s my story, and I\'m sticking to it, unless R. Curtis says otherwise.

[TGJB]

Yeah.

But try having a conversation about methodology with a who says I don\'t know anything about making figures, but I know the ones I use are right.

[moosepalm]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah.
>
> But try having a conversation about methodology
> with a who says I don\'t know anything about making
> figures, but I know the ones I use are right.


Nah, sounds too much like politics, these days.

[P-Dub]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Great post. And we know how long Pdub would last
> on their site, it was measured in minutes.

Geezus, I can\'t stop laughing.

Best thing I\'ve seen all day, not named Steph Curry.

[miff]

Moose,

Don\'t need to see the derby figs to feel that, for example,Gun Runner may get a slower figure than the 4th and 5th places horses. The figs will not credit/pace adjust his attending a very fast pace and doing way more running overall than the two behind him that will get better figs.

A clear case of ground loss being overweight in reflecting performance.

Mike

[moosepalm]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Moose,
>
> Don\'t need to see the derby figs to feel that, for
> example,Gun Runner may get a slower figure than
> the 4th and 5th places horses. The figs will not
> credit/pace adjust his attending a very fast pace
> and doing way more running overall than the two
> behind him that will get better figs.
>
> A clear case of ground loss being overweight in
> reflecting performance.
>
> Mike

Understood, Mike, and this was my point that many, including you and I, will put an individual spin on the numbers based on factors that might not be intrinsic to sheet theory.  However, in the discussion of numbers vs. numbers vs. numbers, etc., as in \"our numbers can kick your numbers ass\", it is first and foremost a methodology discussion.  It\'s somewhat analogous to choosing a medical protocol for treatment.  None of them will bat 1.000 in terms of outcomes, but you will choose the one that you feel most comprehensively addresses the issue.  You don\'t need to be a doctor to have an opinion about this, but you will pay good money (or quite likely, have much more on the line) to go with the practitioner whose protocol incorporates as much of the prevailing wisdom as possible in order to give you the best shot at a positive outcome.  And to carry the analogy back to your point, as a patient you\'d be well advised to personalize your treatment plan with other medical or healing modalities, in addition to what the doctor orders.

[miff]

Moose,

It\'s all about methodology.Its outside of many years of tracking this stuff that I can accept an adjustment for traveling extra distance but not for running an extremely fast pace splits,when applicable.That defies the basics of racing.

Mike

[jerry]

Ala Oxbow.

[TGJB]

Or, the  premise is wrong. Both Nyquist and GR were close to the pace, they finished 1-3, and both got new tops. No opinion which is the case.

[miff]

What \"premise\"? It\'s evident to any close follower that too fast early equals slower late,99% of the time.First half 45+ last half app 51.

The derby pace was rated fastest in twelve years,adjusted for track speed of course.

On speed figs Gun Runner faster than Moyhaymen and SBN after pace adjustment,not that close either.

[Paolo]

I believe it was Aesop who first wrote about this phenomenon?

http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?2&TheHareandtheTortoise

[HP]

I\'ve always thought all of this is built into the numbers.  If a horse runs a 3 and figures to run in the 1 path all the way around (frontrunner) there\'s every chance that horse can beat a horse that loses a ton of ground and can run a 1.  If you give the frontrunner extra credit or knock off a point for running a fast pace that\'s another variable that can be gotten wrong.  Even if you don\'t have a racing form the TGs have the paths on there to let you see how they ran and got the number.

[TGJB]

The premise being that going fast early means you run slower in total (as opposed to for the last part). If that\'s not true it\'s wrong to give them extra credit for going fast.

[Boscar Obarra]

Unless they\'re running at Mountaineer