I should probably take the high road...

[TGJB]

...and for the most part I will.

Friedman posted a real doozy on their site, and just a couple of quick comments. First, I have no idea who my \"alter ego\" is, but I guess Friedman now thinks I am posting under multiple names on my own site. This is right up there with Jake\'s statement that I was attacking myself on their site under other names so that I could respond, and Len, if you get someone who knows what they are doing over there they will be able to trace those posts and tell you I did not. If your guy doesn\'t know how, have him call Paul and he\'ll show him. Besides, simple logic will tell you I did not-- I said about a dozen times that if you deleted the attacks I would have no reason to respond on your board, and would not. Instead you created a new board, which has had the pleasant side effect of keeping most of the crackpots who were shooting at me from posting, since they now would be identifiable.

Second, we are big on full disclosure here, so everyone can go back and read my comments about Congaree in the back ROTWs (and a lot of other ROTW\'s which worked out very well, this being another example of you being a real stand-up guy and selecting one example after the fact of something where we put it on the line BEFORE the race), as well as the dialogue you refer to in our archives, and in fact all our data, which we put up daily in the Red Board Room for everyone to review. How about posting the sheets for Congaree and the rest of that NYRA mile, so everyone can draw their own conclusions about whether he had a \"perfect circling pattern\" that made him bettable at a short price in a race where he needed (I\'m guessing on your figures as well) to run better than in any race he had run all year up to then, or whether he looked like a cripple on your sheets who had not returned to close to an incorrect top you had given him 18 months before.

As for that effort jumping to a DIFFERENT number 18 months later proving the accuracy of the Wood number, you can\'t be serious. Post it so everyone else can decide for themselves.

As to Baffert, as I said, he called up to yell at me when I made that post. He also called me up the day after pre-entries a couple of weeks ago to get my advice on whether to run in the Sprint or Classic (I advised the latter). My post at the time suggested Allday was treating his horses, Bob told me he was not, WHICH IS CHECKABLE, so I figured he was telling me the truth. On top of which, I\'ve pointed fingers in subtle and not so subtle ways here on several occasions, and Bob is the only one to take issue with it, and on top of that I\'ve known him since Real Quiet/Victory Gallop, and I tend to believe him.

On a related note, since you brought it up-- I think \"kvelling\" (purring, glowing) is the word for your reaction when Dashboard Drummer won a stake this Summer, in his first start after you gave the horse to Iwinski. Here\'s a thought-- how about posting sheets for all the horses Iwinski has started over the last 6 months so everyone can see what kind of numbers he has been getting relative to the trainers who had those horses before?

TGJB,

What\'s your ID over on the Ragozin board?

[TGJB]

I haven\'t posted over there since they changed the board format. Before that I posted under various names while making it clear it was me (by saying things like \"me\" and \"we\" when referring to TG, for example, which is why they changed the board format), and at least 95% of my posts over the last year of the old board were in response to attacks. There were a few others where the tag I chose (Scarlet Pimpernel for example, since Friedman was Robespierre) and the form of the post (always one or two sentences in the form of a pointed question directed at their figure making methods or accuracy) also should have made it clear who I was even when I wasn\'t explicit. There were a couple of exchanges that became a little different because Friedman couldn\'t figure out it was me, and the dialogue was extended, the most notable of which concerned the use of claiming pars which don\'t change over the years. There were also several occasions where they made snide comments and deleted posts from others they thought were me.

For the record, I have invited Friedman and Jake to post over here almost as many times as I have challenged Len to a handicapping contest.

[texasturfmaster]

TGJB

I don\'t read the Rag board, so could you expand on \"the use of claiming pars\" comment a little.  I\'m pretty sure I know where each of you stand but I\'m not 100% certain.

[TGJB]

The \"claiming par\" conversation took place a couple of years ago. In answer to a question, Friedman said that the reason their figures could be used to compare horses from different generations was that they had a solid base, par levels based on the claimers, which stayed the same year after year. I responded under an alias, pointing out that keeping the par levels was an assumption (one of a large number that operation makes, but that\'s another story) with no basis in fact. If performance of the breed improves over time (as all other athletes have), the claimers would improve as well, and artificially anchoring the pars will create figures that CAN\'T be compared for different generations, by their very nature.

Pars are a very good way to set up your data base to start. But they have drawbacks in use over time, and not just the above. First of all, they are based on a relatively small sampling-- the winners (or some variation involving more horses) of just SOME of the races (usually older horse claimers, since the winning figure in those races-- as opposed to the horses themselves-- are the least variable), compared to an AVERAGE race of that type (par for a 10 claimer, for example). As soon as you have a relatively solid data base, you are much better off losing the pars and going with the \"projection method\", which involves looking at ALL the horses in ALL the races (obviously paying more attention to the more solid ones), and comparing their figure performances not to an average 10 claimer, for example, but to the figures the horses in THAT 10 claimer have run before. This gives you a lot more \"data points\" (to use a term someone else used here once) to work with, and frees you up from artificial anchors.

Without the use of pars, is there any way to spot check that there are no biases or errors in your projected figure making?

Not so sure that is clear, so I\'ll give one example that I know you already take into account.

2 yos, 3 yos, and other lightly raced horses tend to slowly improve over time. Without that insight, you might have a tendency to project figures for them that are slightly slower than the horses are actually earning when making your variant. Over an extended period of time, you could then wind up with overall figures that slowly shrink enough to not be comparable to figures produced 6 months earlier - even though they would be  accurate in their current snapshot in time to each other.

I suppose there could be other biases and/or errors like that.

Some figure makers spot check all their figures against the PARS every couple of months to make sure they aren\'t shrinking or accelerating due to figure making errors.

At the same time, I agree 100% that the PARS themselves can and probably do change over the years because of the breed and other reasons.

I have always found this inter-generational figure issue quite interesting and perplexing.

[texasturfmaster]

TGJB

Thanks for the response and the insight.

Let me throw this out there.  

Are the 10 claimers in \"slot states\" of the same ability as 10-15 yrs ago seeing that the purses have quadrupled over the same time frame?

One would have to think that they attract somewhat faster animals when they\'re running for drastically increased purses.

Why would he want to anchor to something obsolete on those circuits?

[Frank]

Do you believe that there is a correlation  between the performance levels of human athletes and those of horses?

I can\'t see how the fact that humans have increased their performance levels can be used to defend your position that horses have gotten faster and faster over the past twenty years.

Frank

[TGJB]

The obvious problem with using pars to check what you call biases (as opposed to dead rails etc.) is the self fulfilling aspect-- if you check figures against rigid pars, and the horses themselves are evolving, it won\'t be reflected in your figures.

In general, I don\'t base a variant on lightly raced horses, other than fine tuning one that is already established for the race by surrounding races with a consistent pattern. On days where the track is changing speed, or there is reason to believe such a race should not be done with the other races, I leave a box instead of a figure (if you go back in the archives you will see an extended brouhaha about this subject focusing on Chilukki\'s debut figure, I think the debate took place early this year). I don\'t like to guess, in part because future decisions will be based on those figures.

Again, pars deal for the most part with just the winners of the races, where what we do deals with all the horses. Part of this is not scientific, and it goes like this-- after doing this a long time, you get a feel (even if you can\'t articulate it) for roughly what percentage of horses should be running new tops, pairing tops, etc., keeping in mind the ages and number of starts of the horses in question. Related discussions about this have come up here before-- one with David Patent about the Schaeffer run at Pimlico on Preakness day 02, when Ragozin gave a whole field of older stake horses figures at least 5 points off their tops, or something like that. Another was this year\'s Derby, where Ragozin had NONE of the first four finishers even matching their tops, due in part to blowing the Wood figure, which I pointed out before the Derby. That is flat out ridiculous.

[TGJB]

Frank--

I was wondering where you were. I was holding back on this stuff until I had done a little more research and was going to go into it if and when I add points to the data base, but I\'ll try to get to this over the weekend.

If you look at your own question carefully you can probably figure out where I\'m going.