A spectre is haunting Lower Manhattan--the spectre of Chilukki's 1999 debut figure. All the powers of the SHEETS office have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Ragozin and Friedman, Jake and Hardoon.

Where is the figure maker who has not hurled the branding reproach of blowing Chilukki's debut figure, against the more advanced opposition figure maker?

(I'm fully expecting Friedman to get this joke.)

OK, all kidding aside, Friedman has just taken a hammer and sickle to your trainer stats, and you want to talk about a 1999 MSW at Churchill Downs. Did Ragozin get the number wrong? If I had to bet, I would bet that he did. I don't think he should have made a figure for that race. Did you get Came Home's debut number wrong? I don't know. Please break out your data, as Friedman did, so that I can have a go at this question. The track was changing speed that day, right? This will be a great place to contrast your approach to Ragozin's.

You wrote: " In this case, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DISTANCES IS NOT THE ISSUE-- THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRACK SPEEDS IS. The two races could both be at 6 furlongs and it wouldn't make any difference."

I'm not sure this is fair. Friedman was working off of a speed chart. These charts are often unreliable at distances shorter than 6F and longer than 1 1/8. Since, as seems plain, he linked (in some manner) the first race to later races, the accuracy of his chart comes into play. Therefore, it is perfectly logical for him to entertain the question of whether his chart was holding up. Please tell me what he did that merits an ALL CAPS rebuke from you.

"As for Awesome Humor winning-- it's meaningless. We don't leave boxes because the races come up fast-- we do it because there is not enough info to make figures with. It wouldn't have mattered if the Chilukki or Awsome Humor races had come up 2 seconds slower."

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. You criticized Friedman for making a number on the Chilukki race. He then points to the Awesome Humor race as an example where his willingness to make a number in a difficult situation produced a good bet. What is the problem? He introduced his Awesome Humor line in a way that made it clear that he wasn't presenting AH's win as evidence for the accuracy of his Chilukki figure.


"Friedman's other point is that the subsequent figures the fillies ran vindicated the 4/28 figures because all the fillies (except Chilukki, of course) ran back to those numbers in the next 3 starts. First of all, as I've pointed out before, you use earlier figures to make the later ones, so it is to some degree self-fulfilling."

To what degree would that be, given the manner in which Ragozin makes figures? Throw out the turf races. That leaves us with what, 70 horses Ragozin can use to make the variant when these horses run back? Unlike you, Ragozin doesn't split routes and sprints. This means he has a bigger sample with which to work. Did these horses all run back on the same day? Even if they did (and they didn't), the numbers aren't big enough to support what you're suggesting, unless you want to build your tower on your "to some degree" linguistic escape hatch. But there is a bigger issue here. Friedman knew damn well how tough it was to make a figure for this race. That's why he marked the day for later review. To think Friedman would then allow the shaky figures for this race to poison later races is to think Friedman is an idiot. Is that your position?

Now I want to ask you some specific questions about how you make these figures I respect so much and have defended so often:

1: To what degree do you use speed charts?

2: How often do you update them?

3: Imaginary day. Hasn't rained in a week. Three sprints this day, races one, two, and three. The evidence from race one suggests the track is three points fast. The evidence from race two suggests the track is 4.5 points fast. The evidence from race three suggests the track is three points fast. What is your variant for these three races?

Look, Friedman frustrates both of us by being vague when he discusses how he makes figures. For one thing, these historical corrections are impossible to counter to anyone's satisfaction. Here's something from his book. I believe it's important to understanding how he makes figures:

"Seriously underconsidered by Beyer and most other analysts is the LIKELY speed of the track today, based on weather--especially precipitation--and on the track superintendent's habitual day-to-day changes in grooming the track."

In this sentence, I believe, lies the answer to more than one of these mysteries with which you and I, among others, like to entertain ourselves. Should we suspect skullduggery in Friedman's recalcitrance, in his general unwillingness to engage in detailed discussions about figure making? I don't think so. A couple of years ago, I asked you a question that would have required an answer of much specificity. Here is your reply: "I don't want people going to school on my variants."