Re: Chilukki: Hard Cases Make Bad Law (902 Views)
Posted by:
thomas (IP Logged)
Date: February 09, 2003 10:01PM
JB, here’s what Friedman posted: Since older horses never run that distance at Kee, our
par time for that distance is determined from our model track and interpolated backward
from the longer sprint distances at KEE. Since that number seemed so incredible, we
printed out all the 4 1/2 KEE races for the previous two years to see how the figures for
those races (very often the 1st race of the day) held up in their subsequent performances.
My interpretation: They ARE assuming a fixed relationship(interpolating for 4 1/2). They
are probably looking at average par times between 5, 5 1/2, 6f and drawing some
conclusion where 4 1/2f figures ought to fit on their (yea he meant CD) speed chart. If I
understand you correctly you’re gripe and rightfully so is a variant matter. But let’s
assume there was no weather factor during the day in question. By assuming some fixed
relationship between 4 1/2f and other sprint distances the other guys are in a postion to
give out numbers at that distance. Weather or not they’re interpolation is correct is
certainly open for debate and the idea that they can validate all this by going back and
looking at subsequent numbers of 2yo’s in springtime is absurd. But you made a comment
in one of your posts that you don’t assume fixed relationships which begs the question
how do you assign numbers in these races? Alydar’s hypothetical was how you would
derive a variant where 2 races were @ 5f for unraced 2yo’s and a 6f race with established
horses. In his case you’ve a bit a little bit of history for older horses @5f but where do
you go if those 5f races were @4 1/2 and that sort of data doen’t exist?