Some of this has been covered in various posts, but I want to get this clear and on the record, so here goes.
The point of making figures is to assign the ones that are most likely to be accurate, to be the most accurate representation of how the horses performed, given what it is you are supposed to be measuring. The only way we have to do that is by using the past figure histories of the horses that ran in the races we are assigning figures for, and that part is not in dispute between Ragozin and myself. The argument comes in deciding exactly which past figures to look at-- specifically, whether it is correct to ASSUME that exactly the same conditions exist for different races that you are assigning figures for. I have shown as a factual matter that Ragozin\'s dogmatic assertion that that is a good idea is wrong-- both with examples like the separate watering of the two Belmont grass courses (Len combined them for variant purposes as a matter of course), and with the scientific evidence of those who have studied the physical properties of actual racetracks (The Expo presentation in the archives section,and some of \"Are Racehorses Getting Faster\"). But the best evidence for those who do not make figures comes not with theoretical discussions, but with examples.
Briefly, for those that have not followed the discussion, if you did all the dirt races on Breeders\' Cup day assuming track speed stayed constant, the Distaff came up very slow. It looks like Ragozin-- who does NY himself-- may have taken off about a point from that race himself, but that also could be a function of slight differences in our speed chart, wind estimates, or wind formulas, (especially given the long straightaway). Regardless, he essentially did the race with the rest of the day, not cutting it loose like I did-- which I would have done even if I did not know that they had watered the track only once during the day, and the Distaff was the first dirt race after that.
I posted this before, but I want to get it all in one post, so I\'m going to go over it again. ON RAGOZIN\'S FIGURES, not mine, the field for the Distaff had run 74 times this year, and 33 times had run more than 3 points worse than what their top was at any given time (45%). That\'s a pretty decent sampling-- if you did a similar study for previous Distaffs you would probably find something in the same general ballpark. Well, the way Len did the race, he gave 12 of the 13 worse than 3 points off their tops (and 9 of those more than 6 points off their tops, by the way). There has been quite a bit of discussion on this site as to the right way to calculate the chances of all 12 running that bad, with the most generous being Jimbo\'s at one in 2 thousand.
Which doesn\'t seem like the most likely configuration, the one that is most likely to be accurate.
Now, one could take the position (as Friedman did at the Expo) that all permutations are possible over time. That may be, but you are still supposed to come up with the scenario that is MOST LIKELY, given all the available information (like watering). And since we know from the science that making assumptions about the track staying the same, even without having specific information, is a bad idea (that\'s what got Len into trouble with the 2 Belmont grass courses) there is no basis for using that assumption when it directly opposes the histories of the horses in the race or races in question. Conditions might be the same, and might not, but ASSUMING either is a mistake.
But lets say you accept Len\'s position, which is that this 2,000-1 shot came in. If so, it wouldn\'t happen too often, would it?
Well, here\'s the thing. Just from looking at Ragozin\'s BC sheets-- and not looking too hard at that-- there are two other obvious examples of the same kind of thing. One is the last 2 dirt races on 7/27 (opening day) at Saratoga, where they sealed the track in the middle of the card, and Friedman said that didn\'t matter, it was right to treat all the dirt races as being run over exactly the same track. Adieu and Folklore came out of those races:
Folklore (earliest first, and ommitting fractions) 21-14-13-18-10-5-9
Adieu 11-14-20-9-14-16
The 18 for Folklore is a WIN on 7/27 in the GII Adirondack. Adieu was a close fourth, and got a 20. And all the horses that ran in those 2 races (with the exception of the winner of the other one) will look like that. Which is why I predicted AT THE TIME that they would all \"jump forward\" next time on Ragozin, like Folklore and Adieu did (8 and 11 points respectively).
The other, of course, is the Gold Cup. Last 5 for the ones that I have sheets on, because they ran back in the BC, next to last being the Gold Cup:
Imperialism 3-8-1-13-4
Flower Alley 3-0-0-15-0
Suave 5-6-3- 9-1
Sun King 5-5-2-11-6
Borrego 8-5-2- 5-4
This is not the whole field, but the ones that I don\'t have were beaten even worse than the top 4, and got even worse figures. So every starter (INCLUDING Borrego) ran at least 3 points worse than his top, on Ragozin, in the Gold Cup. And the ones other than Borrego ran MUCH worse.
Mathematically, what is the chance of these examples happening with just the small group running in the BC races?
That aside-- I\'ve done this before to make a point, but I\'m going to do it again to make sure it\'s clear:
If you believe those Ragozin numbers, you are saying that if Imperialism ran as \"well\" as he did in the BC (he finished 8th in the Sprint) one race earlier, he would have won the Gold Cup.
You are saying that if Flower Alley had run his BC race one start earlier, he would have beaten Borrego in the Gold Cup by 15 lengths (and the third finisher by 25 lengths).
Same thing for Suave-- he ran fifth in the Classic, and that effort would have won the Gold Cup by 12 lengths.
And of course, you are saying that Borrego ran better when finishing 10th, beaten 10 lengths, than in winning the Gold Cup by 4.
