Jerry,
Add the points. Years ago when I made my own figures I used a scale similar to yours where 1/5 second at 6 furlongs was equal to 1 point. I wanted a system where an outstanding performance that was only seen once or twice a year, would earn a figure of 100. I did a par study and found the average Grade 1 stakes winner earned a 99 on my scale, which gave just the base I needed so that 1 point above that would yield the 100 that fit the description of a rarely seen superior performance. It appears that you did doing something similar what your figures, with your 0 equivalent to my 100. If too many horses match or exceed that level or figure, it loses some of it’s meaning. If horses are indeed getting faster, shouldn’t the scale and its base reflect this? Of course, most races are not Grade 1 level stakes but it’s still a point of reference. It can also cause some confusion if figures of the same magnitude and absolute value represent widely different levels of performance, i.e., 2 and –2, 3 and –3 etc.
From a business point of view, I also think adding points is a wise choice. Too many negative numbers, especially if awarded to other than the highest-class horses invite charges of “grade inflation”, or it’s figure making equivalent.
Bob
