Quote:
|
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I like the idea of using Class PARs (where available) as a quality check against projections. I think it helps with quality control because the classing system is generally efficient. So if some figure is WAY out of line with the PAR, it's a red flag to at least take a better look at the race and make sure the figure makes sense.
Also, Pars help prevent figure drift in case you have any small biases in your methodology or thinking that would cause your figures to slowly shrink or rise when they shouldn't be.
Some might argue that using PARs prevents you from drifting faster or slower if the horses are actually getting faster or slower over time, but I wouldn't worry much about that. With all the drugs (legal and legal), changes in care, changes in surfaces etc... it's close to impossible to compare horses from different time periods on figures anyway.
|
Wouldn't the same apply to class pars? "Class" levels/groupings, depending on how you determine them, and how tightly you group them, are also subject to changes in racing, from surface changes/maintenance and weather, to purse levels and other artificial manipulations including ever increasing sets of qualifications for races for carding different, supposed, degrees of "class" horses, to more and more frequent movements of horses between tracks, surfaces, distances, class levels, etc., the list goes on and on. Determining class levels is a minefield, full of obstacles that will, intuitively and calculatively (sp?), force significant misrepresentations of "class".
