|
The trouble with a lot of studies representing IV according to (in this case) post positions is that the sample size during a meet, even at the midway point or beyond, is too small. And since track maintenance and bias can vary dramatically from year to year even at the same track, the stats have to be looked at with temporal limitations.
In addition, and in tune with the first point above, the winners coming from those particular posts -- #2 and #3 in this thread's study -- can be heavily skewed towards overlays or underlays. In short, there might be a lot of value coming from post 2 and little in post 3. All this is the result of random post drawings, and not at all from track configurations, pace scenarios, and the like.
IMO, relative value, trip info, and raw pace data have to be used with all post position studies to lend any context.
|
