[Tim Y]

What do many statistics actually tell us?

I constantly hear conclusions reached on SKEWED inadequate data. Just recently I was discussing how trainer stats (because of their VERY limited and dynamic changes) are so full of holes when viewed objectively.

Trainer Smith is a 45% trainer of 3 year old fillies. He may have 8 3 y/o fillies but ONE of them accounted for just about all the wins. Is HE that great a trainer, or RATHER, does he not have a great FILLY in his barn? Also IF you look at these same data over a long period of time, with the changing nature of many a barn in the make up of their stock running, one season to the other this same trainer may hardly have ANY 3 y/o fillies in the barn.

Troy Taylor, a respected journeyman trainer in Vancouver had never been in the top ten trainers at Hastings since 1965. He was contacted by a generous, horse loving benefactor (Glenn Todd who was the force behind Mario Gutierrez's transition to greatness) who cares a lot for the game and was not afraid to spend money to get many low level stakes horses off the tracks at Pimlico, the Fair Grounds and Saratoga and bring them west. This influx of great stock gave this journeyman trainer a great edge on HIS competition and LO and BEHOLD, ever since the marriage of these two forces, TAYLOR has been leading trainer at Hastings. Did HE, all of a sudden, get to be a prodigy or, did the horses get better? Just like the pass receiving percentage for quarterbacks is too dependent upon their receivers rather than the thrower, statistics on the trainer are overly influenced by the level of stock one has in the barn. As such they should not be trusted.

BASIC statistical analysis has to be viewed in this light or we are lost at making the realistic conclusions.

Read THE DRUNKARD'S WALK: How Randomness Rules Our Lives, and it will make you have a completely new interpretation on the LIMITED conclusions we can take from poorly set up, but somehow trusted statistical evaluations.