The Derby Beyer is....

[jeebus1083]

...according to DRF and Andy Beyer... 97.

[Bullet Plane]

Yes, and that seems way too low.

Danza's last Beyer before this race was a 102. He was beaten three lengths by Chrome in the Derby. At a mile and a quarter that's 1.5 points per length..

So, 4.5 plus 102 would be 107.

Also, take Samraat whose last race was a 98 Beyer. He lost by 5.75 lengths. Again 1.5 times the 5.75, I get 8... 98 plus 8, get you about the same figure of 107.

106-108 is about what Chrome has been running, and makes sense.

Haven't had a chance to compare the race to the other routes on the card yet.

[Greyfox]

Yes, and that seems way too low.

.

The track was fast and the race was slow finishing 2:03 and change.
I don't do Beyers, but I suspect that 97 is probably right.

[RunForTheRoses]

Wow, I guess he ain't the second coming of Secretariat, just the best of a bad bunch. What did the filly get in the Oaks?

[fmolf]

I still cannot believe with all the speed horses and need the lead types in this race that nobody tried to steal it on the front end!

[Tom]

107 for the Oaks, 100 for the Won't Take Charge race.

[classhandicapper]

That seems low based on the quality of the horses going in, but probably reasonable based on the slow final time on a day that was generally producing fast final times.

It's always possible there was a wind or some wind gusts against them in the stretch (if anyone knows post it). That would mean they ran against wind for a long period of the race. It would also account for why the early fractions weren't particularly fast.

It's also possible that the track changed speeds during the long break because they didn't water it enough on a dry windy day.

Finally, this wasn't the typical day at Churchill where running wide can often either be a neutral or even favorable trip. A lot of horse lost ground. So this may be a case where ground adjusting the figures makes some sense.

In any event, I'm not going to take that figure too seriously. I think this crop is fine. Chrome had good figures in CA and several of the other horses that finished close had good figures off their last prep. The reality is probably somewhere in between the this low figure and how they looked coming in. This isn't science. I'll call it a 103 and forget about it. :lol:

[GMB@BP]

Did a single horse improve their form in the race, did all 20 run a worse race then their tops?

Something just seems odd with the time, not the figure making. I wont use this race for anything going forward in terms of figures.

[BIG49010]

I thought it might be a little lower than that, 2nd place horse ran 89 last out.

[raybo]

Seems pretty obvious to me that the race ran slow, and CC was 2nd early, so his figure should likewise be low. I don't think the field was poor, but rather I think everyone was so afraid of a murderous pace that they all decided to not push it early, which of course produces low figures.

[taxicab]

I'm guessing the wind was a factor in the final time.
I think in the bloodhorse replay(I used a different one, the CD replay) you can see the trees behind the starting gate kicking around some.
It also seemed like the camera was shaking a bit during the race.
But the one thing that sold me on the wind was the flags.
In this replay as the field straightens on to the backstretch please notice a blue flag blowing strongly to the left.
And as the horses continue down the backstretch there is a giant American flag also blowing counterclockwise.
I have no problem with any race number based on time,the time was correct.
What I will say is there may of been a headwind that could of counterfeited the final time.


http://youtu.be/j1hZ7d-gLnw

[BIG49010]

I need DNA like yours in the pools!! :lol:

What ever pal, I guess you agree with the guy in the Silver tin foil suit, this is the greatest horse in modern history. I tend to disagree.

When I look at a Grade 1 race and a horse that should be running in an Allowance NW 1, runs second it sends up flags as a rather weak bunch.

[Bullet Plane]

What ever pal, I guess you agree with the guy in the Silver tin foil suit, this is the greatest horse in modern history. I tend to disagree.

When I look at a Grade 1 race and a horse that should be running in an Allowance NW 1, runs second it sends up flags as a rather weak bunch.


Nope. just questioning the figure.

[rstp354]

Seems too low...I wonder what the BRIS fig is. No fig in today's Handicapper's Edge wrap-up.

[pandy]

the route races were much slower than the sprint races, so the wind may have been a factor going two turns.

Does anyone have a history of top Derby Beyers?

[PhantomOnTour]

the route races were much slower than the sprint races, so the wind may have been a factor going two turns.

Does anyone have a history of top Derby Beyers?
This was the lowest winning Beyer for the Derby since the figs have been in print....a 97.
Previous low was Giacomo's 100 in 2005.
Monarchos has the highest Derby Beyer at 116.

[BIG49010]

I just think to come up with that Beyer number, they did quite a bit of projecting. On the surface it was a rather slow paced race, and they didn't run a very fast final quarter for these type of horses either, considering that.

History will be the judge, and I don't see breeders knocking down doors to get to the sons of Lucky Pulpit, Street Boss, or Master Command.

[dannyhill]

I just think to come up with that Beyer number, they did quite a bit of projecting. On the surface it was a rather slow paced race, and they didn't run a very fast final quarter for these type of horses either, considering that.

History will be the judge, and I don't see breeders knocking down doors to get to the sons of Lucky Pulpit, Street Boss, or Master Command.
In relation to the final time the pace was not rather slow, nor was it rather fast. You cannot judge a pace without considering the final time.

[Some_One]

Yes, and that seems way too low.

Danza's last Beyer before this race was a 102. He was beaten three lengths by Chrome in the Derby. At a mile and a quarter that's 1.5 points per length..

So, 4.5 plus 102 would be 107.

Also, take Samraat whose last race was a 98 Beyer. He lost by 5.75 lengths. Again 1.5 times the 5.75, I get 8... 98 plus 8, get you about the same figure of 107.

106-108 is about what Chrome has been running, and makes sense.

Haven't had a chance to compare the race to the other routes on the card yet.

There is no way you can say Danza ran to his Ark Derby performance when he was bounced around like a pinball and checked a couple of times late

[PhantomOnTour]

There is no way you can say Danza ran to his Ark Derby performance when he was bounced around like a pinball and checked a couple of times late
He veered out badly in midstretch and caused some trouble for Wicked Strong.
I couldn't tell from the angle I saw, but did a horse inside of Danza come out, forcing him to swerve like that?

and no inquiry

[classhandicapper]

IMO figure making is not science. There is going to be some variance from figure maker to figure maker on the easy days to make figures, let alone the tough ones. That's why I personally don't take any numbers too literally anymore. I just want to know if the pace and race were fast, average, or slow for the class. But yesterday at CD was a kind of nightmare scenario for figure makers. It was windy, there was gusts, and there were long gaps between races on dirt. The track didn't even play like it normally does in terms of inside and outside paths. To make matters worse, the Derby is at distance with a somewhat limited sample size that many of the horses may or may not like and the wind may have been a bigger factor because of the long run in the stretch TWICE.

I would take whatever figures anyone publishes with a grain of salt and more or less maintain a similar opinion of the horses that I had going into the race.

CA Chrome is a very good, but not great horse that ran solid figures in CA with somewhat soft trips.

Wicked Strong and Danza are solid horses that may win Grade 1s in the future if they continue developing and find the right spot.

I'd look at the trips, running styles, and likely distance preferences of all the horses to evaluate how they ran yesterday without worrying too much about a single figure that is likely to be inaccurate anyway.

[dannyhill]

Bravo looked over his right shoulder and moved danza out quickly and dangerously across Medal Count and Wicked Strong's paths.
Why no objection and no inquiry is the question.

[Dark Horse]

Seems pretty obvious to me that the race ran slow, and CC was 2nd early, so his figure should likewise be low. I don't think the field was poor, but rather I think everyone was so afraid of a murderous pace that they all decided to not push it early, which of course produces low figures.

Bingo.

[cj]

I haven't looked to see if Beyer used a different variant for the Derby than the other routes. I'm busy trying to make my own numbers. But, I'll say this much, and it should be pretty obvious. There was a strong wind into the face of the horses down the stretch. The Derby is run at 10f, meaning there was an extra 1.5 furlongs run into the wind than there was for the two 8.5 furlong races.

I also know that running into the wind hurts times much more than running with the wind helps times. A much larger portion of the Derby was run into the wind than any other race on the card.

[Bullet Plane]

There is no way you can say Danza ran to his Ark Derby performance when he was bounced around like a pinball and checked a couple of times late


Well, O.K.,

Then take Dance with Fate, who finished 1/2 length behind Samraat...

and Ride on Curlin, who finished 1/2 length behind Dance with Fate..

Both had run 98's confirming Samraat's number... so, we have a whole group of horses that can run about a 98 finishing about 6 lengths behind Chrome... 6 x 1.5 = 9...

98 + 9= 107 Beyer figure for Chrome.

Also, take note.. the pace must have been quick, because only Chrome and Samraat withstood the pace...

2nd finisher: Commanding Curve, (who jumped up big time) came from way back 18th at the 1/4 call.

3rd finisher: Danza came from 12 back at the 1/4 call

4th finisher Wicked Strong came from 14th back at the 1/4 call.

It was a closers paradise.

[classhandicapper]

I haven't looked to see if Beyer used a different variant for the Derby than the other routes. I'm busy trying to make my own numbers. But, I'll say this much, and it should be pretty obvious. There was a strong wind into the face of the horses down the stretch. The Derby is run at 10f, meaning there was an extra 1.5 furlongs run into the wind than there was for the two 8.5 furlong races.

I also know that running into the wind hurts times much more than running with the wind helps times. A much larger portion of the Derby was run into the wind than any other race on the card.

Also impacts the early fractions and perceptions about the pace.

[cj]

Also impacts the early fractions and perceptions about the pace.

Absolutely, think the early pace, at least the first 1/2 mile, is quicker than many think it was.

[taxicab]

I haven't looked to see if Beyer used a different variant for the Derby than the other routes. I'm busy trying to make my own numbers. But, I'll say this much, and it should be pretty obvious. There was a strong wind into the face of the horses down the stretch. The Derby is run at 10f, meaning there was an extra 1.5 furlongs run into the wind than there was for the two 8.5 furlong races.

I also know that running into the wind hurts times much more than running with the wind helps times. A much larger portion of the Derby was run into the wind than any other race on the card.


Yes.

[Some_One]

Well, O.K.,

Then take Dance with Fate, who finished 1/2 length behind Samraat...

and Ride on Curlin, who finished 1/2 length behind Dance with Fate..

Both had run 98's confirming Samraat's number... so, we have a whole group of horses that can run about a 98 finishing about 6 lengths behind Chrome... 6 x 1.5 = 9...

98 + 9= 107 Beyer figure for Chrome.

Also, take note.. the pace must have been quick, because only Chrome and Samraat withstood the pace...

2nd finisher: Commanding Curve, (who jumped up big time) came from way back 18th at the 1/4 call.

3rd finisher: Danza came from 12 back at the 1/4 call

4th finisher Wicked Strong came from 14th back at the 1/4 call.

It was a closers paradise.

So you are going to have more than half the field pairing up their tops in a bumper Derby where ~16 of the 19 horses took some sort of interference? Reminds me back to the I Want Revenge Wood Memorial where the whole field ran new tops just to justify giving a big number to IWR.

[cj]

A few other things people aren't considering...


Extra weight carried (126 vs 123 or less in prior races)
Extra furlong-not a half furlong, but a full extra furlong
Ground loss-horses lose much more ground on average in the Derby than a typical race, and the winner was certainly no exception.

[Saratoga_Mike]

A few other things people aren't considering...


Extra weight carried (126 vs 123 or less in prior races)
Extra furlong-not a half furlong, but a full extra furlong
Ground loss-horses lose much more ground on average in the Derby than a typical race, and the winner was certainly no exception.


An extra 3 lbs? What's that worth, maybe a couple of Beyer points? That seemed to be Beyer's conclusion in Beyer on Speed.

[cj]

An extra 3 lbs? What's that worth, maybe a couple of Beyer points? That seemed to be Beyer's conclusion in Beyer on Speed.

Probably one point, definitely a much smaller factor than the ground loss. The wind probably made the race longer than the 10f distance as well.

If California Chrome lost 5 lengths of ground, which is probably conservative, that is a good 8 or 9 points right there.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Probably one point, definitely a much smaller factor than the ground loss. The wind probably made the race longer than the 10f distance as well.

If California Chrome lost 5 lengths of ground, which is probably conservative, that is a good 8 or 9 points right there.

Good point on the wind. We'll see what type of number The Sheets give him.

Will you post your number on here (not sure how that works now with TFUSA)?

[cj]

Good point on the wind. We'll see what type of number The Sheets give him.

Will you post your number on here (not sure how that works now with TFUSA)?

I can do that...I usually put them on Twitter.

I did a VERY preliminary number of 104 last night, but this is a very tough card for a variety of reasons.

[cj]

Good point on the wind. We'll see what type of number The Sheets give him.

Will you post your number on here (not sure how that works now with TFUSA)?

I'm leaning towards 110 for the winner, 108-107 for the next two. Still got a little work to do.

It means 1-3 finishers regressed somewhat, runner up big new top, and probably regressions for most of the others. That doesn't really surprise me, many horses run really poor numbers in the Derby every year.

[pandy]

Bravo looked over his right shoulder and moved danza out quickly and dangerously across Medal Count and Wicked Strong's paths.
Why no objection and no inquiry is the question.

Exactly. It was a reckless ride by Bravo, who probably figured he could get away with it since they never have an inquiry in the Derby.

[classhandicapper]

Probably one point, definitely a much smaller factor than the ground loss. The wind probably made the race longer than the 10f distance as well.

If California Chrome lost 5 lengths of ground, which is probably conservative, that is a good 8 or 9 points right there.

The thing I thought was significant in that regard is that CD often plays better to the outside paths even when the rail is not dead. So it typically might not be 1 length of ground loss = 1 length of time lost. Big Brown's year was kind of like that, but it happens often there. Yesterday, CD was playing more like the typical track where being 3-4 wide was actually a disadvantage.

[cj]

The thing I thought was significant in that regard is that CD often plays better to the outside paths even when the rail is not dead. So it typically might not be 1 length of ground loss = 1 length of time lost. Big Brown's year was kind of like that, but it happens often there. Yesterday, CD was playing more like the typical track where being 3-4 wide was actually a disadvantage.

Agree, outside wasn't so great yesterday.

[jeebus1083]

What would the 110 Timeform fig equate to on the Beyer scale?

[cj]

What would the 110 Timeform fig equate to on the Beyer scale?

Around 103. Doesn't sound like much difference to a 97, but it is about 3.5 lengths.

[Stillriledup]

Another factor is that with the 90 mins to post, the track might have dried out more than it normally does, so, knowing when they last watered the track is a factor, especially with the wind, it dries that surface quicker, be interesting to watch the replay and see if any "mud" was caked on the losing horses.

I think that in a mile and a quarter race, even if the pace is slow, the race is SO long and they are all carrying 126 (not to mention extremely tight prerace security) that even with the slow-ish pace, they arent' going to be finishing. The race is just too long, horses are going to slow down late no matter how fast the pace happens to be.

[cj]

Another factor is that with the 90 mins to post, the track might have dried out more than it normally does, so, knowing when they last watered the track is a factor, especially with the wind, it dries that surface quicker, be interesting to watch the replay and see if any "mud" was caked on the losing horses.

I think that in a mile and a quarter race, even if the pace is slow, the race is SO long and they are all carrying 126 (not to mention extremely tight prerace security) that even with the slow-ish pace, they arent' going to be finishing. The race is just too long, horses are going to slow down late no matter how fast the pace happens to be.

Moisture was a factor in my opinion. I did more work on more angles for this race and card than any before. It is the Derby, so that should be expected. It was a bizarre card for figure making, that is for sure.

[pandy]

1987 Alysheba 104
1988 Winning Colors 113
1989 Sunday Silence 101
1990 Unbridled 116
1991 Strike the Gold 107
1992 Lil E. Tee 107
1993 Sea Hero 105
1994 Go for Gin 112
1995 Thunder Gulch 108
1996 Grindstone 112
1997 Silver Charm 115
1998 Real Quiet 107
1999 Charismatic 108
2000 Fusaichi Pegasus 108
2001 Monarchos 116
2002 War Emblem 114
2003 Funny Cide 109
2004 Smarty Jones 107
2005 Giacomo 100
2006 Barbaro 111
2007 Street Sense 110
2008 Big Brown 109
2009 Mine That Bird 105

[pandy]

I haven't looked to see if Beyer used a different variant for the Derby than the other routes. I'm busy trying to make my own numbers. But, I'll say this much, and it should be pretty obvious. There was a strong wind into the face of the horses down the stretch. The Derby is run at 10f, meaning there was an extra 1.5 furlongs run into the wind than there was for the two 8.5 furlong races.

I also know that running into the wind hurts times much more than running with the wind helps times. A much larger portion of the Derby was run into the wind than any other race on the card.

Good analysis, CJ. This is the key. Also, the 8.5 furlong races were slowed down by the wind, but the sprints weren't because the horses had the wind behind them down the backstretch. So the track speed was misleading. After a few sprints, it looked like the track was on the quick side, but the routes weren't fast. Once you factor in the wind, then it all makes sense. The Beyer of 97 may be too low.

Some professional bettors key in on things like this, the wind producing erroneous speed figures. Good way to catch overlays. In this case, there is no value to be had on the winner, because C. Chrome will be a very short price in the Preakness. Personally, I'm going to upgrade the speed figures of the three route races that were longer than a mile. The wind slowed those races down. And, I will downgrade the speed figures from the sprints.

[Maximillion]

Another factor is that with the 90 mins to post, the track might have dried out more than it normally does, so, knowing when they last watered the track is a factor, especially with the wind, it dries that surface quicker, be interesting to watch the replay and see if any "mud" was caked on the losing horses.

I think that in a mile and a quarter race, even if the pace is slow, the race is SO long and they are all carrying 126 (not to mention extremely tight prerace security) that even with the slow-ish pace, they arent' going to be finishing. The race is just too long, horses are going to slow down late no matter how fast the pace happens to be.

Im not convinced the pace was slow,despite the raw fractionals.Judging by the way the race finished, its seems possible it may have even been on the fast side...but I dont hold a strong opinion either way

[iceknight]

Wow, I guess he ain't the second coming of Secretariat, just the best of a bad bunch. What did the filly get in the Oaks?It seems more that most of you need some approval from Beyer, instead of making up your minds on your own. Didnt he take a while before coming around to admitting that Zenyatta might be a good horse?

Further, I should be quite clear that I do not have a very high respect for "Beyers". No matter how many columns they write at DRF, they never seem objective.

For a bettor out to make money, it makes more sense to discount Beyers and make their ad hoc speed figures and make predictions. Now, if BSF calculations were completely transparent (like open source computer simulation models) then one could agree that BSF making was "science". Until then, I am buying figures with "assigned variants" and other gut feelings - which are expected to be taken as "objective figures".

[Seabiscuit@AR]

I have just read Beyer's article on the race and he makes a good case for the low Beyer. His basic take is that 3YOs in the USA cannot run 10 furlongs like they used to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/california-chromes-kentucky-derby-victory-was-aesthetically-pleasing-historically-slow/2014/05/04/6f56277e-d3a9-11e3-8a78-8fe50322a72c_story.html

[iceknight]

haha Beyer is trying to justify his product. Ask him to grow up and admit that he is not able to figure out the game like he used to.

[raybo]

Personally, I think he pretty much nailed the post-race analysis. Wind or not, the early part of the race was run much slower than most of us predicted, and the wind isn't going to cost all the horses that much time. I still believe everyone was afraid of going fast early and getting run over at the end. Another second faster early and things would have been much more interesting, and that second faster still wouldn't have been suicidal, IMO.

We didn't get to see the ability of most of these horses because the pace was so slow and the field was so bunched up, causing many horses to be compromised by all the bumping and jockeying for position.

I'm sure glad I didn't bet this thing, and even more happy that CD didn't get a dime of my money.

Go ahead, take your shots,but I think Andy is right. We didn't see a good race because of the way it was run. CC is good, but he didn't show me that he is great, not even close. Maybe he didn't have to because the pace went his way. And maybe we'll see what these horses can really do, later, sure hope so because I think there are some very good horses this year, despite what happened in the Derby.

[pandy]

Im not convinced the pace was slow,despite the raw fractionals.Judging by the way the race finished, its seems possible it may have even been on the fast side...but I dont hold a strong opinion either way


That's certainly a possibility. Samraat seems like a pretty tough horse, and he was close to the pace and finished off the board. If the pace had been slow, I don't see why he couldn't have stayed on better, especially since the time was slow. And, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th finishes all rallied from off the pace, with Commanding Curve, a one-paced horse, coming from way back for the place. And, the winner opened up a 5 length lead, but C.Chrome was coming back to the field at the end. If the pace was slow, wouldn't he have pulled away from them?

This Derby is an interesting look at how wind can change the fractions and time of a race, skew the speed and pace figures, and, subsequently, effect the odds of the horses in future races. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is one of the things that some professional bettors follow closely (i.e., wind and how it effects the race and times). I've known professional bettors in harness and thoroughbred that keep good notes on wind current and direction and adjust figures for it.

From a handicapping perspective, this is the main difference between recreational handicappers and professional bettors. Pros look for these anomalies and use them to their advantage.

[tophatmert]

The result charts for high wind days often look like charts for sloppy track days . Big gaps between horses and hard to explain poor performances. Ragozin has been using a notation ( little g-windy, big G-very windy or gusty) for 30 years. I used to take notes(trips, ground loss ,run ups ,turf rails etc.) for a bettor and he was fanatical about getting the wind direction and speed right. A lot of the horses in this derby are not looking like they will be getting better. I tend to think Cal Chrome is not going to develop any more, he is fast but maybe a lightly raced colt could develop by Travers time to give him some competition.

[ubercapper]

Preface: This is not a knock on any other figure maker. Just pointing out there are different figure maker opinions.

California Chrome earned a 107 Equibase Speed Figure for the Derby. He had earned a 109 for the San Felipe and 106 for the Santa Anita Derby.

For perspective, Orb's last two Equibase Speed Figures before the Derby were 105 & 97 and his Derby figure was 109.

[Greyfox]

I have just read Beyer's article on the race and he makes a good case for the low Beyer. His basic take is that 3YOs in the USA cannot run 10 furlongs like they used to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/california-chromes-kentucky-derby-victory-was-aesthetically-pleasing-historically-slow/2014/05/04/6f56277e-d3a9-11e3-8a78-8fe50322a72c_story.html

Thankyou for posting that interesting article Seabiscuit. :ThmbUp:

Greyfox

[dasch]

I have just read Beyer's article on the race and he makes a good case for the low Beyer. His basic take is that 3YOs in the USA cannot run 10 furlongs like they used to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/california-chromes-kentucky-derby-victory-was-aesthetically-pleasing-historically-slow/2014/05/04/6f56277e-d3a9-11e3-8a78-8fe50322a72c_story.html

This article is further evidence to a few things:

1) East coast bias. No matter how slow the times, if an east coast horse wins a big race it gets a big number......if "New York Chrome" would have won the Derby the Beyer would have been 110+ and the slow final time would have been explained due to hurricane force winds going through Louisville as the race was run.

2) If Andy Beyer stands behind the "process" in which the Derby number was made then it is further evidence in the huge flaws in his "process". The Derby numbers lined up VERY WELL for me and California Chrome ran the exact same race he has recently and im not even 1% uncertain.

3)"Intelligent" people will try to use their "intelligence" to explain any scenario they WANT to believe no matter how blatant the evidence is to the contrary. Beyer I guess expects everybody to believe that ONLY Commanding Curve ran his race and NOBODY else? Ridiculous....

I engage in talk about the Beyers but they are worthless to me as IMO they are incredibly inconsistent. And whatever the exact "process" they use these days to come up with the numbers, it seems their methods can change on a whim leading to more opinion influence in the numbers aka disaster.

[Dark Horse]

This article is further evidence to a few things:

1) East coast bias. No matter how slow the times, if an east coast horse wins a big race it gets a big number......if "New York Chrome" would have won the Derby the Beyer would have been 110+ and the slow final time would have been explained due to hurricane force winds going through Louisville as the race was run.

2) If Andy Beyer stands behind the "process" in which the Derby number was made then it is further evidence in the huge flaws in his "process". The Derby numbers lined up VERY WELL for me and California Chrome ran the exact same race he has recently and im not even 1% uncertain.

3)"Intelligent" people will try to use their "intelligence" to explain any scenario they WANT to believe no matter how blatant the evidence is to the contrary. Beyer I guess expects everybody to believe that ONLY Commanding Curve ran his race and NOBODY else? Ridiculous....

I engage in talk about the Beyers but they are worthless to me as IMO they are incredibly inconsistent. And whatever the exact "process" they use these days to come up with the numbers, it seems their methods can change on a whim leading to more opinion influence in the numbers aka disaster.

Agreed. Beyers are their own narrative.

I always thought that wrong beliefs were the problem, but came to see that the real problem is the narrative that, like a king, these beliefs serve.

[Tom]

haha Beyer is trying to justify his product. Ask him to grow up and admit that he is not able to figure out the game like he used to.

So you ignore the fact that he had the winner on top going into the race?
What he writes in article has zero to do with the effectiveness of his numbers.
Care to provide data that shows them to be as bad you seem to think they are?

Agreed. Beyers are their own narrative.

Agree here. Lots of time they have said to me, "Nice hit!" :D

[Dark Horse]

Agree here. Lots of time they have said to me, "Nice hit!" :D


All information that is easily available is already incorporated into the line. Doesn't mean it can't identify a winner. It does mean that .... ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

1) East coast bias. No matter how slow the times, if an east coast horse wins a big race it gets a big number......You could have stopped right there...beyond this point, nobody is taking you seriously...

[dasch]

You could have stopped right there...beyond this point, nobody is taking you seriously...

If you read the whole paragraph I am OBVIOUSLY exaggerating and it certainly doesnt occur in every race or even most races but if you dont believe that there IS an east coast bias in some instances well then I have a few things for sale you might be interested in..............

[PaceAdvantage]

If you read the whole paragraph I am OBVIOUSLY exaggerating and it certainly doesnt occur in every race or even most races but if you dont believe that there IS an east coast bias in some instances well then I have a few things for sale you might be interested in..............I know you were exaggerating about the hurricane...lol...that's why I didn't include it in my reply.

[horses4courses]

I've never understood how a speed figure can accurately reflect the ease with which certain horses win races.
It's totally subjective, and how the figure maker can gauge the energy output of the animal is comparable to the work of a tarot card psychic.

Not to say that speed figures don't have merit - they certainly do.
Accurately gauging a horse's performance and output with a number,
though, can be highly misleading.

[iceknight]

So you ignore the fact that he had the winner on top going into the race?
What he writes in article has zero to do with the effectiveness of his numbers.
Care to provide data that shows them to be as bad you seem to think they are?
Who didn't ? CC was the favorite. If BSF numbers are not effective, there is no sense is using them as a comparison tool to discuss multiple races.

Let us see what he wrote: "the pace was slow early" -- but his other top pick Wicked Strong was still not able to get close to the rail early on then.

I have respect for CC, but have never been a serious fan, but I will say this. Beyer's writing does not seem objective. I don't have any hand wavy data like how Beyer generates numbers for muddy tracks that Orb ran on ("reasonably confident in the accuracy of Orb’s Beyer Speed Figure of 104 (http://www.drf.com/news/andrew-beyer-orbs-kentucky-derby-was-victory-old-school) ) or his wonderful praise for a horse that fits into his cohort better.

Untapable beats 11 horses and that is mentioned as beating a strong field of fillies while a horse beating 18 others is "Meh, he got lucky due to slow pace".

Beyer's praise of Orb on the other hand was quite enormous last year.

"As Orb aims for the Preakness and the Belmont Stakes, he doesn’t appear to have many credible rivals. "
Why wouldn't anybody not question bias?

>>Just read dasch's post. Well put.

[PhantomOnTour]

I have said before that I don't trust Beyer figs on races over 9f.
Heck - it's hard to trust any dirt figs over 9f since those distances are rarely run...there's just no sample size:

>unless they run the Pimlico Special, the Preakness will be the only 9.5f dirt race run the entire meet.
>how many 10f dirt races are run at CD during the year? probably just one.
>Belmont runs a handful of 12f races during the year

In my opinion, the Beyer fig was a little low at 97.
Comparing it to the number I gave the race, I estimate the Beyer should have been around a 103-105.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's kind of funny watching people claim they know more about what a Beyer figure should be than Beyer himself... :lol:

[raybo]

I agree Mike, while I'm not a figure guy, and certainly not a Beyer figure guy, the dude knows what he's talking about when it comes to racing, and his own figs. I've already stated that I agree with his assessment of the Derby, regardless of what his fig was for the winner or any other horse in the race.

[classhandicapper]

I have just read Beyer's article on the race and he makes a good case for the low Beyer. His basic take is that 3YOs in the USA cannot run 10 furlongs like they used to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/california-chromes-kentucky-derby-victory-was-aesthetically-pleasing-historically-slow/2014/05/04/6f56277e-d3a9-11e3-8a78-8fe50322a72c_story.html


IMHO, there is no iron clad rule that says 6f in "x time" = 10F in "Y time" etc...

If the horses, surfaces, or anything else changes, so should the charts.

The point of speed figures is not to compare horses of the past with those of the present. It's to compare horse of the present that run on different days, different tracks, or different distances. So maybe it's time to change the parallel time charts to reflect the talents and skills of today's horses.

[cj]

Another thing that isn't being considered is that track was almost definitely slower for the Derby (not including the wind element). The watered before each dirt race, and the Derby was no different. What was different was the time between watering and the gate open, obviously much different for the Derby. That was magnified due to the wind which would dry, and thus slow, the track at a quicker rate than on a calm day.

I'm a big fan of Beyer. But, he is saying that a horse that has been running fast, had a good trip (at least for a Kentucky Derby), and pretty much crushed his rivals, regressed eight lengths due to three extra pounds and an extra furlong of distance. I'm not buying it.

[Tom]

It's kind of funny watching people claim they know more about what a Beyer figure should be than Beyer himself... :lol:

Yes, he sucks because he gave a low number for the race, but he still sucks because he gave him the best numbers going in because he was the favorite and speed figure should pick the favorite.
But he had the best number going in and coming out. Andy, you loose cannon you! :lol::lol::lol:

[Tom]

It's totally subjective, and how the figure maker can gauge the energy output of the animal is comparable to the work of a tarot card psychic.

The numbers are tell you how fast the horse ran, not how much energy he used. You have to decide that part of it. When you have a slow pace, the horses can only go fast late.

[iceknight]

It's kind of funny watching people claim they know more about what a Beyer figure should be than Beyer himself... :lol: I dont have any problem with a "low Beyer". But for him to expect everyone else to believe his numbers and using that a basis to knock a horse's performance.. that is an issue.

[thaskalos]

The numbers are tell you how fast the horse ran, not how much energy he used. You have to decide that part of it. When you have a slow pace, the horses can only go fast late.

Yes...but here the horses had a relatively slow pace, and they DIDN'T go fast late.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I dont have any problem with a "low Beyer". But for him to expect everyone else to believe his numbers and using that a basis to knock a horse's performance.. that is an issue.

Where is that expectation stated in the article? I guarantee Beyer would love to turn the clock back 35 years (for betting purposes), to a time when very few used speed figures of any kind.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Another thing that isn't being considered is that track was almost definitely slower for the Derby (not including the wind element). The watered before each dirt race, and the Derby was no different. What was different was the time between watering and the gate open, obviously much different for the Derby. That was magnified due to the wind which would dry, and thus slow, the track at a quicker rate than on a calm day.

I'm a big fan of Beyer. But, he is saying that a horse that has been running fast, had a good trip (at least for a Kentucky Derby), and pretty much crushed his rivals, regressed eight lengths due to three extra pounds and an extra furlong of distance. I'm not buying it.

As you stated yesterday, the weight may have accounted for a point, so I'd attribute the balance to the distance. I'm kind of buying it.

[dannyhill]

Don't believe it has been mentioned but the opening quarter was faster than it appears. 23.04 with a 34 feet run-up with the entire quarter into a decent head wind. Granted they got a breather down the backside, but that opening quarter was anything but slow.

[cj]

Yes...but here the horses had a relatively slow pace, and they DIDN'T go fast late.

I don't buy the relatively slow pace part. 23.04 into a strong headwind for a 1m 1/4 race is pretty darn quick in my opinion.

[cj]

As you stated yesterday, the weight may have accounted for a point, so I'd attribute the balance to the distance. I'm kind of buying it.

So you discount that they ran 1.5 furlongs further into the wind than for the other routes, and that the track wasn't watered for well over an hour before post time and was slower?

He already added "wind points", but it was more a random guess than anything backed up by data.

[Saratoga_Mike]

So you discount that they ran 1.5 furlongs further into the wind than for the other routes, and that the track wasn't watered for well over an hour before post time and was slower?

He already added "wind points", but it was more a random guess than anything backed up by data.

I respect your opinion and I respect Beyer's opinion. Therefore, I'm "kind of buying it" (i.e., I'm in between).

[Tom]

Yes...but here the horses had a relatively slow pace, and they DIDN'T go fast late.

Maybe because of wind and rain (water truck)?

[classhandicapper]

I'm viewing this from an entirely different perspective than everyone else.

While I share the interest everyone has in the track speed, impact of wind on pace, impact of wind on final time, impact of pace on final time, moisture level in the surface, impact of ground loss, weight etc.... I don't see much point in obsessing about the figure unless you are in the unenviable position of having to publish one to people that are obsessing about it. ;)

Does anyone think CA Chrome isn't as good as they thought he was after the SA Derby because some people gave him a slow figure for one of the most complicated races to make figures for you are ever going to find?

A reasonable debate can be had over his distance preference, but I think it was pretty clear going into the Derby he was a very good but not great May 3yo and I've seen nothing to change my mind based on the Derby. I still think he's very good even though I bet against him.

[cj]

Does anyone think CA Chrome isn't as good as they thought he was after the SA Derby because some people gave him a slow figure for one of the most complicated races to make figures for you are ever going to find?

Sure seems to me a lot of people do think he isn't as good judging by what I've seen.

[Cratos]

According to the National Weather Service historical charts the wind speed at Churchill Downs was between 10 -15 mph West between 6p -7p at the time the Derby was run and the Churchill Downs racetrack geographical orientation is 58 degrees NE which would have the horses running into the wind approximately at a 32 degree angle to their broadside.

Yes, the winds did gust up to 31 mph, but that was earlier during the race card before the Derby was run.

Therefore the wind speed at the time of the Derby would put the wind force at a 4 on the Land Beaufort scale which states this force is a moderate breeze that raises dust, loose paper, and move small branches.

In other words virtually no impact on the horses speed, but it might have been an annoyance to the horses themselves.

California Chrome’s time of 2:03.66 normalizes to 2:03.66-.44 which equals a 2:03.22 adjusted time. This would put him about 1.09 seconds below the historical Derby average of 2:02.13 over the last 66 years.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Actually, CJ is correct on the wind.

At 5:52 pm: avg wind was 18 mph with gusts up to 26 mph

At 6:52 pm: avg wind was 15 mph with gusts up to 24 mph

Post time was 6:33 pm for the Derby. I think it's safe to conclude the avg wind for the Derby was maybe 15 to 16 MPH with gusts up to 25 MPH.

http://www.windfinder.com/report/wind/cincinnati_northern_kentucky_airport/2014-05-03

Click the link or simply view the lady singing the National Anthem (she thought it was very windy).

[Greyfox]

Cyclists will tell you that riding into a wind has it's main impact on the front bikes.
Horses drafting behind the pace setters in a tightly packed field would only be minimally impeded.

[plainolebill]

I don't buy the relatively slow pace part. 23.04 into a strong headwind for a 1m 1/4 race is pretty darn quick in my opinion.

This^

No matter how slow the rest of the race ran, anyone near the front end in the first quarter is going to pay for the energy expended early during the stretch run.

[cj]

Cyclists will tell you that riding into a wind has it's main impact on the front bikes.
Horses drafting behind the pace setters in a tightly packed field would only be minimally impeded.

California Chrome, I don't remember him drafting behind anyone.

[Stillriledup]

Cyclists will tell you that riding into a wind has it's main impact on the front bikes.
Horses drafting behind the pace setters in a tightly packed field would only be minimally impeded.

Its different because cyclists arent getting sand and debris splashed into their faces at a very high rate of speed. The covered horse gets the debris, the horse in the clear, like CC, gets none of that.

Also, the "covered up" theory works well in european turf races due to very little or no kickback, not the same in a dirt race.

[Greyfox]

California Chrome, I don't remember him drafting behind anyone.

He drafts in third for a good portion of the race.

WiDU58Rt8-I

[pandy]

I don't buy the relatively slow pace part. 23.04 into a strong headwind for a 1m 1/4 race is pretty darn quick in my opinion.

I agree. I think Randy Moss is going to write something about this. He has been tweeting about the wind. If the pace had been so slow, as some think, then how come the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place horses all rallied from far back? I also think that Samraat is a very game colt, and even after a speed duel, if the pace had truly been slow, he would have finished on the board.

[Stillriledup]

I agree. I think Randy Moss is going to write something about this. He has been tweeting about the wind. If the pace had been so slow, as some think, then how come the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place horses all rallied from far back? I also think that Samraat is a very game colt, and even after a speed duel, if the pace had truly been slow, he would have finished on the board.

Because the distance is 1 and 1/4 and most of these horses can't run that far. Remember, just because a horse is in this race, doesn't mean he's a true stamina router type. American breeding has gotten away from stamina and we have started breeding more speed into the pedigrees, these 19 horses were some of the 19 best, but that doesn't mean that any of them can go a mile and a quarter in a race that has very tight prerace security, in other words, many of these were not only not able genetically to go a mile and a quarter, but they had "no help" this was essentially an oats and hay race.

No matter how slow the pace is, they could have went 52 and 116, if you can't "Get" the mile and a quarter, you're going to stop in the lane.

[VeryOldMan]

Does anyone think CA Chrome isn't as good as they thought he was after the SA Derby because some people gave him a slow figure for one of the most complicated races to make figures for you are ever going to find?

A reasonable debate can be had over his distance preference, but I think it was pretty clear going into the Derby he was a very good but not great May 3yo and I've seen nothing to change my mind based on the Derby. I still think he's very good even though I bet against him.

+1

He's no Secretariat, Seattle Slew or Affirmed (Spectacular Bid, Easy Goer . . . ) but it was still a good performance and fun to see. I hope it is good for the sport. Seattle Slew came from humble origins back in his day, although maybe not THIS humble :)

[Cratos]

Cyclists will tell you that riding into a wind has it's main impact on the front bikes.
Horses drafting behind the pace setters in a tightly packed field would only be minimally impeded.

Please understand, the Derby horses never faced a "headwind" except momentarily in the middle of the far turn. The wind during race was coming from the West; the track is oriented Northeast.

Again, the wind did not help or hurt the horses speed to any significant extent.

The math for this problem is very simple.

[classhandicapper]

I agree. I think Randy Moss is going to write something about this. He has been tweeting about the wind. If the pace had been so slow, as some think, then how come the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place horses all rallied from far back? I also think that Samraat is a very game colt, and even after a speed duel, if the pace had truly been slow, he would have finished on the board.

I agree.

People are comparing the fractions of this race to some of the recent meltdown paces we've seen in the Derby. But those were super extreme paces without similar wind conditions. There's a lot between average and meltdown that is still fast.... especially relative to this final time.

There was plenty of stalking speed in there. Most of them backed up badly. So from a non "number" point of view, I don't think the evidence indicates that this was a slow or average pace. It wasn't killer, but it was lively/fast.

If I had God-like powers to adjust for everything perfectly I think it would say CC ran his race.

[Greyfox]

Again, the wind did not help or hurt the horses speed to any significant extent.



I believe you.

[Cratos]

I agree.

People are comparing the fractions of this race to some of the recent meltdown paces we've seen in the Derby. But those were super extreme paces without similar wind conditions. There's a lot between average and meltdown that is still fast.... especially relative to this final time.

There was plenty of stalking speed in there. Most of them backed up badly. So from a non "number" point of view, I don't think the evidence indicates that this was a slow or average pace. It wasn't killer, but it was lively/fast.

If I had God-like powers to adjust for everything perfectly I think it would say CC ran his race.

Why do you need "God-like powers"; do the math. The problem is too much complication to a simple problem.

[pandy]

Please understand, the Derby horses never faced a "headwind" except momentarily in the middle of the far turn. The wind during race was coming from the West; the track is oriented Northeast.

Again, the wind did not help or hurt the horses speed to any significant extent.

The math for this problem is very simple.

I didn't see it that way. The flag was blowing from left to right. To me, that's two headwinds for two turn races.

[classhandicapper]

Why do you need "God-like powers"; do the math. The problem is too much complication to a simple problem.

No one knows the exact impact that surface, at that time of day, with changing amounts of moisture in it, had on the fractions or final time. The surface was changing during the day because the time gaps between races were longer than usual and moisture was being added and evaporating in an inconsistent way.

No one knows the exact speed of the wind (including gusts), at every single point in the race and how it impacted each horse given some were in different positions.

No one knows the exact impact that pace had on the final time of each horse because they all have different levels of natural speed, overall ability, and ran different fractions (we don't even have exact fractions because beaten lengths are estimates).

No one knows the exact impact of the ground loss (which was particularly huge for many horse in this race) because tracks are rarely uniform from path to path.

These kinds of things impact all races. That's why if you look at 5 sets of figures you get 5 different answers. But most days can be narrowed down to a pretty tight range.

But for this particular race, the complexities were as large as you are likely to see. So I don't think anyone can know. They might think they know, but IMO they don't.

[elysiantraveller]

Cyclists will tell you that riding into a wind has it's main impact on the front bikes.
Horses drafting behind the pace setters in a tightly packed field would only be minimally impeded.
Distance/endurance swimmers would tell you the same thing.

[raybo]

I agree. I think Randy Moss is going to write something about this. He has been tweeting about the wind. If the pace had been so slow, as some think, then how come the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place horses all rallied from far back? I also think that Samraat is a very game colt, and even after a speed duel, if the pace had truly been slow, he would have finished on the board.

You're assuming of course, that Samraat was ready to run his race that day, and would have run well late. That may not be the case as we all know.

[Cratos]

No one knows the exact impact that surface, at that time of day, with changing amounts of moisture in it, had on the fractions or final time. The surface was changing during the day because the time gaps between races were longer than usual and moisture was being added and evaporating in an inconsistent way.

No one knows the exact speed of the wind (including gusts), at every single point in the race and how it impacted each horse given some were in different positions.

No one knows the exact impact that pace had on the final time of each horse because they all have different levels of natural speed, overall ability, and ran different fractions (we don't even have exact fractions because beaten lengths are estimates).

No one knows the exact impact of the ground loss (which was particularly huge for many horse in this race) because tracks are rarely uniform from path to path.

These kinds of things impact all races. That's why if you look at 5 sets of figures you get 5 different answers. But most days can be narrowed down to a pretty tight range.

But for this particular race, the complexities were as large as you are likely to see. So I don't think anyone can know. They might think they know, but IMO they don't.

Horseracing is about statistics and statistics is about estimation and probability. If we knew there wouldn't be a need to bet because there wouldn't be any odds.

Yes, the Ky Derby was complex, but not to extent that you need a PhD in Quantum Physics to understand what happened.

[theguarantee]

I agree. I think Randy Moss is going to write something about this. He has been tweeting about the wind. If the pace had been so slow, as some think, then how come the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place horses all rallied from far back? I also think that Samraat is a very game colt, and even after a speed duel, if the pace had truly been slow, he would have finished on the board.

FWIW, Samraat very likely, of any horse in the race, took the worst of any type of pace issues..since he tried to move with CC when he made his patented pull away around the turn. He still almost hit the board, and he lost a lot of ground throughout...

[Speed Figure]

This is my final WPR rating for him.

[taxicab]

It's looking more and more like Beyer is off his game on this one.
Timeform Europe has given CC a healthy 127 :ThmbUp: rating after his tour de force Saturday.....

[cj]

I didn't see it that way. The flag was blowing from left to right. To me, that's two headwinds for two turn races.

Reading what the wind is at the airport doesn't really tell the story when there is a giant grandstand distorting things. The flags are a better indicator for sure, and somebody standing on the apron even better.

[BIG49010]

If you watch the Trakus overhead simulation, CC had cover for most of the race, so he should have had a decent amount of energy left. I will stand by the contrarian view that Beyer is a little high, and this was a weak race, but you can foot note it that perhaps you didn't see the maximum fig by CC.

I don't understand upgrading everyone else in the field, because he got a perfect trip.

I am looking forward to seeing the Peter Pan, and the Belmont, with Tonalist in the field.

[GMB@BP]

Sure seems to me a lot of people do think he isn't as good judging by what I've seen.

Dont you think a lot of those people didnt think he was very good going into the race and were picking against him?

He may lose the Preakness but that horse is very good, I dont need a Beyer figure to tell me that.

[GMB@BP]

The problem is too much complication to a simple problem.

That is an all time comment coming from you.

[Cratos]

I didn't see it that way. The flag was blowing from left to right. To me, that's two headwinds for two turn races.

I am not going to argue with you because you apparently have your mind made up about the wind on Derby Day.

However let's look at what we know

From Google Earth you can obtain Churchill Downs racetrack geograph ical orientation. From the National Weather Service website and several other weather websites on the Internet you can get the weather down to the minute by zip code and by address.

Given this information the initial calculation is simple, but I will not go into the more refined calculation of determining the wind angle confronted by the horses. Also I hope you understand from a speed retardation point of view there need to be enough surface on the horse's body where the wind come in contact with the horse to apply sufficient force.

[dannyhill]

Ask a PGA tour player if there often is a difference between the wind at ground level as opposed to what the top of the trees look like. Point is the wind above the race track can be very different than what is at track level. For those who care i was in attendance and there most definitely was a decent breeze blowing in the direction the flag shows.

[horses4courses]

Here's a photo of Churchill Downs in 1901.
His Eminence won the Derby in a time of 2:07.75

Didn't catch his Beyer....... :rolleyes:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BesmodBCYAAM61N.jpg

[cj]

Here's a photo of Churchill Downs in 1901.
His Eminence won the Derby in a time of 2:07.75

Didn't catch his Beyer....... :rolleyes:



Probably around 124.

[PaceAdvantage]

I am not going to argue with you because you apparently have your mind made up about the wind on Derby Day.What's to argue? Are the flags visible during a replay of the race? If so, verdict obtained.

[PaceAdvantage]

Here's a photo of Churchill Downs in 1901.
His Eminence won the Derby in a time of 2:07.75

Didn't catch his Beyer....... :rolleyes:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BesmodBCYAAM61N.jpgIs it no wonder then that nobody talks about His Eminence anymore? :lol:

[taxicab]

Let's do a comparison from CD on Saturday.

Race 1-One turn mile for Starter Allowance....22.4/45.3/109.4/1:22/1:35.

Race 2-Two turns @ a 1 1/16th for Optional claimers ( a better class of horse ).....24.2/48/1:12/1.37.2/1:44.1.

Race 11- Ky Dy-with a longer run into a decent headwind to the first turn....23/47.1/1:11.4/1:37.2/2:03.3.

All of the one turn races Saturday had quick fractions up & down.
The two turn races had slow fractions at all calls.
And I tend to agree with CJ,the opening quarter into the teeth of the wind is better than looked......and the half holds up well also ( almost a second faster going a longer trip with more early headwind ).

And there's more.
For those who are saying the fractions were slow for CC's Derby......
Dead wrong.
Of all the two turn dirt races run @ CD this meet, the 23 & 47.1 set in the Derby are the quickest quarter and half mile splits of the entire meet.
And those fractions were set going further than any other two turn race of the meet.......into a long headwind to boot.
Summary: California Chrome ran a huge race.
The Beyer speed figure is not a true indicator of what CC accomplished.

[rastajenk]

The purpose of Beyers is to predict the future. So, how are you going to use Derby Beyers going forward? My guess is most people will line it out and look to other races to shape their opinions.

This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about whose numbers beat whose. There's no point in trying to place Chrome's winning number in some kind of historical context when he'll never run against those previous winners.

Beyers pointed to the eventual winner. Everything else was to be regarded as roughly the same, with average good horses taking a turn at being the best on any given day. And so it remains going forward. As Hillary says, "What difference does it make?" :)

[thaskalos]

The purpose of Beyers is to predict the future. So, how are you going to use Derby Beyers going forward? My guess is most people will line it out and look to other races to shape their opinions.

This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about whose numbers beat whose. There's no point in trying to place Chrome's winning number in some kind of historical context when he'll never run against those previous winners.

Beyers pointed to the eventual winner. Everything else was to be regarded as roughly the same, with average good horses taking a turn at being the best on any given day. And so it remains going forward. As Hillary says, "What difference does it make?" :)

The low Beyer isn't the only issue here; the Derby was suspect from a pace perspective too. The first quarter was a respectable 23 seconds...but the second quarter was a pedestrian 24.4 -- and the six furlongs were run in 1:11.8! CC got a perfect trip stalking the comfortable pace...and still could only muster a 26.2 final quarter. Even the quarter where he made that seemingly eye-catching move was only run in 25.6. There wasn't a fast quarter shown in that entire race.

From a pace perspective...this was the prototypical "average/slow/slower" pace setup...which strongly favors a horse with the trip that California Chrome got in the race. You couldn't DREAM of a better scenario, if you were Victor Espinoza.

The horse won and it deserves credit for doing so...but it didn't do it in an impressive manner, IMO. The slow last quarter may have been affected by the wind...but the wind could just as easily have been blowing a different way. As in all bias conversations...we should be sure of what we are talking about when we declare the presence of a bias -- because the effects of such a determination are far-reaching...

[lamboguy]

i disagree Gus, i thought the winner was dominating. i also thought that about 7 horses were real good as well. this is the way Kentucky Derby's were run and won 50 years ago. the race was so good that i think CALIFORNIA CHROME will be better in Baltimore.

think about it, this horse does not look that great, he does not work that great, and now he didn't get the greatest number, but all this guy knows how to do is win.

he has made everyone look like fools including myself.

[thaskalos]

i disagree Gus, i thought the winner was dominating. i also thought that about 7 horses were real good as well. this is the way Kentucky Derby's were run and won 50 years ago. the race was so good that i think CALIFORNIA CHROME will be better in Baltimore.

think about it, this horse does not look that great, he does not work that great, and now he didn't get the greatest number, but all this guy knows how to do is win.

he has made everyone look like fools including myself.

There is no doubt that California Chrome will be better in Baltimore, Lambo. The short field and the shortened distance will work to his advantage. And I am not saying that the horse didn't deserve to win the Derby. He ran his race, and he won. But we are handicappers, and we like to look for clues in the performances of these horses...and my post-race detective work finds me in disagreement with you about the "dominance" of CC's performance.

California Chrome will have to do better in the Belmont...otherwise our excitement about seeing a TC winner this year will be for naught. I didn't like Wicked Strong going into the Derby...but now I do.

[Saratoga_Mike]

That is an all time comment coming from you.

One of my favorites, too, from the king of precision over accuracy.

[Saratoga_Mike]

California Chrome will have to do better in the Belmont...otherwise our excitement about seeing a TC winner this year will be for naught. I didn't like Wicked Strong going into the Derby...but now I do.

There will be lots of fresh horses in the Belmont, maybe even the Asmussen filly....she isn't half-bad. To me, your assessment is spot on.

[pandy]

Let's do a comparison from CD on Saturday.

Race 1-One turn mile for Starter Allowance....22.4/45.3/109.4/1:22/1:35.

Race 2-Two turns @ a 1 1/16th for Optional claimers ( a better class of horse ).....24.2/48/1:12/1.37.2/1:44.1.

Race 11- Ky Dy-with a longer run into a decent headwind to the first turn....23/47.1/1:11.4/1:37.2/2:03.3.

All of the one turn races Saturday had quick fractions up & down.
The two turn races had slow fractions at all calls.
And I tend to agree with CJ,the opening quarter into the teeth of the wind is better than looked......and the half holds up well also ( almost a second faster going a longer trip with more early headwind ).

And there's more.
For those who are saying the fractions were slow for CC's Derby......
Dead wrong.
Of all the two turn dirt races run @ CD this meet, the 23 & 47.1 set in the Derby are the quickest quarter and half mile splits of the entire meet.
And those fractions were set going further than any other two turn race of the meet.......into a long headwind to boot.
Summary: California Chrome ran a huge race.
The Beyer speed figure is not a true indicator of what CC accomplished.




I agree with you. I'm not sure he ran a huge race, but the fractions and final time are certainly not a good indicator of his performance, and that's because of the wind. Your analysis is spot on. I did the same thing after the race, I analyzed each of the races, and saw that the two turn races were slowed by two headwinds.

This is why, when you do speed figures, as I did for over 10 years, you have to split the variants for one and two turn races, especially on windy days.

http://www.handicappingwinners.com/thoroughbetting.htm

[thaskalos]

I agree with you. I'm not sure he ran a huge race, but the fractions and final time are certainly not a good indicator of his performance, and that's because of the wind. Your analysis is spot on. I did the same thing after the race, I analyzed each of the races, and saw that the two turn races were slowed by two headwinds.

This is why, when you do speed figures, as I did for over 10 years, you have to split the variants for one and two turn races, especially on windy days.

http://www.handicappingwinners.com/thoroughbetting.htm
In the 13th race...maidens ran around two turns, and recorded a half-mile, a six-furlong, and a mile timing that was almost identical with the internal fractions of the Kentucky Derby (only a fifth of a second off).

Doesn't that mean anything?

[classhandicapper]

Horseracing is about statistics and statistics is about estimation and probability. If we knew there wouldn't be a need to bet because there wouldn't be any odds.

Yes, the Ky Derby was complex, but not to extent that you need a PhD in Quantum Physics to understand what happened.

Understood. But the opinions on what happened are broader and wider for the Derby than the for the typical race because the complexities are greater than average.

A lot of very sharp people are coming to different conclusions.

I have an opinion. But I am less certain of this one than many others.

[classhandicapper]

In the 13th race...maidens ran around two turns, and recorded a half-mile, a six-furlong, and a mile timing that was almost identical with the internal fractions of the Kentucky Derby (only a fifth of a second off).

Doesn't that mean anything?

If they were against the wind in the stretch, then running into it would have a greater impact during the first 1/4 and 1/2 of the Derby than other routes. It would also push along the sprinters early because of the very long backstretch.

I don't have an answer for you because I wasn't there to measure the wind, but lots of people are saying that was the case and I did see flags blowing strongly on TV at points in the card. So it's hard (at least for me) to form to strong an opinion on that pace. I'd rather look at the race development and use the fractions as supporting evidence instead of the other way around for this race.

[thaskalos]

If they were against the wind in the stretch, then running into it would have a greater impact during the first 1/4 and 1/2 of the Derby than other routes. It would also push along the sprinters early because of the very long backstretch.

I don't have an answer for you because I wasn't there to measure the wind, but lots of people are saying that was the case and I did see flags blowing strongly on TV at points in the card. So it's hard (at least for me) to form to strong an opinion on that pace. I'd rather look at the race development and use the fractions as supporting evidence instead of the other way around for this race.

Who are the "lots" of people whom you've seen make the wind-biased argument? Were they meteorologists? Who can know for sure which way the wind was blowing...and since when do responsible handicappers make such determinations on such sketchy evidence?

[thaskalos]

I agree with you. I'm not sure he ran a huge race, but the fractions and final time are certainly not a good indicator of his performance, and that's because of the wind. Your analysis is spot on. I did the same thing after the race, I analyzed each of the races, and saw that the two turn races were slowed by two headwinds.

This is why, when you do speed figures, as I did for over 10 years, you have to split the variants for one and two turn races, especially on windy days.

http://www.handicappingwinners.com/thoroughbetting.htm

As I said before, Pandy...the 13th race was a two-turn race for MAIDENS...and the fractions were 47.6, 1:12, and 1:37.6. How much faster do you suppose these maidens would have traveled...if they weren't slowed down by the two headwinds?

[goatchaser]

What ever pal, I guess you agree with the guy in the Silver tin foil suit, this is the greatest horse in modern history. I tend to disagree.

When I look at a Grade 1 race and a horse that should be running in an Allowance NW 1, runs second it sends up flags as a rather weak bunch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esJl7MZoVww

[classhandicapper]

Who are the "lots" of people whom you've seen make the wind-biased argument? Were they meteorologists? Who can know for sure which way the wind was blowing...and since when do responsible handicappers make such determinations on such sketchy evidence?

Several people in this thread mentioned wind.

People on the TG board mentioned wind.

A few tweets I read, including one from someone at the DRF that was there, mentioned wind.

I saw a flag in the background blowing strongly with my own eyes at one point during the telecast.

I believe I remember one of the NBC commentators mentioning the wind.

What I don't know is exactly what was going on during the race. I only know that it needs to be considered. So we should be trying to get that information and in at least a general way understand that the fractions and times may be misleading us about the quality of the race.

[classhandicapper]

As I said before, Pandy...the 13th race was a two-turn race for MAIDENS...and the fractions were 47.6, 1:12, and 1:37.6. How much faster do you suppose these maidens would have traveled...if they weren't slowed down by the two headwinds?

It's the amount of time you spend running into the wind.

At 10F you run in the same direction for the entire stretch. In the shorter routes you start closer to the turn and then change direction quicker. So depending on wind direction and strength, you get different impacts.

Imagine a sprint race with the wind in the backstretch. A 4 1/2F race would be impacted differently than a 1M race out of a chute.

[Dark Horse]

With so much speed in the race most people expected a fast pace. Here's the moment the slow pace was decided. You can clearly see the leading riders talk/yell to each other. Unless it was about the nice weather, or a pretty girl in a red hat, they talked about slowing it down.

http://uponthegrass.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/ky-derby-2014-first-turn.jpg

[raybo]

The low Beyer isn't the only issue here; the Derby was suspect from a pace perspective too. The first quarter was a respectable 23 seconds...but the second quarter was a pedestrian 24.4 -- and the six furlongs were run in 1:11.8! CC got a perfect trip stalking the comfortable pace...and still could only muster a 26.2 final quarter. Even the quarter where he made that seemingly eye-catching move was only run in 25.6. There wasn't a fast quarter shown in that entire race.

From a pace perspective...this was the prototypical "average/slow/slower" pace setup...which strongly favors a horse with the trip that California Chrome got in the race. You couldn't DREAM of a better scenario, if you were Victor Espinoza.

The horse won and it deserves credit for doing so...but it didn't do it in an impressive manner, IMO. The slow last quarter may have been affected by the wind...but the wind could just as easily have been blowing a different way. As in all bias conversations...we should be sure of what we are talking about when we declare the presence of a bias -- because the effects of such a determination are far-reaching...

I totally agree, the pace, regardless of how you manipulate it with wind, dry surface, etc., etc., was not fast. It was rather slow and as you pointed out, a perfect scenario for Chrome, or any other early/presser horse in the race. The fact that CC won just says that he was better that day than the other early type runners. The fact that other early horses faded is neither here nor there, they didn't run as well as CC or they didn't handle the surface or the distance as well as he did, or they had traffic problems, etc.. The jockey even stated himself that the early pace was in his horse's favor. In the linked video of the workers at the farm where CC came from, you could tell that they were extremely excited when he got a forward position early, and then one of them shouted something like, "what are the fractions?" knowing that if they were not really fast the pace was exactly what the horse needed. Now, that's my interpretation of that video, but if you don't agree I can't imagine why.

Is CC a very good horse? Yes! Is he great? We don't know yet. It's that simple, IMO.

[Cratos]

It's the amount of time you spend running into the wind.

At 10F you run in the same direction for the entire stretch. In the shorter routes you start closer to the turn and then change direction quicker. So depending on wind direction and strength, you get different impacts.

Imagine a sprint race with the wind in the backstretch. A 4 1/2F race would be impacted differently than a 1M race out of a chute.

I want to understand your point of view about how the wind affected the final time of the Ky Derby last Saturday and to do that I will ask you to look up the orientation of the race track, the direction of the wind and its speed between 6p-7p, and calculate the wind force.

You will need wind "force" not speed because that is what affects the horse's movement, hence their speed.

The reason I asked this of you is that I am confused by the Derby horses running in one direction and the wind blowing in another; yet there is this retardation on the horses speed in the Derby race.

Also explain how the wind is impacting the horse's speed when it is measured at 10 meters above the ground surface, but the average height of horse and jockey above the ground surface is about 2.5 meters. This is why the flags were moving because they were high enough to be impacted by the wind.

[BetHorses!]

Several people in this thread mentioned wind.

I saw a flag in the background blowing strongly with my own eyes at one point during the telecast.




I remember the woman singing national anthem holding her dress down

[Valuist]

In the 13th race...maidens ran around two turns, and recorded a half-mile, a six-furlong, and a mile timing that was almost identical with the internal fractions of the Kentucky Derby (only a fifth of a second off).

Doesn't that mean anything?

No it doesn't. That race wasn't at 1 1/4 miles, so you are talking about different runups to the timer. Secondly, a pace in a 1 1/16 mile race should be faster than a 1 1/4 mile race.

[raybo]

No it doesn't. That race wasn't at 1 1/4 miles, so you are talking about different runups to the timer. Secondly, a pace in a 1 1/16 mile race should be faster than a 1 1/4 mile race.

You're also talking about "maidens" versus "Derby" horses. "Derby" horses should run internal fractions at 1 1/4m faster than "maidens" running 1 1/16m.

[Valuist]

Beyer is a guest on Byk's show right now. I thought he did an excellent job of explaining his position.

It really is comical to see some of the stuff one sees on here and other sites about Beyer having some sort of ulterior motives, or having it in for some horse.

Let me guess: Beyer and his associates have a second set of "alternative figs", which are really correct and the figs they sell to the DRF are intentionally flawed, to set up betting coups. :rolleyes: :lol:

[goatchaser]

I want to understand your point of view about how the wind affected the final time of the Ky Derby last Saturday and to do that I will ask you to look up the orientation of the race track, the direction of the wind and its speed between 6p-7p, and calculate the wind force.

You will need wind "force" not speed because that is what affects the horse's movement, hence their speed.

The reason I asked this of you is that I am confused by the Derby horses running in one direction and the wind blowing in another; yet there is this retardation on the horses speed in the Derby race.

Also explain how the wind is impacting the horse's speed when it is measured at 10 meters above the ground surface, but the average height of horse and jockey above the ground surface is about 2.5 meters. This is why the flags were moving because they were high enough to be impacted by the wind.
If you watched the telecast you saw the female outrider out during the races saying how the wind was blowing pretty good on the track. Not up in the sky.

[Tom]

Let me guess: Beyer and his associates have a second set of "alternative figs", which are really correct and the figs they sell to the DRF are intentionally flawed, to set up betting coups. :rolleyes: :lol:

You get those figs when you purchase DRF+

[raybo]

Interesting perspective from Pablo Del Monte's trainer:

Headed to the Preakness is speedy Pablo Del Monte, the third-place finisher in the Blue Grass Stakes (gr. I). Trainer Wesley Ward decided to scratch out of the Derby rather than have Pablo Del Monte start from the outside in a 20-horse field. After the Giant's Causeway colt worked six furlongs in 1:10 4/5 May 4, Ward said he could have been a contender in the Derby.

"The way the race played out with soft fractions for a Derby and a slow final time, I really think I would have had a great chance to be at least second," Ward said. "I was speaking to my good friend Paul Shanahan and I told him just that. He said, 'Listen Wesley, nobody remembers who was second. If you really feel that way and the horse worked as good as he did, maybe we can win the Preakness and that will be forever.'"

[Cratos]

If you watched the telecast you saw the female outrider out during the races saying how the wind was blowing pretty good on the track. Not up in the sky.
I didn't say the wind was blowing "up in the sky". Also I was at Churchill Downs and I didn't see the telecast, but I do have it recorded.

However I will not go by an outrider's opinion when I have the weather report.

[classhandicapper]

You get those figs when you purchase DRF+

OMG, I spilled my drink. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[classhandicapper]

I want to understand your point of view about how the wind affected the final time of the Ky Derby last Saturday and to do that I will ask you to look up the orientation of the race track, the direction of the wind and its speed between 6p-7p, and calculate the wind force.

You will need wind "force" not speed because that is what affects the horse's movement, hence their speed.

The reason I asked this of you is that I am confused by the Derby horses running in one direction and the wind blowing in another; yet there is this retardation on the horses speed in the Derby race.

Also explain how the wind is impacting the horse's speed when it is measured at 10 meters above the ground surface, but the average height of horse and jockey above the ground surface is about 2.5 meters. This is why the flags were moving because they were high enough to be impacted by the wind.

Here's my view on the Derby wind.

1. I've seen multiple reports that it was windy and gusty during the race.

2. If it was, then it may have impacted both the fractions and final time in a way that is misleading people about the quality of the race.

3. I an "curious" about how windy and gusty it was and which direction the wind was blowing, but even when/if I find out it won't change my opinion of the race much.

The End.

My general view on wind goes like this.

1. Years ago I made my own pace and final time figures for NY for a very long time.

2. Whenever there was a strong wind either with or against the horses (especially at AQU where it occurred more frequently) I would see wild variations in the relationships between the fractions and final times that were consistent with the wind.

3. #2 convinced me that wind can be and sometimes is a huge factor in the time of races.

4. I never had a "wind formula" to make adjustments even when I had notes on the wind direction and its general force. I used to make approximate adjustments to my pace and final time figures based on my knowledge of the horses, my observation of the race, and my notes on wind.

[goatchaser]

Are you serious? You won't go by the person who is actually on the race track with the wind blowing in her face ..Talking about how the wind could affect horses on the back stretch...But you will listen to the person giving the weather report from a studio?
:bang:

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you serious? You won't go by the person who is actually on the race track with the wind blowing in her face ..Talking about how the wind could affect horses on the back stretch...But you will listen to the person giving the weather report from a studio?
:bang:I'm surprised he thinks the wind at Churchill was the exact same as wherever the wind was actually being measured for whatever weather report he is relying on.

[dasch]

Are you serious? You won't go by the person who is actually on the race track with the wind blowing in her face ..Talking about how the wind could affect horses on the back stretch...But you will listen to the person giving the weather report from a studio?
:bang:

There are so many "apples to oranges" comparisons in this thread its amazing.....

But this one takes the prize, expecting us to believe google earth plus a weather station placed who knows where in the area vs objects/people actually at the facility??

Wow........I keep waiting for the music to end this Twilight Zone episode....

Doodoodoodoo....doodoodoodoo.....................

[goatchaser]

I actually hope to take that trip one day to Churchill before I leave Google Earth.
I just hope when I fly your not sitting on the wing when I look out the widow
:eek: :eek: :eek: :D

[mostpost]

He drafts in third for a good portion of the race.

WiDU58Rt8-I
Your video disproves your thesis. Either that or one of us doesn't understand what drafting is. My understanding is that drafting is when one horse is directly behind another so that the front horse protects the second horse from the wind. Kindly point out to me where that occurs on your video.

At the start of the race CC is between horses in third or fourth. No horse is directly in front of him. Nearing the first turn he crosses over to get to the outside, so he very briefly Chitu at that time. From then on he is clearly on the outside of Uncle Sigh and Chitu. The fact that he is running third (while in the clear) has nothing to do with the kind of drafting we are talking about here.

[Saratoga_Mike]

thought the same Most.

[cj]

Interesting perspective from Pablo Del Monte's trainer:

I'm not sure about interesting, more like wishful and incorrect reasoning.

[Greyfox]

Your video disproves your thesis.

We see the world differently I guess.

[dannyhill]

No it doesn't. That race wasn't at 1 1/4 miles, so you are talking about different runups to the timer. Secondly, a pace in a 1 1/16 mile race should be faster than a 1 1/4 mile race.
Run-up was the same, 34 feet. 1 1/4 race the opening quarter is a straight-away so no turn. Often the first quarter is quicker in a race where the opening quarter has no turn.

[cj]

Your video disproves your thesis. Either that or one of us doesn't understand what drafting is. My understanding is that drafting is when one horse is directly behind another so that the front horse protects the second horse from the wind. Kindly point out to me where that occurs on your video.

At the start of the race CC is between horses in third or fourth. No horse is directly in front of him. Nearing the first turn he crosses over to get to the outside, so he very briefly Chitu at that time. From then on he is clearly on the outside of Uncle Sigh and Chitu. The fact that he is running third (while in the clear) has nothing to do with the kind of drafting we are talking about here.

Didn't look like he did a lot of drafting to me either. Even if he did, it wouldn't change the fact that the wind was slowing horses down on the frontstretch. Drafting or not, it would have an effect on the final time.

[cj]

Run-up was the same, 34 feet. 1 1/4 race the opening quarter is a straight-away so no turn. Often the first quarter is quicker in a race where the opening quarter has no turn.

On average at Churchill, horses of equal ability run the first half mile about two lengths faster at 1 1/16 miles than they do at 1 1/4 miles. I'll have to do a little more work to get the difference in the first quarter mile.

[dannyhill]

On average at Churchill, horses of equal ability run the first half mile about two lengths faster at 1 1/16 miles than they do at 1 1/4 miles. I'll have to do a little more work to get the difference in the first quarter mile.
Seriously gonna use a stat with the number of races run at 1 1/4 distance. Not disputing you're stat, of course at that distance you don't want to go fast early. Just that with no turn it is not surprising to see a quicker quarter.
If they both run 24 flat opening quarter with the same run-up which had the easier time of it. To me the race with no turn.

[cj]

Seriously gonna use a stat with the number of races run at 1 1/4 distance. Not disputing you're stat, of course at that distance you don't want to go fast early. Just that with no turn it is not surprising to see a quicker quarter.
If they both run 24 flat opening quarter with the same run-up which had the easier time of it. To me the race with no turn.

I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, the horses obviously rate more because of the longer distance. They clearly could run faster if asked to do so on the straight.

[SPEEDHORSE]

I think Andy Beyer's once said that WIND is already incorporated in the computation of the daily track variant.

I believe it is true, because when computing track surface speed. Beyer's associates attribute a slow final to track condition when in fact WIND direction has also something to do with the final time being slow.

[thaskalos]

I think Andy Beyer's once said that WIND is already incorporated in the computation of the daily track variant.

I believe it is true, because when computing track surface speed. Beyer's associates attribute a slow final to track condition when in fact WIND direction has also something to do with the final time being slow.
I must have missed that...

[cj]

I think Andy Beyer's once said that WIND is already incorporated in the computation of the daily track variant.

I believe it is true, because when computing track surface speed. Beyer's associates attribute a slow final to track condition when in fact WIND direction has also something to do with the final time being slow.

It is, but when you are comparing races of vastly different distances, you can't use the same variant. This was no different than if you had a 20 mile an hour wind into the faces of the horses in one turn races. Using the same variant for a 5.5f race and a 7f race wouldn't make much sense. Why do people think it is ok to use the same for an 8.5 and a 10f race?

[thaskalos]

It is, but when you are comparing races of vastly different distances, you can't use the same variant. This was no different than if you had a 20 mile an hour wind into the faces of the horses in one turn races. Using the same variant for a 5.5f race and a 7f race wouldn't make much sense. Why do people think it is ok to use the same for an 8.5 and a 10f race?

Because there are no other 10F races out there to use as a base for an exclusively 10F variant.

[classhandicapper]

I think Andy Beyer's once said that WIND is already incorporated in the computation of the daily track variant.

I believe it is true, because when computing track surface speed. Beyer's associates attribute a slow final to track condition when in fact WIND direction has also something to do with the final time being slow.

On some level that is probably true, but it's not true when you don't know how strong the wind/gusts were, which direction they were coming from, if they changed direction or intensity during the day, or if one distance (like 10F at CD) was impacted in a different way than lets say 7F out of a backstretch chute. Then you have a bigger problem.

[cj]

Because there are no other 10F races out there to use as a base for an exclusively 10F variant.

I agree. But in my opinion, it is better to use the 19 horses from one race instead of using data from another race run under much different conditions.

[classhandicapper]

Because there are no other 10F races out there to use as a base for an exclusively 10F variant.

That's why this thread exists.

When you have to break out a race and you have issues of wind, track moisture, pace, and distance ability etc... it's very easy for well informed people to come to different conclusions about how fast/good a race really was.

[Cratos]

What's to argue? Are the flags visible during a replay of the race? If so, verdict obtained.

You apparently don't understand "wind force" at ground level. The blowing of the flags tells you that the wind is blowing, but they don't tell and cannot tell the force; especially at ground level and that is what this debate is about.

To state that the pace of the Ky Derby was slow based on which way the flags were blowing or what an outrider said moves from the ridiculous to the sublime in the understanding of wind force on a horserace.

Incidentally, in an earlier post within this thread I did give the source of the data which I used which was from the NWS and the location was Churchill Downs between 6p-7p on May 3, 2014.

[thaskalos]

I agree. But in my opinion, it is better to use the 19 horses from one race instead of using data from another race run under much different conditions.

As racing is currently run in this country, 10F is the "bastard distance"...and any determination the handicapper might make by relying solely on the "facts" presented by such a race is liable to be suspect to a large extent. It might seem logical to give the Derby a higher figure, given the credentials of the horses in the race...but it could also prove to be wrong, going forward.

[dannyhill]

I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, the horses obviously rate more because of the longer distance. They clearly could run faster if asked to do so on the straight.
Was concerned for a moment.:)

[dasch]

I agree. But in my opinion, it is better to use the 19 horses from one race instead of using data from another race run under much different conditions.

100% agree

[PaceAdvantage]

You apparently don't understand "wind force" at ground level. The blowing of the flags tells you that the wind is blowing, but they don't tell and cannot tell the force; especially at ground level and that is what this debate is about.

To state that the pace of the Ky Derby was slow based on which way the flags were blowing or what an outrider said moves from the ridiculous to the sublime in the understanding of wind force on a horserace.

Incidentally, in an earlier post within this thread I did give the source of the data which I used which was from the NWS and the location was Churchill Downs between 6p-7p on May 3, 2014.I thought I remember you debating wind direction, and claiming the wind wasn't blowing in the direction that others were claiming.

That's why I brought up the flags. I wasn't referencing wind speed, only direction.

If you weren't debating the direction of the wind (and I'm too lazy right now to go back and look), then I apologize.

[dasch]

100% agree

And for those who didnt have a chance to listen to Beyer this am he stated that the variant they used for the Derby was using the other races before and after and they even adjusted it from 91 to 97. He said if the horses return and run higher numbers then he will just adjust the figure and say oops like he does sometimes 8-9pts in many regular everyday races all the time.

Nice process he has there huh?

[PaceAdvantage]

And for those who didnt have a chance to listen to Beyer this am he stated that the variant they used for the Derby was using the other races before and after and they even adjusted it from 91 to 97. He said if the horses return and run higher numbers then he will just adjust the figure and say oops like he does sometimes 8-9pts in many regular everyday races all the time.

Nice process he has there huh?From your last sentence, it seems you think the process is flawed?

Would you rather they just leave the number as is, even if there is evidence that it is wrong?

I wouldn't. I'd rather have the accurate figures down the road, after they realize it needs adjusting.

[dasch]

From your last sentence, it seems you think the process is flawed?

Would you rather they just leave the number as is, even if there is evidence that it is wrong?

I wouldn't. I'd rather have the accurate figures down the road, after they realize it needs adjusting.

I dont even look at the Beyers before placing bets as I feel ANY number that does not incorporate BOTH trip and pace into it cannot be 100% accurate.

But for Andy to be so complacent about having to adjust numbers by so much like it is part of the regular process YES that is a huge flaw to me. I would be more interested in plugging those holes and improving the product.

[PaceAdvantage]

I dont even look at the Beyers before placing bets as I feel ANY number that does not incorporate BOTH trip and pace into it cannot be 100% accurate.

But for Andy to be so complacent about having to adjust numbers by so much like it is part of the regular process YES that is a huge flaw to me. I would be more interested in plugging those holes and improving the product.I don't use Beyers either, so don't misunderstand where I am coming from.

If I were using his figures, I certainly wouldn't want a flawed figure to hang out there forever.

And the very nature of figures makes it impossible to plug certain holes involved with certain races. That's the beauty of having them crafted by human beings instead of mechanically crafted by computers (such as the BRIS figures, from what I understand).

[thaskalos]

I dont even look at the Beyers before placing bets as I feel ANY number that does not incorporate BOTH trip and pace into it cannot be 100% accurate.

But for Andy to be so complacent about having to adjust numbers by so much like it is part of the regular process YES that is a huge flaw to me. I would be more interested in plugging those holes and improving the product.

"100% accurate" is a pipe-dream in this game...no matter how many factors you include in the mix. There is too much inaccuracy already built into the game...

[fmolf]

never heard of Bris numbers being adjusted a week after the race.This seems absurd to me.The horse either ran the number or he did not!This is precisely why i stopped using the drf pp's,all the bris ratings are computer generated and i feel more accurate than others.

[dasch]

"100% accurate" is a pipe-dream in this game...no matter how many factors you include in the mix. There is too much inaccuracy already built into the game...

by 100% I mean that is it 100% as accurate as possible. Not including both pace and trip this is impossible to achieve.

That being said I am 100% sure in the variant for the Derby.

I think people are getting too caught up in the details of the Derby, if the CORRECT answer is 25 does it really matter if the question was 10+15 or 22+3?

The answer is the same

[thaskalos]

never heard of Bris numbers being adjusted a week after the race.This seems absurd to me.The horse either ran the number or he did not!This is precisely why i stopped using the drf pp's,all the bris ratings are computer generated and i feel more accurate than others.

Beyer's entire argument revolves around his belief that his method of figure-making is more accurate than the computer-generated methods.

[thaskalos]

by 100% I mean that is it 100% as accurate as possible. Not including both pace and trip this is impossible to achieve.

That being said I am 100% sure in the variant for the Derby.

I think people are getting too caught up in the details of the Derby, if the CORRECT answer is 25 does it really matter if the question was 10+15 or 22+3?

The answer is the same

I am not aware of ANY set of figures which includes both pace and trip in the figure-making calculations. Are you?

I know of figures which include ground-loss and wind resistance...but their pace adjustments are inadequate, IMO.

The best that the handicapper can do, IMO...is to gather the ingredients independently, and mix them in himself.

[Valuist]

I am not aware of ANY set of figures which includes both pace and trip in the figure-making calculations. Are you?

I know of figures which include ground-loss and wind resistance...but their pace adjustments are inadequate, IMO.

The best that the handicapper can do, IMO...is to gather the ingredients independently, and mix them in himself.

Yes, I have seen one. One that incorporates not only ground loss and pace, but bias as well. The guy that makes them is a Chicago guy but I know he now does a lot of figure making for West Coast grass races. He had the best numbers I've ever seen.

[thaskalos]

Yes, I have seen one. One that incorporates not only ground loss and pace, but bias as well. The guy that makes them is a Chicago guy but I know he now does a lot of figure making for West Coast grass races. He had the best numbers I've ever seen.
Who...Scott McMannis?

[Bullet Plane]

Well, I enjoyed the interview with Andy Beyer on the Steve Byk show.

Figures have to be adjusted. Sometimes after the fact. Just the way it is...

anybody that makes figures does this.... there is no way around it...

He said in the interview that there may be factors, such as the track drying out, wind etc. that can't be factored exactly. His chart indicated the horse ran a 91, there was wind etc. so, they gave the horse 6 points (probably based on experience and "feel", so the horse wound up with a 97.

He also indicated that this might be a factor of breeding. His Belmont figures have been low for quite a while and that maybe this was creeping into the Derby distance of 1 1/4.

His evidence for the slower Derby was the actual track speed 2:03.66

and the fact that the horses at the end of the race were "bunched up." w/in 8 lengths.

He said that historically, horses that run fast figures have fast times i.e. track records... and that there is maybe 8 lengths or so back to second or third.

He said the proof will be in the pudding at Baltimore.

If you think that he ran faster, you might want to play the horse.

If you really think he ran that 97, he will be a big time play against.

However, if you think the horse ran the faster number. There may be no pari-mutuel value there....

I have a feeling the thinking of the vast majority of those who bet the Preakness... will be that Chrome is just tons better, no matter what the figure...

[Valuist]

Who...Scott McMannis?

No its not McMannis. I'll PM you the answer.

[dasch]

I am not aware of ANY set of figures which includes both pace and trip in the figure-making calculations. Are you?

I know of figures which include ground-loss and wind resistance...but their pace adjustments are inadequate, IMO.

The best that the handicapper can do, IMO...is to gather the ingredients independently, and mix them in himself.

There are none that include both........thats why I do my own and have for over 20 years.

[Valuist]

There are none that include both........thats why I do my own and have for over 20 years.

Not true at all. Somebody else has been doing it since 1980.

[dasch]

Not true at all. Somebody else has been doing it since 1980.

I meant none publicly

Obviously there can be others doing this privately as they most likely have no idea that I do.

[dasch]

I don't use Beyers either, so don't misunderstand where I am coming from.

If I were using his figures, I certainly wouldn't want a flawed figure to hang out there forever.

And the very nature of figures makes it impossible to plug certain holes involved with certain races. That's the beauty of having them crafted by human beings instead of mechanically crafted by computers (such as the BRIS figures, from what I understand).

Thats true and yes for the people who use them I would expect them to adjust accordingly whenever necessary. But at least take some shame when you have to do this by 8-9pts, dont act like this is how the process is SUPPOSED to work.

[Cratos]

I thought I remember you debating wind direction, and claiming the wind wasn't blowing in the direction that others were claiming.

That's why I brought up the flags. I wasn't referencing wind speed, only direction.

If you weren't debating the direction of the wind (and I'm too lazy right now to go back and look), then I apologize.

My statement about the wind direction during the running of the Derby was that according to the NWS the wind was blowing from the West at 15 mph between 6p-7p at Churchill Downs (the time the Derby was run). The orientation of the racetrack at Churchill Downs is northeast.

Therefore there could not had been a headwind except on the far turn.

However if you calculate the surface that might be available for the wind force to impact on the racehorse during its running in the Derby you will find that the total pound-force given a direct frontal wind force would be about 26.5 pounds and if you had a direct side wind force the pound force would be about 79.5 pounds.

Neither of those pound forces would hardly impede a 1100 pound horse moving over 35 mph and my conclusion is that the wind had a diminutive effect if any on the final time and pace of this year’s Ky Derby.

[ultracapper]

Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread or Beyer's statements, but have to comment on something I just read on page 4 or 5 of this thread.

Is the Derby BSF being based on 'Curve running his race? How did Cal Chrome not run his? He stalked, blasted off at the 3/16ths and cruised home clear. That's what he's been doing for months now. How did he not run his race, regardless of final time or fractions? If the track was faster, it would seem to me that Cal Chrome would have done what he's been doing all the same.

[classhandicapper]

One that incorporates not only ground loss and pace, but bias as well. The guy that makes them is a Chicago guy but I know he now does a lot of figure making for West Coast grass races. He had the best numbers I've ever seen.

I think every figure maker does that on a limited basis even if they don't say it. They just don't know every trip and every bias for every horse on all the circuits they have to cover.

When I made my own figures I would incorporate that kind of thinking into my variants, but I was only doing NY and had handicapped all the NY races. So I knew the horse well.

[tophatmert]

Yes, I have seen one. One that incorporates not only ground loss and pace, but bias as well. The guy that makes them is a Chicago guy but I know he now does a lot of figure making for West Coast grass races. He had the best numbers I've ever seen.


You may be thinking of Rich Santucci .Very good figures and a nice guy . Rich's brother Glen runs the trackside OTB at Arlington

[thaskalos]

You may be thinking of Rich Santucci .Very good figures and a nice guy . Rich's brother Glen runs the trackside OTB at Arlington
I am well-acquainted with Glenn. I'll make sure I ask him if there is a way to get hold of his brother's figures.

[Tom]

Beyer's entire argument revolves around his belief that his method of figure-making is more accurate than the computer-generated methods.
I agree 100% with that. Computer generate greeting cards are one thing, pace and as peed figures, not so much. Beyer is actually more of a scientist with his figures than people give him credit for.

https://www.deming.org/theman/theories/pdsacycle
His process in rooted in proven management practices for problem solving and improvement. The problem being that raw times are not usable. The product he creates is his speed figure and his process is making a variant. After that, he uses the computer sciences to monitor the performance of his product and make adjustments when the data indicates it should be done. I have seen case where he has gone back and increases all the sprint numbers at a given track by a point or two for a specific period of time. More than once. What he talked about today is a perfect example - the 97 might end up being a 91, or a 103.....whatever it does, it is not a whim, it is a sound process by a professional figure maker. Why do you think there are so few of them out there?

[cj]

Beyer needs to adjust his speed charts as well. The goal was to create a chart which reflected equal times at different distances. However, racing has changed. This isn't 1974, it has been 40 years. He is using the same charts. For the reasons he cites, chiefly breeding for more speed, it is unlikely the values he used for 10 furlongs then are the same they should be now.

[Valuist]

You may be thinking of Rich Santucci .Very good figures and a nice guy . Rich's brother Glen runs the trackside OTB at Arlington

That's him. I know Glenn as well.

[Valuist]

I think every figure maker does that on a limited basis even if they don't say it. They just don't know every trip and every bias for every horse on all the circuits they have to cover.

When I made my own figures I would incorporate that kind of thinking into my variants, but I was only doing NY and had handicapped all the NY races. So I knew the horse well.

The guy I'm referring to (Santucci) had all the trip notes and bias notes. I've seen his sheets and he had a solid number of clients, including a number of owners.

[Tom]

Beyer needs to adjust his speed charts as well. The goal was to create a chart which reflected equal times at different distances. However, racing has changed. This isn't 1974, it has been 40 years. He is using the same charts. For the reasons he cites, chiefly breeding for more speed, it is unlikely the values he used for 10 furlongs then are the same they should be now.

Definitely.

[Tom]

It would be interesting to plot the winning Beyers for the Derby, Travers and the BC Classic from the start and see how they look- are they all trending downwards?

Have to dig out my Racing Manual.

[Some_One]

On thorograph, 0 for CC, -3 for Untappable, both new tops.

[Greyfox]

It would be interesting to plot the winning Beyers for the Derby, Travers and the BC Classic from the start and see how they look- are they all trending downwards?



Probably.
Suspected causes would be selective breeding and forbidden use of steroids.

[classhandicapper]

The guy I'm referring to (Santucci) had all the trip notes and bias notes. I've seen his sheets and he had a solid number of clients, including a number of owners.

Wow. He must have a staff helping. It's a lot of work to just do 1 circuit, let alone multiple.

[Valuist]

Wow. He must have a staff helping. It's a lot of work to just do 1 circuit, let alone multiple.

For years he only did one circuit (Chicago tracks). At some point in the past 10 years, he's moved his focus to the southern California tracks. As for staff, it was all him. Myself and another guy would sometimes help out a bit with trip notes. I'd never ask him for plays, but I did ask him plenty of questions on why he did this or that, after the race. A lot of the betting strategy I use today comes from what I learned from him 25 years ago.

[Tom]

It would be interesting to plot the winning Beyers for the Derby, Travers and the BC Classic from the start and see how they look- are they all trending downwards?

Have to dig out my Racing Manual.


For starters, here is how the Derby shakes out Beyer-wise since Lil' ET

Blue line is the average of 107.5 - Red line is the trend line.

[Valuist]

For starters, here is how the Derby shakes out Beyer-wise since Lil' ET

Blue line is the average of 107.5 - Red line is the trend line.

That chart looks like those of tech companies recently. Definitely bearish.

[Tom]

I was thinking that the wind has been picking up the last few years. :D

[aaron]

Take all the Derby Winners from Giacomo to Orb. What is their records after the Derby ? These horses,for the most part have probably been mediocre. We spend a lot of time on the Derby,but it probably will not put money in your pocket. Has the Derby produced any horses that were older handicap winners or horses of the year ?

[Greyfox]

Interesting chart Tom.
In 2008 Veterinarian Larry Bramlage said:
"ELMONT, N.Y. -- The steroid era in American thoroughbred racing will be over in 2009,..."
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/news/story?id=3429781

The chart that you presented shows that since 2009, none of the Kentucky Derby winners have approached that blue line.

[Valuist]

Take all the Derby Winners from Giacomo to Orb. What is their records after the Derby ? These horses,for the most part have probably been mediocre. We spend a lot of time on the Derby,but it probably will not put money in your pocket. Has the Derby produced any horses that were older handicap winners or horses of the year ?


Funny Cide had some success post Derby, as did Silver Charm. But were going back to late 90s. Seems like most don't race as 4 year olds.

Curlin ran in the Derby but he didn't win it. He certainly had a lot of success as a 4 year old and in his post Derby 3 year old races.

[aaron]

Funny Cide had some success post Derby, as did Silver Charm. But were going back to late 90s. Seems like most don't race as 4 year olds.

Curlin ran in the Derby but he didn't win it. He certainly had a lot of success as a 4 year old and in his post Derby 3 year old races.
My point is these are not real good horses that we are talking about.It doesn't take a real a special horse to win the Derby anymore. I think it is a combination of the breeding and not having competent trainers bringing these horses to the Derby. Also,having 20 horse fields,just so you can say your horse ran in the Derby takes away from the race. The way the Derby is today,I wonder how many of these horses are really stake horses.

[Valuist]

My point is these are not real good horses that we are talking about.It doesn't take a real a special horse to win the Derby anymore. I think it is a combination of the breeding and not having competent trainers bringing these horses to the Derby. Also,having 20 horse fields,just so you can say your horse ran in the Derby takes away from the race. The way the Derby is today,I wonder how many of these horses are really stake horses.

The fields may have gotten worse in recent years but there's just too many horses who don't race past 3.

Alysheba won the Derby with a weakish fig, but he became a great horse as a 4 year old. There could still be hope for some of the also rans.

[classhandicapper]

I wonder if Beyer is going to upgrade the Derby figure given how well the 3 horses out of the race ran or whether he'll stick to his guns and say that various trips and the extra distance contributed to the slow figure in the Derby

I'm going to stick with my original interpretation.

Between the wind impacting the early pace and final time, the pace probably being faster than it looked and potentially impacting the time, a drying out track, and some tough trips in the Derby, I think it was borderline impossible to adjust for each of those factors well enough to create a figure off the time.

I think you had to sort of "class" the race.

They looked like a solid but not great group going in and nothing about the result or visual impression they gave indicated otherwise. It was unlikely they had all suddenly gotten really slow.

Whether you want to attribute the slow time in the Derby to wind, pace, change of track speed, trips, or various combinations almost doesn't matter. Now they've let us know they are a solid by not great group.

[mountainman]

I wonder if Beyer is going to upgrade the Derby figure given how well the 3 horses out of the race ran

At that point it becomes a retroactive "performance" rating, and they jump the shark with me.

It's like a golfer on the 9th hole going back to #6 and hitting his mulligan.

[cj]

At that point it becomes a retroactive "performance" rating, and they jump the shark with me.

It's like a golfer on the 9th hole going back to #6 and hitting his mulligan.

I can understand that thinking, but I also know that it is impossible to get every figure right. When I realize I made a mistake, I fix it. This is important if you are a form cycle handicapper. Wouldn't you rather have the best numbers available when you handicap even if it is different from when the horse ran last out? Why compound a mistake?

[ultracapper]

I still firmly believe that California Chrome ran his race in the derby. Not a figure maker, and am readily happy to defer to the many experienced that do make them, but in my mind, Chrome's number should be in line with what he had been putting up previously.

[Tom]

Accuracy is a good thing, even if later than sooner.
The bad Beyer number affected only one race so far - the Preakness.
There are 18 other horses to consider going forward.
We owe CJ a debt of thanks for persevering to arrive at he best number he could. :ThmbUp:

[Saratoga_Mike]

Yes, great work on CJ's part. His wind-as-a-factor skeptics have been silenced.

[dannyhill]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned but the Beyer number is not very low, assuming they are not adjusted for wind. The wind did have an affect on the timing of the race, [no need to respond Cratos]:lol: which CJ made an adjustment for. If CJ chose not to include wind, his final number would also be low.
If the Beyer figure did have a wind adjustment then i would agree it was low.
The Derby had a slow raw final time so unless you made an adjustment based on wind or class or something, it gets a low number.
One of many reasons why the Beyer's are outdated and of little value these days.IMO

[raybo]

I suppose it's dreaming to wonder if it would be that difficult, for every track in the country, to install at least one rudimentary wind gauge (direction and speed), at track level, and at least report that data as it was recorded at the start of the race. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

I suppose it's dreaming to wonder if it would be that difficult, for every track in the country, to install at least one rudimentary wind gauge (direction and speed), at track level, and at least report that data as it was recorded at the start of the race. :rolleyes:
It's on their bucket list - right after figuring out how to time races and control run ups.

Hey, it took 10 years to get standardized saddle cloths.
Great institutions move slowly.
So, apparently, does racing. :lol:

Competency, that elusive target.

[pandy]

I still firmly believe that California Chrome ran his race in the derby. Not a figure maker, and am readily happy to defer to the many experienced that do make them, but in my mind, Chrome's number should be in line with what he had been putting up previously.

I agree. First of all, he ran into the wind twice. And, the pace was faster than it appeared. The first quarter was into the wind and much harder on the horses that it looks on paper.

[Cratos]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned but the Beyer number is not very low, assuming they are not adjusted for wind. The wind did have an affect on the timing of the race, [no need to respond Cratos]:lol: which CJ made an adjustment for. If CJ chose not to include wind, his final number would also be low.
If the Beyer figure did have a wind adjustment then i would agree it was low.
The Derby had a slow raw final time so unless you made an adjustment based on wind or class or something, it gets a low number.
One of many reasons why the Beyer's are outdated and of little value these days.IMO

There isn’t any need for me to comment because the facts speak for themselves. When single point estimates become the validation for any projection or estimate please wake me up.

The Derby is over and the Preakness is over. You can go back and try to change history to fit your conclusion, but it will not work.
I will say this, if the Belmont field shapes up as it look now there will not be a TC winner.

However if Social Inclusion or another speedster does not run I believe that California Chrome will have a good chance to win the Belmont because his Preakness time projects to 2:26 and change for the 1-1/2 mile Belmont

[Saratoga_Mike]

No need for CJ to go back and change history - he correctly captured the Derby variant prior to the Preakness. I'm not knocking Beyer in anyway, just giving CJ well deserved kudos.

[raybo]

I'm not knocking any figure maker, but I still stand by my analysis that the Derby was run slow, and if there was wind affects, it would have affected every horse in the race. That being said, CC ran his race and won both races, and had the best speed/total velocities of all the horses in those 2 races, IMO. So, does it really matter that much if the speed figure was scaled lower or not? I suppose if you're looking for form cycle patterns, using speed/or total velocity ratings, then you might assume CC ran a weaker race in the Derby than his previous race, but then, every other horse in that race ran slow also, so are you going to think that every horse in this race ran poorly? I doubt it. One would attribute it to something other than condition, either a slower surface, or wind, or something. The fact that CJ upgraded the speed figures in the Derby just made it easier for speed figure users to assess overall performance in the Derby. CC was the best horse going into the Preakness, regardless if you used CJ's figures or if you used Brisnet or Jcapper or Beyer, or any other commercially available figures. Personally, I think CC had a rather easy Derby, which enabled him to run a good Preakness 2 weeks later. Now he has 3 weeks to get over that race, and I don't think the Preakness took much out of him either. So, guess who the best horse going into the Belmont is likely to be? ;)

Wouldn't it be great if he took the lead, and just walked away from everyone else, winning by 20 lengths? :jump:

[pandy]

It'll be nice if he wins. I'll be picking against him, though. That extra quarter mile does a lot of horses in.

As we saw in the Preakness, if a horse moves outside of him, he has to go. This is exactly what happened to S. Elliott in the Belmont. He got blamed for moving too soon, but if you watch the replay, you'll see a horse is about to pass him on the outside, and these top class horses don't like being passed, so Smarty Jones was already starting to pull when he felt the outside pressure. Elliott did exactly what Victor did Saturday, but, Smarty Jones just got beat.

[raybo]

It'll be nice if he wins. I'll be picking against him, though. That extra quarter mile does a lot of horses in.

As we saw in the Preakness, if a horse moves outside of him, he has to go. This is exactly what happened to S. Elliott in the Belmont. He got blamed for moving too soon, but if you watch the replay, you'll see a horse is about to pass him on the outside, and these top class horses don't like being passed, so Smarty Jones was already starting to pull when he felt the outside pressure. Elliott did exactly what Victor did Saturday, but, Smarty Jones just got beat.

Didn't CC's jockey say that the early move in the Preakness was his decision, not the horse's?

Personally, I think CC wins that race whether he makes that early move or not, unless he gets pinned in and can't get out in time, of course.

[Tom]

No need for CJ to go back and change history - he correctly captured the Derby variant prior to the Preakness. I'm not knocking Beyer in anyway, just giving CJ well deserved kudos.
Yes, and he didn't use a single point,either.

[Tom]

Updating an earlier chart - here are all three TC aces, 1991-2014, Beyer numbers and tend lines. Kind of cluttered, but you can see all are going south, and the longer the race, the more the drop.
Averages - Derby, 107.7 Preakness, 109.1 Belmont, 104.4

[highnote]

You've been spending too much time in Off-topic reading posts by hcap. :D

Updating an earlier chart - here are all three TC aces, 1991-2014, Beyer numbers and tend lines. Kind of cluttered, but you can see all are going south, and the longer the race, the more the drop.
Averages - Derby, 107.7 Preakness, 109.1 Belmont, 104.4

[highnote]

No need for CJ to go back and change history - he correctly captured the Derby variant prior to the Preakness. I'm not knocking Beyer in anyway, just giving CJ well deserved kudos.


Not knocking cj or his figs. He is one of the nicest guys I've met and he is very bright and articulate, but there is no way of knowing if his figures correctly captured the Derby variant just because CC won the Preakness. Same with Steve Roman's and Andy Beyer's Derby figures. (Roman agrees with cj, by the way.)

It's entirely possible that CC's time in the Derby was slow because he does not stay 10 furlongs. It's also entirely possible the track was slow for the Derby and the wind was strong for the Derby and that cj is correct.

Maybe it was the Santa Anita race that was most indicative of his Preakness performance?

I think it's dangerous, relatively speaking, to try to make events conform to what you believe is the truth. On the other hand, there is a lot of logic in what cj and others say about wind, two turns, split variants, etc.

The Belmont should shed some more light on the subject. Of course, if CC doesn't stay and he fades, people can say that he bounced. If he runs a slow final time, but wins, people can say he was the best of a bunch of horses that can't stay or they can say he is a fast horse, but the track was slow.

We may never know the truth.

That's why this is such a great game. You can back you opinion at the betting window, the yearling auctions or the breeding shed with cold, hard cash. :)

[thaskalos]

Yes, great work on CJ's part. His wind-as-a-factor skeptics have been silenced.

There is one aspect of the wind controversy that I am still unclear on. The Beyer figures don't take the wind into consideration...so it makes sense that a wind-affected race would rate lower on the Beyer scale. But the Ragozin Sheets DO take the wind into consideration...and they had the 2014 Derby listed as the slowest Derby in 40 years!.

Ragozin takes pride in his wind adjustments and his precision race timings...so, how do we explain the low figure that this year's Derby got on the sheets?

[Dark Horse]

Wouldn't it be great if he took the lead, and just walked away from everyone else, winning by 20 lengths? :jump:

Grown man crying everywhere if that happens.

I decided not to bet on this race. I don't want to be rooting for other horses and not fully take in the beauty of the moment if CC wins.

[Dark Horse]

Ragozin takes pride in his wind adjustments and his precision race timings...so, how do we explain the low figure that this year's Derby got on the sheets?

The jockeys on the two speeds in front, around the first turn, were talking/shouting to each other. I posted a picture of it. They then slowed things down to a crawl. Clearly, that has nothing to do with the quality of CC.

Beyond a general idea of a horse's performance range speed figures are irrelevant. I don't use them. Each race is a story unto itself, and speed figures are not the measuring stick that ties those stories together.

[highnote]

Race #2 on the Derby card was a non-winners of one allowance race at 8.5 furlongs.

Here are the beaten length adjusted fractions:

24.4, 48.0, 112.02, 137.54 and 144.30

Here are the beaten length adjusted fractions for the Derby:

23.44, 47.67, 111.80, 137.45 and 2:03.66

The Derby fractions were clearly faster and reflect the higher quality of the horses.

If you project the 8.5 furlong race out to 10 furlongs by adding 6 and 2/5ths to each 1/16 of a mile you end up with a final time of 2:03.53, which is very close to the Derby final time of 2:03.66. (of course, there's no way of knowing if the allowance horses could actually run 6.4 seconds per 1/16 of mile for an additional 3/16ths.)

All else being equal the Derby winner would beat the non-winner of one winner just about every time because Cal Chrome can run faster earlier. If a non-winner of one tried to run with him early Cal Chrome would bury him.

The disappointing part for me is the Cal Chrome's final time. For a Derby winner it was not impressive. I'm still not convinced the track variant changed enough from the other races to affect the final time, other wise the early fractions should have been slower, too. Then again, maybe they were slow and on a normal track the fractions would have been even faster?

It looks to me like Chrome ran fast early and slow late in the Derby, but that he simply doesn't stay 10 furlongs. He stays 10 furlongs better than the other horses in the Derby, but not as well as other horses of the past 50 years.

My intuition tells me that he is going to struggle with the 12 furlong Belmont and will not come anywhere near Secretariat's 12 furlong Belmont time.

Chrome still might win the Belmont Stakes, but I have a feeling his time will be slow compared to historical standards of the past 50 years.

I've been wrong before.

[Sapio]

my ignorant two cent worth...

The back and forth between speed ratings and actual race times is much more complex than one realizes. Speed ratings are actually a statistical model. Whereas times are physical.

Once you have assigned speed ratings which are attached to horses, one should stay in that domain. There is no need (nor is it adviseable) to switch back and forth.

A race (an event) is unique with its own heirarchy. It is this unique heirarchy that determines race parameters. All that needs to be analyzed is contained within the heirarchy... independent of physical factors ...wind, surfaces, etc.

Thomas Sapio

[Saratoga_Mike]

There is one aspect of the wind controversy that I am still unclear on. The Beyer figures don't take the wind into consideration...so it makes sense that a wind-affected race would rate lower on the Beyer scale. But the Ragozin Sheets DO take the wind into consideration...and they had the 2014 Derby listed as the slowest Derby in 40 years!.

Ragozin takes pride in his wind adjustments and his precision race timings...so, how do we explain the low figure that this year's Derby got on the sheets?

Thask, I believe your premise is incorrect. Beyer attempts to incorporate external factors (e.g., brutal cold/wind) into his variant. If the wind had impacted each race the same way Derby day, I believe Beyer would have captured the wind impact. However, given the Derby distance is/was unique to the card, Beyer failed to capture the wind's impact on the race (I suspect). As CJ explained, the 1 1/4 mile distance had a different wind impact than any other race on the day. I can't speak to Ragozin's work, except to guess that his analysis was also flawed. But this is all subjective (as one of the board's speed figure skeptics constantly reminds us) - maybe CC really did run a 97 on Derby day and then picked up his game for the Preakness. We could probably debate this one until you move to Vegas!

[cj]

There is one aspect of the wind controversy that I am still unclear on. The Beyer figures don't take the wind into consideration...so it makes sense that a wind-affected race would rate lower on the Beyer scale. But the Ragozin Sheets DO take the wind into consideration...and they had the 2014 Derby listed as the slowest Derby in 40 years!.

Ragozin takes pride in his wind adjustments and his precision race timings...so, how do we explain the low figure that this year's Derby got on the sheets?

Beyer actually did say he made an adjustment for wind. He added 5 points to the number over and above the other routes. No real idea where 5 came from, kind of random I think.

[tucker6]

My intuition tells me that he is going to struggle with the 12 furlong Belmont and will not come anywhere near Secretariat's 12 furlong Belmont time.

Chrome still might win the Belmont Stakes, but I have a feeling his time will be slow compared to historical standards of the past 50 years.

I've been wrong before.
Well the fact that no one has ever come close to Secretariat's time makes yours a safe bet. I think we can safely assume that record may stand through our lifetimes.

The ten TC winners who raced when the Belmont was 12F did so in an average time of 2:28.94, and in the last 50 years, the average has been 2:28.63 for the winners. Those averages include Secretariat's time of 2:24.

I think California Chrome has a good shot at 2:28-2:29 if the track is fast. I haven't seen any evidence that CC cannot get the distance in a reasonable time.

[highnote]

Beyer actually did say he made an adjustment for wind. He added 5 points to the number over and above the other routes. No real idea where 5 came from, kind of random I think.

CJ -- your figs are performance figs, right? And Beyer's are speed figures. Maybe we're comparing apples to oranges?

[Augenj]

Well the fact that no one has ever come close to Secretariat's time makes yours a safe bet. I think we can safely assume that record may stand through our lifetimes.

The ten TC winners who raced when the Belmont was 12F did so in an average time of 2:28.94, and in the last 50 years, the average has been 2:28.63 for the winners. Those averages include Secretariat's time of 2:24.

I think California Chrome has a good shot at 2:28-2:29 if the track is fast. I haven't seen any evidence that CC cannot get the distance in a reasonable time.
Any chance you could come up with the medians also? I find that number somewhat more useful since Secretariat skews the average a bit his way. Thanks.

[classhandicapper]

Updating an earlier chart - here are all three TC aces, 1991-2014, Beyer numbers and tend lines. Kind of cluttered, but you can see all are going south, and the longer the race, the more the drop.
Averages - Derby, 107.7 Preakness, 109.1 Belmont, 104.4

Nice chart Tom. Thanks.

[mountainman]

I can understand that thinking, but I also know that it is impossible to get every figure right. When I realize I made a mistake, I fix it. This is important if you are a form cycle handicapper. Wouldn't you rather have the best numbers available when you handicap even if it is different from when the horse ran last out? Why compound a mistake?

We see eye to eye on many things, craig, but in this case could not disagree more. To assume weeks later that a horse must have earned a certain number, and base that assumption on subsequent occurences, converts speed figs to something they should never be: performance ratings-even worse SUBSEQUENT performance ratings.

I think the compulsion to do this stems from a belief on the part of some figure denizens that the numbers must always mesh and make sense. A misguided faith that final time, properly massaged, must reflect the winner's quality-and the quality of performance. Which, to my experience, it often doesn't. I like the chaos of things that can't be quantified. But chaos and random deviation are not things number makers readily embrace from a potential triple crown winner whose figures face great scrutiny.

On a related note, when I hear rumors of speed figs adjusted to reflect the impact of pace, the numbers lose even more credibility with me.

[mountainman]

Accuracy is a good thing, even if later than sooner.
The bad Beyer number affected only one race so far - the Preakness.
There are 18 other horses to consider going forward.


With all respect, sir, such subjective massaging can be a double edged sword. I've seen it backfire and mislead players..and the effect be multiplied in EXACTLY the manner (18 other horses) you allude to.

Live by the projected (or "broken out") number-die by that number.

[tucker6]

Any chance you could come up with the medians also? I find that number somewhat more useful since Secretariat skews the average a bit his way. Thanks.
I don't have the numbers in front of me at the moment, but it goes both ways. A couple times were in the 2:31, 2:32, and 2:34 range, which likely represents muddy conditions I should hope. I'll try to answer you later today if I can. Probably a more useful tool would be median by track condition.

[cj]

We see eye to eye on many things, craig, but in this case could not disagree more. To assume that a horse must have earned a certain number, after the fact, based on subsequent performance, however rationalized, converts speed figs to something they should never be: performance ratings-even worse SUBSEQUENT performance ratings.

I think the compulsion to do this stems from a belief on the part of some figure denizens that the numbers must always mesh and make sense. A misguided faith that final time, properly massaged, must reflect the winner's quality-and the quality of performance. Which, to my experience, they often don't. I like the chaos of things that can't be quantified. But chaos and random deviation are not things number makers readily embrace from a potential triple crown winner whose figures face great scrutiny.

On a related note, when I hear rumors of speed figs adjusted to reflect the impact of pace, the numbers lose even more credibility with me.

I think we are talking about two different things here. Sometimes there is just not enough evidence to make a solid speed figure. Why would you not change it when presented with more evidence later if that it points you in that direction? I'm not talking about changing one horse, I'm talking about an entire race.

Racetracks are not indoors. Weather conditions change often and maintenance is done throughout the cards. We often get longs gaps of time between races on some surfaces during a race card. We are confronted with more and more maiden and NW2 lifetime races. Also, the timing in this country is archaic, only exacerbated by the silly insistence on having run up. Anybody thinking you can make numbers off of just time, distance and surface it completely fooling themselves. It can be done is you want silly Equibase speed figures, but not if you want something of quality.

As for the Derby number, I spelled out well in advance of the Preakness why the final time was not a good reflection of the quality of the performance. In the Preakness, I predicted the final time to within .16 seconds before the race. I have a pretty good idea what I'm doing. And because of that, I know when some numbers just can't be made with any confidence. In those case, I track them going forward. I don't just haphazardly change numbers to fit results. I change numbers that had a lot of ambiguity to begin with when I get more data.

For the record, the Derby WAS NOT one of those numbers. I had little doubt, based on decades of experience, that I had handled the race correctly. It was not flagged as one to review going forward.

[mountainman]

I think we are talking about two different things here. I change numbers that had a lot of ambiguity to begin with when I get more data.



Well stated, and greatly narrows our area of disagreement.

[tucker6]

Updating an earlier chart - here are all three TC aces, 1991-2014, Beyer numbers and tend lines. Kind of cluttered, but you can see all are going south, and the longer the race, the more the drop.
Averages - Derby, 107.7 Preakness, 109.1 Belmont, 104.4
Tom,

What is odd is that here are the average final times of the winners in the Belmont by decade:

1960's: 2:29.10
1970's: 2:28.78
1980's: 2:27.94
1990's: 2:28.42
2000's: 2:28.50
2010's: 2:30.89 (through four years)

There is no discernible difference in winning time between the 1990's and the 2000's that would warrant a decrease in Beyer to the extent shown in your graph.

[cj]

There is no discernible difference in winning time between the 1990's and the 2000's that would warrant a decrease in Beyer to the extent shown in your graph.

My opinion is the methodology is causing the figures to shrink. I've stated this since before we were competitors.

[classhandicapper]

IMO the result of the Preakness does not conclusively prove Beyer was wrong. The Preakness was on a different track, at a different distance, with a different pace, with fewer bad trips, etc... I thought he made an error in probability assessment when he concluded the race was that slow and that the horses weren't very good and I still do. The Preakness result just adds to the probability he was wrong.

If you look at the Derby field going in there were several improving horses that had already exceeded a triple digit Beyer. It was a solid if not spectacular field. On the surface it appeared that several of those horses ran well.

IMO, it was way less likely that they all ran poorly or didn't like 10F than it was that one of many odd ball conditions of that race impacted the time.

It wasn't like the race was dominated by longshots.

If you look at the Derby trips, it's possible to conclude that a few of the top horses were impacted negatively and didn't pair up that day. But that 97 figure still looks too slow. If he would have called it a 101-103, it would have made more sense given the trips and prior races. Then the 105 would also make a lot of sense. I mean, he broke the race out from the rest of the day anyway. So he might as well do it right.

[tucker6]

Any chance you could come up with the medians also? I find that number somewhat more useful since Secretariat skews the average a bit his way. Thanks.
Medians: 2:29.10 for the TC winners, and 2:28.67 for the past 50 years.

There were four TC horses that ran above 2:30, and that's why the median is so different than the mean. Also, 10 horses versus 50 horses tends to produce divergent results.

[tucker6]

My opinion is the methodology is causing the figures to shrink. I've stated this since before we were competitors.
Can there be any other explanation? If the races themselves haven't changed, then what else is left but methodology.

It also goes to show that for all the bitching that goes on about how lame the crops are each year, they have stood the test of time pretty well. There are plenty of horses coming up each year that could have competed with many horses of yesteryear. Present decade excluded so far.

[AndyC]

Thask, I believe your premise is incorrect. Beyer attempts to incorporate external factors (e.g., brutal cold/wind) into his variant. If the wind had impacted each race the same way Derby day, I believe Beyer would have captured the wind impact. However, given the Derby distance is/was unique to the card, Beyer failed to capture the wind's impact on the race (I suspect). As CJ explained, the 1 1/4 mile distance had a different wind impact than any other race on the day. I can't speak to Ragozin's work, except to guess that his analysis was also flawed. But this is all subjective (as one of the board's speed figure skeptics constantly reminds us) - maybe CC really did run a 97 on Derby day and then picked up his game for the Preakness. We could probably debate this one until you move to Vegas!

I chuckle when I read that both Beyer and Ragozin must have some kind of flaw in their process simply because they don't agree with someone's perception of the race. Ragozin has been doing figures since the 60s and Beyer since the 70s.

How does one really calculate the affect of wind? Does a horse who is running behind cover get a lower number than one running without cover?

Probably the hardest speed figure to compute is one run at a distance that hasn't been run by any of the horses and is rarely run by any horse at the track in question. Add that to the fact that many horses in the Derby are not asked to run late when there chances of a high finish are bleak.

[classhandicapper]

I chuckle when I read that both Beyer and Ragozin must have some kind of flaw in their process simply because they don't agree with someone's perception of the race.

The test is results.

We make figures because we know they tend to be predictive of future results.

When you see a figure that doesn't make sense based on both prior and subsequent performances and you have reason to believe it might have been suspect to begin with (as was the case for the Derby), then you are forced to conclude something is amiss.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I chuckle when I read that both Beyer and Ragozin must have some kind of flaw in their process simply because they don't agree with someone's perception of the race. Ragozin has been doing figures since the 60s and Beyer since the 70s.

How does one really calculate the affect of wind? Does a horse who is running behind cover get a lower number than one running without cover?

Probably the hardest speed figure to compute is one run at a distance that hasn't been run by any of the horses and is rarely run by any horse at the track in question. Add that to the fact that many horses in the Derby are not asked to run late when there chances of a high finish are bleak.

Like I said, it's all subjective. I didn't mean to denigrate either Beyer or Ragozin's work.

[highnote]

Anyone who has read Quirin knows the concept of race shapes.

The 2014 Derby race shape looks fast/slow to me, (i.e., fast early, slow late).

Fast paced races often produce slow final times.

Good races have a fast/fast shape.

Given the Derby's fast pace it makes sense that the final time was slow.

A slow Derby final time did not mean Chrome could not win the Preakness.

A good "performance figure" in the Derby does not mean Chrome will stay 10 or 12 furlongs in the classic sense. Then again, it does not mean he will not, either.