TimeformUS Derby Figure

[cj]

There are many ways to interpret the race, this is the one we chose.

http://timeformusblog.com/2014/05/07/timeformuss-reasonably-in-depth-kentucky-derby-figure-review/

[Robert Fischer]

Thx CJ, that was a good read.

The figures seem very reasonable, and I think they stack up well compared to some of the other figures that I've seen on this year's Derby (Beyer, Sheets, Bris...).

Also very cool to be able to see final time and pace figures for all the runners.

[cj]

Here is some supporting work on the wind, attached. It comes from Rob Bingel, President of Equinistic, LLC. Any flaws can be attributed to the inexact data he has to work with in regards to wind speed and direction, but this leaves little doubt in my opinion that wind was a much bigger impact on final time than many people realize.

[mostpost]

There are many ways to interpret the race, this is the one we chose.

http://timeformusblog.com/2014/05/07/timeformuss-reasonably-in-depth-kentucky-derby-figure-review/
Thank you for an interesting article. I have a couple of questions. You gave California Chrome a rating of 113 in the the Santa Anita Derby and 110 in the Kentucky Derby. Do you consider that three point drop to be particularly significant; to be indicative of a drop in CC's performance level. Just on the numbers in does not seem to be, but maybe you have a different interpretation.

Second, you gave the race an adjusted final time of 2:01.81. I am wondering if you have calculated adjusted times for previous editions of the Derby and, if so,
how this year's running compares to previous running's.

[mostpost]

Here is some supporting work on the wind, attached. It comes from Rob Bingel, President of Equinistic, LLC. Any flaws can be attributed to the inexact data he has to work with in regards to wind speed and direction, but this leaves little doubt in my opinion that wind was a much bigger impact on final time than many people realize.
What I glean from Mr. Bingel's work is that California Chrome was hindered by the headwinds much more than he was aided by the tailwinds. To begin with he had two quarter mile segments during which he was running into the wind, (the first and last quarters of the race) and only one quarter (the third) during which he had a tailwind. But also, during those first and last quarters he was running pretty much without cover. On the other hand during that third quarter, there were several horses behind him which negated some of the benefits of the tailwind.

Does this seem a viable analysis?

[dannyhill]

There is a flaw in this IMO. Not as pertains to the Derby but for the future if and when adjusting speed figures for wind. If the goal is for a performance figure.
The adjustment is larger when running a slower quarter into the wind it says.
23.00 quarter was .60 second adjustment
26.00 quarter was .80 second adjustment
When the quarter in question is early in a race, running 23 into a wind has a larger negative affect than running 26 into the same wind on final time.
Not saying that the theory is incorrect but in reality a horse running an opening quarter of 23 into the wind will be affected more negatively in terms of final time than the horse running the 26.

Thank You for posting that Craig.

[cj]

Thank you for an interesting article. I have a couple of questions. You gave California Chrome a rating of 113 in the the Santa Anita Derby and 110 in the Kentucky Derby. Do you consider that three point drop to be particularly significant; to be indicative of a drop in CC's performance level. Just on the numbers in does not seem to be, but maybe you have a different interpretation.

Second, you gave the race an adjusted final time of 2:01.81. I am wondering if you have calculated adjusted times for previous editions of the Derby and, if so,
how this year's running compares to previous running's.

I don't really consider the 3 points significant, mostly because he lost a lot more ground than he had in previous races. We do not build that into the figures, so I think it is basically the same performance, maybe even better in Kentucky.

I'll have to check on the adjusted times. We have them for the past 11 runnings now.

[cj]

There is a flaw in this IMO. Not as pertains to the Derby but for the future if and when adjusting speed figures for wind. If the goal is for a performance figure.
The adjustment is larger when running a slower quarter into the wind it says.
23.00 quarter was .60 second adjustment
26.00 quarter was .80 second adjustment
When the quarter in question is early in a race, running 23 into a wind has a larger negative affect than running 26 into the same wind on final time.
Not saying that the theory is incorrect but in reality a horse running an opening quarter of 23 into the wind will be affected more negatively in terms of final time than the horse running the 26.

Thank You for posting that Craig.

I'm by no means saying the results are 100% accurate, just a rough guide given the information we have, which is far from precise.

[cj]

What I glean from Mr. Bingel's work is that California Chrome was hindered by the headwinds much more than he was aided by the tailwinds. To begin with he had two quarter mile segments during which he was running into the wind, (the first and last quarters of the race) and only one quarter (the third) during which he had a tailwind. But also, during those first and last quarters he was running pretty much without cover. On the other hand during that third quarter, there were several horses behind him which negated some of the benefits of the tailwind.

Does this seem a viable analysis?

Yes, pretty close. I think the tailwind is much tougher to figure out than the headwind.

[dannyhill]

I'm by no means saying the results are 100% accurate, just a rough guide given the information we have, which is far from precise.
Sorry, i am really not directing that at the Derby but as a general statement towards the future. It is a solid approach you have outlined at deriving a Derby final figure.

[cj]

Sorry, i am really not directing that at the Derby but as a general statement towards the future. It is a solid approach you have outlined at deriving a Derby final figure.

I know you weren't, no worries. I understood your point.

[highnote]

Didn't Beyer give CC a 97 BSF?

Given the figure Timeform gave CC with the wind adjustment, what would the approximate wind adjusted BSF analog be?

[cj]

Didn't Beyer give CC a 97 BSF?

Given the figure Timeform gave CC with the wind adjustment, what would the approximate wind adjusted Beyer equivalent be?

I posted this earlier, pretty sure it is about 103. Doesn't sound like much difference, but that is about 4 lengths.

[highnote]

I posted this earlier, pretty sure it is about 103. Doesn't sound like much difference, but that is about 4 lengths.

That sounds more reasonable and puts CC's effort more in line with historical figures.

[highnote]

Here is some supporting work on the wind, attached. It comes from Rob Bingel, President of Equinistic, LLC. Any flaws can be attributed to the inexact data he has to work with in regards to wind speed and direction, but this leaves little doubt in my opinion that wind was a much bigger impact on final time than many people realize.


This sentence from Bingel may be true, but the effect would be miniscule:

The slower the pace is, the more time the horses are exposed to the wind, and hence the bigger the time impact.

Intuitively, whether a horse is exposed to wind for 23 seconds or 25 seconds hardly makes a difference.

Maybe this was just a slow group of horses?

[highnote]

Steven Roman gave CC a -61 speed figure. That's the biggest speed figure he's given a Derby winner since Big Brown's -68. (On Roman's scale the more negative the number the better the speed figure.)

I don't know how Roman makes his figures, but it he gave him a pretty good number. He gave CC a -64 in the Santa Anita Derby.

CC's -61 speed figure compares to a 102 Beyer.

A 102 Beyer is certainly in the wind-adjusted range of CJ's figure.

[Tom]

This has been an enjoyable side bar to the Derby - love these discussions of figure making and differing opinions.

[Grits]

This has been an enjoyable side bar to the Derby - love these discussions of figure making and differing opinions.

It has been informative. Tom, I agree. Still, for all the men creating figures everyday for races throughout the country--this is hard. Doesn't matter who it is--Cj, DougS, Roman, Beyer, Ragozin, Thorograph, etc, etc. Each have their own formulas, their own way of creating and arriving at their figures, whether its the Derby, or a nonwinners of two other than.

The elements they use vary. And it doesn't need to come down to "I'm right and you're wrong". The race is over. Look towards the Preakness and let go of some of the energy being spent debating Saturday's big race. Its history now, and so is the figure.

Maybe, its ok to let it be.... before exhaustion takes its toll.

Not anything to do with an animal can be an ABSOLUTE EXACT 365 days a year. This would be asking the impossible, gentlemen. jmho.

[Valuist]

Another reason to stop using acronymns. Both the Derby winner and runnerup are CC.

[cj]

For the guy with the deleted posts, no problem with you saying something is wrong if you want to say how the paper is wrong. But short of that, take a hike.

[highnote]

Another reason to stop using acronymns. Both the Derby winner and runnerup are CC.


Does anyone care about the runner up. ;)

Actually, that's a good point. I didn't even notice. CalC from now on. :D

[highnote]

Nick Mordin has been making speed figures longer than anyone that I know of, except Beyer. And he has almost certainly been making them longer than anyone in Europe. Nick makes European speed figures which are notoriously difficult to make. Now, that's not to say he is any good at it, :D ...but he has a lot of experience.

He approaches figure making differently. He starts out by figuring how many seconds per mile dirt winners were off of the "Standard Time".* This is one good way of accounting for a race when it is the only one on the card at the distance -- like the KY Derby.

He says the slowest race on card was the first race, but that was the only anomaly. He hypothesizes that the top two from that race will go on to be good runners and the race was slow run because the rest of the horses were probably not that fast.

He says the fastest race on the card was the 9th "fought out by two serious G1 horses". And this is where it gets interesting. He says if he "rates the 9th as an average G1 for older horses then the KY Derby rates 2/5ths of a second per mile slower, which would be the norm for a European Classic this yearly in the year."

So the consensus seems to be that the KY Derby was an average G1 3-year old Classic. Probably run faster than the 97 that Beyer gave it.

* The "Standard Time" is the time it takes a hypothetical grade 1 horse to run a given distance at a given track. The key to his figures is creating a good set of Standard Times. You can read about his system in his book, "Mordin on Time".

[cj]

Nick Mordin has been making speed figures longer than anyone that I know of, except Beyer. And he has almost certainly been making them longer than anyone in Europe. Nick makes European speed figures which are notoriously difficult to make. Now, that's not to say he is any good at it, :D ...but he has a lot of experience.

He approaches figure making differently. He starts out by figuring how many seconds per mile dirt winners were off of the "Standard Time".* This is one good way of accounting for a race when it is the only one on the card at the distance -- like the KY Derby.

He says the slowest race on card was the first race, but that was the only anomaly. He hypothesizes that the top two from that race will go on to be good runners and the race was slow run because the rest of the horses were probably not that fast.

He says the fastest race on the card was the 9th "fought out by two serious G1 horses". And this is where it gets interesting. He says if he "rates the 9th as an average G1 for older horses then the KY Derby rates 2/5ths of a second per mile slower, which would be the norm for a European Classic this yearly in the year."

So the consensus seems to be that the KY Derby was an average G1 3-year old Classic. Probably run faster than the 97 that Beyer gave it.

* The "Standard Time" is the time it takes a hypothetical grade 1 horse to run a given distance at a given track. The key to his figures is creating a good set of Standard Times. You can read about his system in his book, "Mordin on Time".

Nick is a sharp guy and very nice man to boot. I've read all his books and spent some time with him at Saratoga as well.

[Cratos]

For the guy with the deleted posts, no problem with you saying something is wrong if you want to say how the paper is wrong. But short of that, take a hike.

The paper is wrong on many levels, but most importantly is the attempt to take a model which evaluates a single horse and extrapolate it over 19 horses is nonsense. For as the calculations I believe the poster on this forum who has done some work with fluid dynamics and that is what is being discussed when you speak of aerodynamic drag (air resistance) as it relates to horse racing would be “Magister Ludi”

Incidentally, I did publish on this forum my analytical thoughts on the wind effect on the Derby's final time in another thread.

And I could go into some math and physic calculations again to prove my point, but for what? That would take away from the point and be boring in my opinion.

However if you believe that your speed figure methodology says California Chrome ran an adjusted 2:01.86 final time I don’t have a problem with that conclusion because your methodology is proprietary to you.

But the science of fluid dynamics and how it relates to horseracing is not and that was my salient comment.

Finally if you cannot take a difference of an opinion you should not post. If someone disagrees with me so what; I am not always right and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[cj]

The paper is wrong on many levels, but most importantly is the attempt to take a model which evaluates a single horse and extrapolate it over 19 horses is nonsense. For as the calculations I believe the poster on this forum who has done some work with fluid dynamics and that is what is being discussed when you speak of aerodynamic drag (air resistance) as it relates to horse racing would be “Magister Ludi”

Incidentally, I did publish on this forum my analytical thoughts on the wind effect on the Derby's final time in another thread.

And I could go into some math and physic calculations again to prove my point, but for what? That would take away from the point and be boring in my opinion.

However if you believe that your speed figure methodology says California Chrome ran an adjusted 2:01.86 final time I don’t have a problem with that conclusion because your methodology is proprietary to you.

But the science of fluid dynamics and how it relates to horseracing is not and that was my salient comment.

Finally if you cannot take a difference of an opinion you should not post. If someone disagrees with me so what; I am not always right and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Honestly, I don't care what you post, but you just can't do a fly by "he's wrong" and not back it up. He detailed the issues you mention. He is a very sharp guy and I respect his opinion. Nobody was looking for an exact impact of the wind in terms of time. It was always just an estimate.

For the record, I did not use this data to make the figures. I never said as much. The figures were done long before this ever was presented.

[highnote]

Honestly, I don't care what you post, but you just can't do a fly by "he's wrong" and not back it up. He detailed the issues you mention. He is a very sharp guy and I respect his opinion. Nobody was looking for an exact impact of the wind in terms of time. It was always just an estimate.

For the record, I did not use this data to make the figures. I never said as much. The figures were done long before this ever was presented.

Here is a quote from Nick that sums up pretty well the figure making process for this year's Derby.


In my experience it's hard enough dealing with the times horses actually ran. When you add in another layer of complexity by trying to guess how fast they would have run in other circumstances you're likely to produce ratings that are much more strongly swayed by your own opinion of how good a performance should have been.

I think a lot of this kind of thinking stems from a desire to know stuff before it can be known. Everyone wants to look clever and say they have all the answers right now. But I guarantee things will look very different a few months hence - and in a way that nobody is currently predicting. That's the way it always is.

[Cratos]

Honestly, I don't care what you post, but you just can't do a fly by "he's wrong" and not back it up. He detailed the issues you mention. He is a very sharp guy and I respect his opinion. Nobody was looking for an exact impact of the wind in terms of time. It was always just an estimate.

For the record, I did not use this data to make the figures. I never said as much. The figures were done long before this ever was presented.

Good, he is a sharp guy and you respect his opinion. But as I inferred neither he nor me has the right to the science of aerodynamics as they relate to horseracing.

You wanted “numbers”; I have attached another study done in Europe and it will give you and other posters a sense of air resistance as it relates to horseracing. The problem with it is that it was done on turf.

Incidentally, my comments were never personal against you or Bingel; they were however a difference of opinion.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I second Tom's sentiment from above - appreciate CJ's insight into his figures.

And for the love of God, will a certain poster learn the difference between "infer" and "imply?" Pet peeve.

[highnote]

Good, he is a sharp guy and you respect his opinion. But as I inferred neither he nor me has the right to the science of aerodynamics as they relate to horseracing.

You wanted “numbers”; I have attached another study done in Europe and it will give you and other posters a sense of air resistance as it relates to horseracing. The problem with it is that it was done on turf.

Incidentally, my comments were never personal against you or Bingel; they were however a difference of opinion.


Very interesting read!

[Bullet Plane]

This has been an enjoyable side bar to the Derby - love these discussions of figure making and differing opinions.


Agree!

That's part of this game that makes it so much fun...

That Derby figure... what a damn mystery!

[tanner12oz]

Cj when will the preakness card be available?

[cj]

Shortly after entries are drawn, which I believe is Wednesday.

[highnote]

Wayne Lukas says that if you can run 12 second eighths (24 second quarters) you can win the Derby.

The first fraction of the Derby was run in 23 seconds. Cal Chrome and others ran the first quarter on a straightaway and were trying to get position before the first turn. So it makes sense that it was run slightly faster than 24 seconds.

The next quarter (much of it around the first turn) was run in 24 seconds. That makes sense as horses run slower around a turn -- especially the tight paperclip turns of CD.

The backstretch (the third quarter) was run in 24 seconds. Cal C was in the garden spot for most of the race.

The fourth quarter was run in a pedestrian 26 around the far turn and Cal C started making his move as the front runner began to tire.

Cal C exited the turn and into the stretch with the lead and ran the final quarter in 26 seconds. The jock hit him 22 times by my count and was hitting him until just past the sixteenth pole. Cal C was not allowed to coast when he had a 5 length lead. The jock made sure the win was secured.

It looked to me like the jock was urging him home and did not let up until the final few strides before the wire.

The final half was run in 52 seconds. That seems slow to me. It's possible the track was slower than normal for the Derby, but I am skeptical.

I am starting to fall into the Beyer 97 camp, but still not totally convinced.

I like Social Inclusion in the Preakness. If Social wins will Cal C even run in the Belmont?

Cal C' dosage is something like 3.46 -- that is a little high for the Belmont.

I will definitely bet against the Derby winner in the Belmont.

I would like to see a TC winner and will gladly lose my Belmont bet if California Chrome can be a Triple Crown winner.

[tanner12oz]

I take the same approach money and rooting different horses...kinda like a 2 for 1

I like si but call me crazy I kinda like Pablo too

[Robert Fischer]

California Chrome ran well enough to win or be 2nd, in most of the Derbys that didn't have a meltdown pace.

Visually - if I was forced to make a rough and recent comparison, - I'd say he ran fairly similar to how Bodiemeister ran in the 2012 Kentucky Derby. The track was faster in the 2012 Derby, and Bodemeister also used a higher percentage of energy during the early pace than California Chrome did in 2014. As far as general pattern shape and performance, I think they are relatively comparable.

[highnote]

California Chrome ran well enough to win or be 2nd, in most of the Derbys that didn't have a meltdown pace.

Visually - if I was forced to make a rough and recent comparison, - I'd say he ran fairly similar to how Bodiemeister ran in the 2012 Kentucky Derby. The track was faster in the 2012 Derby, and Bodemeister also used a higher percentage of energy during the early pace than California Chrome did in 2014. As far as general pattern shape and performance, I think they are relatively comparable.


Good point.

[cj]

Worth another read with the Preakness behind us. Glad I didn't have him with a low figure for the Derby win, I never believed that for a second.

http://timeformusblog.com/2014/05/07/timeformuss-reasonably-in-depth-kentucky-derby-figure-review/

[cj]

On Twitter, based on the earlier races and the Preakness field, I predicted a final time of 1:55 flat. Came in 1:54.86, so not too shabby!

[highnote]

On Twitter, based on the earlier races and the Preakness field, I predicted a final time of 1:55 flat. Came in 1:54.86, so not too shabby!


Good one!

I figured the time would be faster than the Derby given the shorter distance. The 12 furlong time for the Belmont will be very interesting!

[Exotic1]

On Twitter, based on the earlier races and the Preakness field, I predicted a final time of 1:55 flat. Came in 1:54.86, so not too shabby!

Incredible.

Round up to the nearest 1/5th.

[Sapio]

On Twitter, based on the earlier races and the Preakness field, I predicted a final time of 1:55 flat. Came in 1:54.86, so not too shabby!

Hi cj

Nice call! Your prediction included the variant.

Thomas Sapio

[Edward DeVere]

I figured the time would be faster than the Derby given the shorter distance.

Well, yeah.

:o)

[highnote]

Well, yeah.

:o)


LOL

I meant the speed figure.

The more I think about it the more I agree with Beyer. The Derby was a slow run race because none of the horses are true classic horses.

Preakness is a bit shorter and easier for Chrome to stay the distance.

He might very well win the TC. It will be interesting to see his figure for the Belmont.

[highnote]

CJ -- did you have to isolate the Derby to make figure for Cal Chrome or did you make a variant based on the average of all the dirt races on the card?

What is the par time for 10 furlongs at CD? I'm thinking it must be somewhere around 2:02 for older stakes horses.

The big question for me is was the Derby slow run because these horses can't stay 10 furlongs and there a Derby figure should be based on all the dirt races on the day or was the Derby an anomaly and it must be isolated. Or should a Derby figure be projected based on future races?

The problem with projecting is that Cal Chrome might earn a big figure at 9 furlongs and it would be tempting to project his Derby based on a future 9 furlong race. However, some horses just don't stay 10 furlongs.

I believe Serena's Song had a hard time staying 10 furlongs. In deep stretch of a 10 furlong race she was start to get "the wobbles" as Nick Mordin calls them. This is when a horse gets very tired and starts to zig zag. She was great at 9 furlongs, but she couldn't handle 10. It might have been a different Grade 1 filly. Whoever is I'm thinking of, she was by Storm Cat or Storm Bird.

As I said before, I think the Derby was run slow because these horses can't stay a classic distance. Cal Chrome could win the Belmont and still run a slow time if all the other horses can't stay.

This is probably one of the most intriguing Belmont Stakes I can remember.

[cj]

LOL

I meant the speed figure.

The more I think about it the more I agree with Beyer. The Derby was a slow run race because none of the horses are true classic horses.

Preakness is a bit shorter and easier for Chrome to stay the distance.

He might very well win the TC. It will be interesting to see his figure for the Belmont.

You really think a horse winning our best race did so several lengths slower than he ran two weeks later at a distance only 1/2 furlong shorter?

[taxicab]

Beyer blew it when he failed to realize that the CD two turn races were being run in incredibly slow times from the day the spring meet opened.
How he missed this is beyond me.

[highnote]

You really think a horse winning our best race did so several lengths slower than he ran two weeks later at a distance only 1/2 furlong shorter?


As I said, Serena's Song got the wobbles at 10 furlongs, but was a champion at 9. If an eighth can make a difference then a sixteenth could possibly make a difference. Had I not seen it with my own eyes I might be more skeptical.

Check out the charts here:

http://chef-de-race.com/dosage/classics/dosage_inflation_in_the_derby.htm

The data is pretty convincing that the Dosage of Ky Derby winners is inflating. Thoroughbreds continue to be bred for speed more than stamina.

I think it is quite possible that NONE of the horses in this year's Derby are able to stay classic distances this time of year as well as their ancestors.

I would love to see a TC winner and I hope Cal Chrome wins the Belmont, but if I was going to bet I'd be laying odds on Cal Chrome on a betting exchange.

Kid Cruz is the interesting horse. Lemon Drop Kid is the sire. Cruz has a low Dosage of 1.50. He has a lot of Dosage points and has 5 Dosage points in the Solid category.

By the way, when you get a chance can you reply to my other post:


CJ -- did you have to isolate the Derby to make figure for Cal Chrome or did you make a variant based on the average of all the dirt races on the card?

What is the par time for 10 furlongs at CD? I'm thinking it must be somewhere around 2:02 for older stakes horses.

The big question for me is was the Derby slow run because these horses can't stay 10 furlongs and there a Derby figure should be based on all the dirt races on the day or was the Derby an anomaly and it must be isolated. Or should a Derby figure be projected based on future races?

The problem with projecting is that Cal Chrome might earn a big figure at 9 furlongs and it would be tempting to project his Derby based on a future 9 furlong race. However, some horses just don't stay 10 furlongs.

I believe Serena's Song had a hard time staying 10 furlongs. In deep stretch of a 10 furlong race she was start to get "the wobbles" as Nick Mordin calls them. This is when a horse gets very tired and starts to zig zag. She was great at 9 furlongs, but she couldn't handle 10. It might have been a different Grade 1 filly. Whoever is I'm thinking of, she was by Storm Cat or Storm Bird.

As I said before, I think the Derby was run slow because these horses can't stay a classic distance. Cal Chrome could win the Belmont and still run a slow time if all the other horses can't stay.

This is probably one of the most intriguing Belmont Stakes I can remember.

[cj]

CJ -- did you have to isolate the Derby to make figure for Cal Chrome or did you make a variant based on the average of all the dirt races on the card?

It was isolated as detailed in the post that started this thread.

What is the par time for 10 furlongs at CD? I'm thinking it must be somewhere around 2:02 for older stakes horses.

I really don't use things like par times any longer to make figures.

The big question for me is was the Derby slow run because these horses can't stay 10 furlongs and there a Derby figure should be based on all the dirt races on the day or was the Derby an anomaly and it must be isolated. Or should a Derby figure be projected based on future races?

The problem with projecting is that Cal Chrome might earn a big figure at 9 furlongs and it would be tempting to project his Derby based on a future 9 furlong race. However, some horses just don't stay 10 furlongs.


My speed charts reflect racing in 2014, not from 2004 or 1994 or whatever. The times I use as equivalent at 9 and 10f represent what modern horses run, not Spectacular Bid or Kelso.

[highnote]

It was isolated as detailed in the post that started this thread.
Thanks!



I really don't use things like par times any longer to make figures.
Thanks!


My speed charts reflect racing in 2014, not from 2004 or 1994 or whatever. The times I use as equivalent at 9 and 10f represent what modern horses run, not Spectacular Bid or Kelso.

OK. That's a horse of a different color then. I don't know a lot about your figures. I agree with you then that Cal C ran a good race against his peers, but ...

Beyer's 97 could be correct because his figures can be viewed in more of a historical context.

Beyer's 97 would support Steve Roman's Dosage chart. The trend in breeding is causing thoroughbreds to not run the Classic distances as fast as their ancestors.

The quandary is that Roman gave Cal C a speed figure that is approximately equal to a Beyer 106 which puts Cal C on par with what you gave him.

I know this is not important to a lot of people, but it's important to the breeding industry. I don't know the exact numbers, but I assume breeding is a multi-billion dollar industry. So its important to understand what is going on. Speed Figures and Dosage are a couple of ways to make sense of the evolution of the breed. At one time, final time was the way to know if the breed was getting faster. Final time by itself was pretty meaningless in this year's Derby. :D

[cj]

There are previous TimeformUS speed figures for Belmont winners:

Palice Malice 107
Union Rags 114
Ruler On Ice 111
Drosselmeyer 105
Summer Bird 111
Da Tara 106
Rags To Riches 117

[thaskalos]

Beyer blew it when he failed to realize that the CD two turn races were being run in incredibly slow times from the day the spring meet opened.
How he missed this is beyond me.
Maybe he missed that because the only two other two-turn routes that day were a claiming and a maiden race. You guys make it sound as if it was stakes horses who ran slow in those two other two-turn routes.

[taxicab]

Maybe he missed that because the only two other two-turn routes that day were a claiming and a maiden race. You guys make it sound as if it was stakes horses who ran slow in those two other two-turn routes.

Wrong.
I was talking about the entire spring meet through the Saturday card two days ago.
The two turn races have played as slow as they ever have at CD.
The times are Calder like.

[thaskalos]

Wrong.
I was talking about the entire spring meet through the Saturday card two days ago.
The two turn races have played as slow as they ever have at CD.
The times are Calder like.

How could the two-turn races have been as slow as you say...when the two-turn maiden race on Derby day was run in identical inner fractions as the Kentucky Derby?

[taxicab]

How could the two-turn races have been as slow as you say...when the two-turn maiden race on Derby day was run in identical inner fractions as the Kentucky Derby?

No it wasn't.
I have nothing to do with how slow the two turn races are playing at Churchill.
Just go to the DRF site and check the results from all of the CD two turn races through Saturday( from opening day of the spring meet).
It's all there in black and white.
BTW....The Kentucky Derby had the fastest opening 1/4 & 1/2 of any two turn race @ CD through last Saturday.

[thaskalos]

No it wasn't.
I have nothing to do with how slow the two turn races are playing at Churchill.
Just go to the DRF site and check the results from all of the CD two turn races through Saturday( from opening day of the spring meet).
It's all there in black and white.
BTW....The Kentucky Derby had the fastest opening 1/4 & 1/2 of any two turn race @ CD through last Saturday.

If you go to the charts on the day of the Derby...you will find that a two-turn MAIDEN race had half-mile, six-furlong, and mile fractions exactly one-fifth of a second slower than the Kentucky Derby.

Let me repeat that:

The internal fractions of a maiden two-turn race on Derby day were only one-fifth of a second slower than the Derby. Check it and see.

If that doesn't seem odd to you...then what can I say?

[highnote]

The internal fractions of a maiden two-turn race on Derby day were only one-fifth of a second slower than the Derby. Check it and see.

If that doesn't seem odd to you...then what can I say?

It looks to me like the Derby was run fast early and slow late.

If you combine the pace figure and the final figure the way Steve Roman and cj (I think) do to create a performance figure then it makes sense that it was a decent figure. William Quirin suggested years ago that this might be a way to measure performance, but he did not come to a conclusion.

Beyer and Ragozin don't make pace figures, just final time figures. The final time was slow. So it makes sense that the Beyer and Rag figures are low.

Other big questions are what happens to Cal Chrome if the pace is quick in the Belmont? Will he stay 12 furlongs in decent time? Will he be the best stayer of 12 furlongs, but in a slow time? Will a closer beat him?

[Cratos]

It looks to me like the Derby was run fast early and slow late.

If you combine the pace figure and the final figure the way Steve Roman and cj (I think) do to create a performance figure then it makes sense that it was a decent figure. William Quirin suggested years ago that this might be a way to measure performance, but he did not come to a conclusion.

Beyer and Ragozin don't make pace figures, just final time figures. The final time was slow. So it makes sense that the Beyer and Rag figures are low.

Other big questions are what happens to Cal Chrome if the pace is quick in the Belmont? Will he stay 12 furlongs in decent time? Will he be the best stayer of 12 furlongs, but in a slow time? Will a closer beat him?

There isn't any doubt in my mind that the Belmont pace will be fast if Social Inclusion runs.

[AndyC]

It looks to me like the Derby was run fast early and slow late.

If you combine the pace figure and the final figure the way Steve Roman and cj (I think) do to create a performance figure then it makes sense that it was a decent figure. William Quirin suggested years ago that this might be a way to measure performance, but he did not come to a conclusion.

Beyer and Ragozin don't make pace figures, just final time figures. The final time was slow. So it makes sense that the Beyer and Rag figures are low.

Other big questions are what happens to Cal Chrome if the pace is quick in the Belmont? Will he stay 12 furlongs in decent time? Will he be the best stayer of 12 furlongs, but in a slow time? Will a closer beat him?

Combining pace figures and final figures can be be as misleading as just a final time figure. Every horse is affected by pace differently in every race. To say that A + B = C doesn't tell the whole story.

[taxicab]

If you go to the charts on the day of the Derby...you will find that a two-turn MAIDEN race had half-mile, six-furlong, and mile fractions exactly one-fifth of a second slower than the Kentucky Derby.

Let me repeat that:

The internal fractions of a maiden two-turn race on Derby day were only one-fifth of a second slower than the Derby. Check it and see.

If that doesn't seem odd to you...then what can I say?

In message #53 you said identical fractions.
That's what I responded to.
Now you're saying 1/5th slower.
How was I supposed to know you were going to change your story.
And what about all of the other two turn races @ CD during the spring meet ?
No comment ?

[AndyC]

In message #53 you said identical fractions.
That's what I responded to.
Now you're saying 1/5th slower.
How was I supposed to know you were going to change your story.
And what about all of the other two turn races @ CD during the spring meet ?
No comment ?

Comparing route fractions from different distances is difficult without making adjustments for where the fractions were run on the track.

[cj]

Comparing route fractions from different distances is difficult without making adjustments for where the fractions were run on the track.

Comparing races 1.5 furlongs apart in distance doesn't make a lot of sense either. Would anybody compare fractions at 5.5f to a race at 7f? Different part of the track and different tactics.

[cj]

Combining pace figures and final figures can be be as misleading as just a final time figure. Every horse is affected by pace differently in every race. To say that A + B = C doesn't tell the whole story.

Just for the record, we don't do A + B = C at TimeformUS, not even close.

[AndyC]

Comparing races 1.5 furlongs apart in distance doesn't make a lot of sense either. Would anybody compare fractions at 5.5f to a race at 7f? Different part of the track and different tactics.


Fortunately, there are many who would compare fractions at different distances without any thought to differences whatsoever.

[highnote]

Combining pace figures and final figures can be be as misleading as just a final time figure. Every horse is affected by pace differently in every race. To say that A + B = C doesn't tell the whole story.


Agree

[AndyC]

Just for the record, we don't do A + B = C at TimeformUS, not even close.

My response was not a shot at your figure making merely a response to someone saying that adding a pace figure in with a final figure somehow guarantees a better number.

For the record, I have never used your figures and have no knowledge of the methodology you employ. Accordingly, any general comments I make should not be construed as a criticism of your work. I apologize if my comments were taken as such.

[highnote]

Comparing races 1.5 furlongs apart in distance doesn't make a lot of sense either. Would anybody compare fractions at 5.5f to a race at 7f? Different part of the track and different tactics.


Or 9.5 furlongs and 12 furlongs.

[Cratos]

Or 9.5 furlongs and 12 furlongs.

You are very correct!!!

[highnote]

You are very correct!!!


10 and 12 for that matter.

[cj]

My response was not a shot at your figure making merely a response to someone saying that adding a pace figure in with a final figure somehow guarantees a better number.

For the record, I have never used your figures and have no knowledge of the methodology you employ. Accordingly, any general comments I make should not be construed as a criticism of your work. I apologize if my comments were taken as such.

No worries, I didn't take it that way. I just wanted to clear up what seemed to be a general misconception in the thread, not directed at your post