Average Crop of 3 Year Olds

[highnote]

This is a quote from an article by Steve Roman:
http://www.turfpedia.com/horseplayer_diaries/2002_preakness_preview.htm

"The relatively slow times of the Derby preps suggest this is an average crop
of three-year-olds at best. There are no "special" colts among this group.
War Emblem has emerged as the division leader yet leaves questions
unanswered. Unfortunately for the handicapper there isn't any way to answer
those questions until they are asked on the track and in the heat of
competition. War Emblem probably won't be beaten if the Preakness plays
out as his last two. At this stage we'd be guessing about his ability to prevail
in a speed duel or to lay off the pace and close on the leaders late. In light of
his pedigree and performances so far, I tend to think he won't do either
unless he displays qualities we haven't seen before."

I agree with him. I've felt all along that the speed figures of this year's crop are below those of previous years. War Emblem's Ill Derby and KY (jelly) Derby figs were earned with a slow pace. Read Roman's article at the link above to see how Churchill's surface has increased in speed over the past several years. Improvement of the breed over this same time period could not account for the dramatic decrease in final times.

Just my opinion. What's yours?

John Swetye

[PaceAdvantage]

Hard man to please there John. You may say the speed figs were earned with a slow pace (Derby pace not that slow....actually, it went according to what I projected at the 1/2)....but at least where Beyer is concerned, WE's last two speed figs are the best by a 3yo since Silver Charm I believe???? That ain't hay....


==PA

[highnote]

I disagree. When I saw the 1/4 split I was concerned WE'd steal it. When I saw the 1/2 split of 47 and change I knew it was stolen. The fractions of earlier races were much faster and won on the front end. My limited observation of the Churchill oval has been that it's a closer's track. When so many races on the card go wire-wire, it makes me think that horses were aided by a track bias.

Here's another quote from the article by Roman:

"As for internal pace, War Emblem's fractions of :47.0 and 1:11.3 were
four-fifths slower after a half, and one second slower after three-quarters
than the Derby average on a fast track since 1985. As in the Illinois Derby
he was allowed to go unchallenged early and, like many front-runners
controlling the pace, went on to a visually impressive win."

But really, this is what horseracing is all about - a difference of opinion. We'll learn alot more on Saturday. I'm betting WE will cave if he gets pressure. I'm betting he won't rate behind a fast pace. I'm not betting very much, though. :O)

[PaceAdvantage]

The only other route race on the card on Derby day went in similar early fractions to the Derby itself (at least to the 1/2 mile point), did it not?? And the one-two runners to the half in that race finished 3rd to last and 2nd to last....it was an allowance race at 8.5 furlongs....and no, those two frontrunners were not hopeless longshots...

And like another poster said elsewhere on this board, when Secretariat won the Derby, he sat way behind a 47 and change half mile, which means he went his half in what, 48 or 49 seconds??? Nobody criticized how slow he went early on....

War Emblem set his pace...sure he wasn't contested, but so what?? He ran his pace...not too fast, not too slow. Baffert and Espinoza ain't gonna let him get caught in a duel...no way...

But, like you said, that's why they make them race around the track.... ;)


==PA

[ridersup]

PA

I don't believe the track was playing as fast as some people indicate it was on Derby day. On May 2 the track was sloppy and the 3 routes played out P S3 S8 for the 3 calls.

On May 3d which was Oaks day I had the 4 routes as being S4 S3 and S2 and it playled like a typical drying out track although it was listed as fast.

On Derby day the only other route was a classifed allowance race which went in S2 S3 F3 by my figures. I had the Derby going in P P F6 which appeared to me to be a pretty good race.

Only knock I can see is that speed was holding exceedingly well with beaten lengths of winner at first call on 7 sprints run that day being 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0. Likewise from stretch call in the derby to finnish only 1 horse changed position.

$64 question is whether or not WE can rate. If he can he should be able to handle the job.

[highnote]

PA,
Good point about the other route. I'll look at those charts again for Derby day.

As for Secretariat's Derby fractions - maybe the track surface was much slower than it was this year. Put Secretariat Derby race on this year's track and maybe the first fraction would have been similar to last year's first fraction.

John

[ranchwest]

Every year I hear what a sorry bunch of 3 yo's there are. The outcry was loud when Alysheba was 3.

When a horse beats over 15 other horses at 1 1/4 mile in the KD, he's a darned good horse.

This crop will show their ability as time goes on. There may or may not be a Triple Crown horse or a record breaker, but the TC races always show the cream rising to the top.

[cj]

In retrospect, I can think of a few stinker crops, namely the year Sea Hero won the Derby and Travers, and Charasmatic's Derby year wasn't the strongest either, but most years, a few horses always turn out to be pretty darn good.

CJ

[highnote]

No question WE is a darned good horse - maybe the best of his generation. The question I'm waiting to have answered is, how good is his generation?

[Observer]

I'm a little late to this party [thread], but as always have some opinions regarding what's been said. First of all, what difference does it make how good/bad this generation is? Why does a horse's accomplishments on the track have to be judged based on how good/bad the competition is?? If the horse is getting the job done, he's getting it done. Some would argue that the "all-mighty" Cigar didn't face a very good group of horses, while others consider him to be among the greatest of the game.

As for War Emblem, now part of a rare, select group of Derby/Preakness winners .. he is proving to be a nice horse .. regardless of his competition. This horse has the deadly combination of speed and stamina, and he's providing some thrilling moments in the game.

The Derby might have been dull and boring because hardly any running positions changed, but today's race was exciting.

As for the so-called "speed bias" on Derby day .. was it really, or was it just that the best horses on the card were front-runners doing their thing? If I recall correctly, many of the horses that won while showing early speed were horses that were well bet.

Believe there was a speed bias at Churchill, and believe War Emblem got away with soft fractions on Derby day .. but don't ignore that fact that this horse finished strong in the Derby. A lesser horse would have packed it in when threatened in upper stretch, but instead, War Emblem accelerated. And, most importantly, he came back to take the Preakness, showing his Derby certainly was not a fluke. When threated in the lane at Pimlico, by a determined Proud Citizen, War Emblem kept digging for the wire, refusing to be denied.

War Emblem reminds me somewhat of Sunday Silence. No matter what Sunday Silence did, the critics were out in force insisting that Easy Goer was the better horse, and many still feel strongly to this day that Easy Goer was better. However, it was the speed combined with the stamina that gave the edge to Sunday Silence, who defeated the "better" Easy Goer in 3 of 4 confrontations.

[justin]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by swetyejohn
[B]I disagree. When I saw the 1/4 split I was concerned WE'd steal it. When I saw the 1/2 split of 47 and change I knew it was stolen. The fractions of earlier races were much faster and won on the front end. My limited observation of the Churchill oval has been that it's a closer's track. When so many races on the card go wire-wire, it makes me think that horses were aided by a track bias.

What do you expect them to run at 10F? The track wasn't made of concrete this year...everyone w/ decent pace numbers knows this horse is legit. These articles sound like sour grapes from people who cashed 0 tickets on War Emblem in either race.

Here's another quote from the article by Roman:

"As for internal pace, War Emblem's fractions of :47.0 and 1:11.3 were four-fifths slower after a half, and one second slower after three-quarters than the Derby average on a fast track since 1985. As in the Illinois Derby he was allowed to go unchallenged early and, like many front-runners controlling the pace, went on to a visually impressive win."

Raw times mean so much...How about this...in the Derby he ran fast early AND late..in the Preakness, he ran freakishly fast early and STILL solid in the lane. I agree...difference of opinions make this game great...so not trying to offend..JMHO.

-Justin

[ranchwest]

Someone said today that WE's last quarter in the Derby was the fastest since Secretariat. Granted, the fractions were moderate, but there's been a lot of Derby races since Secretariat.

[andicap]

What amazes me is that the horse has run three "peak" races within 6 weeks.

[Observer]

Originally posted by andicap
What amazes me is that the horse has run three "peak" races within 6 weeks.

Charismatic basically did the same thing by setting a record in the Lexington, followed with his Derby win, and capped by his Preakness win. Of course, we all know how his story ended, but hopefully, this year will be different.

I know a lot of people will believe War Emblem is not the "right" horse to win the elusive Triple Crown .. but then who is? If only horses like Secretariat will be embraced for a Triple Crown, then we will be waiting a long, long, long time, because they do not come around often. And if we want to see more Triple Crown winners, then we simply need to accept what's put before us.

There is no question this horse is talented, and he is really coming along ... but I have to admit, I am skeptical .. only because the Triple Crown has been so elusive and because we've seen others in recent years come into the Belmont with a Triple Crown on the line, only to fall short .. if only by a nose! Sometimes, you just get conditioned to believe some things just don't ever happen anymore. Here's hoping once again that "this year will be different."

With the form War Emblem is in, could it be possible that even if War Emblem did take a backward step, he would still be good enough over this group on their average day.

[JPinMaryland]

heres the quote:

"As for internal pace, War Emblem's fractions of :47.0 and 1:11.3 were four-fifths slower after a half, and one second slower after three-quarters than the Derby average on a fast track since 1985. As in the Illinois Derby he was allowed to go unchallenged early and, like many front-runners controlling the pace, went on to a visually impressive win."


THis is the quote that burns my britches. (well not really but...)


Okay so WarEmblem is 5 lengths off the lead at the 3/4 mark running against the "average" KY derby front runner.

How did those last 17 (every years sice 1985) front runners do? What place did they finish and with what final time?

Until Mr. Roman or sweetyeJohn answers that question, we cannot draw any conclusions from the statement alone.


SOmething also tells me that most of the record setting or near record setting final times were posted under moderate or slow paces . Could be wrong...

okay, I've got some of this KD information somewhere and I'll have to dig it out later, but for know: don't a lot of front runners in the Derby tire? So WE is running 5 lengths off the lead of the average horse.

Does he finish ahead of the "average front runner" or not? Thats the question.

WHere does the "average front runner on a fast track" finsish?

Hmmm. I've got to dig that KD stuff out of attic.

[LoganDimes]

So, every year about 30,000 thoroughbreds are born in North America, basically from the same stallions and mares that produced the previous year's crop and the one before that, etc.

But based on "relatively slow final times" of Derby preps, this crop is "average at best"? Does this guy actually get paid to write this stuff?

I doubt that he even bothered to look up past Derby prep times. I suspect he simply looked at this year's times and said, "Well, those look slow to me." I say that because he gives no numbers that would actually show systematically slow times in this year's preps. We're just supposed to take his word for it. In fact, he actually gives us reason in his article to discount the importance of final times anyway! He shows a comparison of final times at various distances for the CD meets in 1993 and 2000 and says that they can probably be explained by changes to the surfaces (although again he gives us no evidence in support of this assertion). And why 1993 and 2000? Get the feeling that maybe he just happened to pick the only two years in recent memory that show that kind of systematic contrast? Who knows, but I've got no reason to believe otherwise.

And hey, bub, you're not exactly going out on a limb by saying that a crop is "average at best." You might as well write that article every year in the middle of May, because most of the time you'll be right! I think I'll e-mail TurfPedia and see if I can write an article about the high likelihood of seeing some average horses at some racetracks in some races this year.

[ranchwest]

>You might as well write that article every year in the middle of May, because most of the time you'll be right!<

That's where most sportswriters get their articles, filed under same time last year.