Derby Beyer?

[Mr. Nobody]

A reasonable guess to me would be 90-93 range. You could argue that the track slowed down for the Derby and the EZ Gentleman race following it, but anything over 95 would seem like a made up number to me. On and off rain makes it tough to make a variant on this kind of day, but if the track was so slow for the Derby how did they go :46.16 for the half mile?

I'm guessing the "official" Beyer will be a gentleman's 98 or 99 just to prevent controversy.

[toussaud]

i would be shocked if it broke a 100. i'd be shocked if it came close to 100.

i'm thinking 96.

[owlet]

100. Andy likes to say it's a pure speed figure but it isn't. It's a "performance rating."

It would be a further shock to the consciousness of the industry to have a Beyer below 100 in the most important race of the year and Andy and Mark Hopkins are keenly aware of it. The parade of B.S. continues. Alw. horses go 1:22 for 7f and our best "distance" horses barely break 2:05. hahaha

[Valuist]

I'm thinking it will be right around 100. It wasn't like 5 horses were within a length at the finish. Could even be as high as 102-103.

One can't realistically compare the 1 turn race times with the 1 1/4 time, especially on an off track. I know the speed charts say you can, but most figure makers split the variants. Its also been my experience that on off tracks, the variance from expected times can be very small at the sprint distances but turn considerable in the longer routes.

[the little guy]

100. Andy likes to say it's a pure speed figure but it isn't. It's a "performance rating."

It would be a further shock to the consciousness of the industry to have a Beyer below 100 in the most important race of the year and Andy and Mark Hopkins are keenly aware of it. The parade of B.S. continues. Alw. horses go 1:22 for 7f and our best "distance" horses barely break 2:05. hahaha


I was going to give out the number.....but I have to vomit first after reading this.

[the little guy]

OK, all better.

104.

[RXB]

Tell Big Andy to give me a job. :)

[Bruddah]

For those thinking Ice Box ran a good race, it was an optical illusion. He was running forward (closing) with a slow final 1/4 mile and all the others were backing up (puking the bit) with a slower final 1/4 mile.

All of these slugs can barely run 1m 1/8th. The Belmont only needs a true distance horse to upset Super Savers run for a Triple Crown. If one doesn't show up in the next 30 days (there are none in the Derby group), I'm afraid we will have a pretender to the Crown. (JMHO)

[toussaud]

For those thinking Ice Box ran a good race, it was an optical illusion. He was running forward (closing) with a slow final 1/4 mile and all the others were backing up (puking the bit) with a slower final 1/4 mile.

All of these slugs can barely run 1m 1/8th. The Belmont only needs a true distance horse to upset Super Savers run for a Triple Crown. If one doesn't show up in the next 30 days (there are none in the Derby group), I'm afraid we will have a pretender to the Crown. (JMHO)
setsuko.

[Valuist]

For those thinking Ice Box ran a good race, it was an optical illusion. He was running forward (closing) with a slow final 1/4 mile and all the others were backing up (puking the bit) with a slower final 1/4 mile.

All of these slugs can barely run 1m 1/8th. The Belmont only needs a true distance horse to upset Super Savers run for a Triple Crown. If one doesn't show up in the next 30 days (there are none in the Derby group), I'm afraid we will have a pretender to the Crown. (JMHO)

Absolutely (re: Ice Box). That should mean a nice underlay in Baltimore.

Somebody, maybe Beyer or Davidowitz, wrote about how when there is a very fast pace in the Derby, invariably the Preakness pace is considerably slower. Obviously the Derby speedballs realize they have distance limitations, and the riders are more aware of the pace. A soft pace and Ice Box has no chance.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm afraid we will have a pretender to the Crown. (JMHO)Pretenders don't win Triple Crowns...the racing gods make sure of that...

[Valuist]

I think Rule is going to be a major factor. Pletcher said the other day he was pointing Rule for the race. It may be purely coincidence, its funny how often the higher priced of uncoupled entries win.....even in Triple Crown races.

[the little guy]

Whether or not Ice Box ran a " good race " today...he ran the best race today.

[Steve R]

My figure is equivalent to BSF 103.

[Cardus]

For those thinking Ice Box ran a good race, it was an optical illusion. He was running forward (closing) with a slow final 1/4 mile and all the others were backing up (puking the bit) with a slower final 1/4 mile.

All of these slugs can barely run 1m 1/8th. The Belmont only needs a true distance horse to upset Super Savers run for a Triple Crown. If one doesn't show up in the next 30 days (there are none in the Derby group), I'm afraid we will have a pretender to the Crown. (JMHO)

This post must be an optical illusion.

I swear it reads that Ice Box did not run a "good race" today.

It can't say that, can it?

[slewis]

No, TLG.."Very Good" race..... He took a lot of dirt....much more than the winner.

[depalma113]

I think Rule is going to be a major factor. Pletcher said the other day he was pointing Rule for the race. It may be purely coincidence, its funny how often the higher priced of uncoupled entries win.....even in Triple Crown races.

Rule is not going to be entered in the Preakness.

Winstar, a stallion farm, is going to take a chance at having their homebred colt, Super Saver, lose it's shot at the Triple Crown to one of their own horses. No freaking way.

[Cardus]

100. Andy likes to say it's a pure speed figure but it isn't. It's a "performance rating."

It would be a further shock to the consciousness of the industry to have a Beyer below 100 in the most important race of the year and Andy and Mark Hopkins are keenly aware of it. The parade of B.S. continues. Alw. horses go 1:22 for 7f and our best "distance" horses barely break 2:05. hahaha

Yes, the parade of BS continues...

[citation'48]

This post must be an optical illusion.

I swear it reads that Ice Box did not run a "good race" today.

It can't say that, can it?
I thought Ice Box ran a pretty darn good race today.
I also don't believe Super Saver, game as he was today, is any kind of a Triple Crown horse.

[the little guy]

No, TLG.."Very Good" race..... He took a lot of dirt....much more than the winner.


You seem to have missed the point of my post.

[owlet]

There's no denying these horses are 5-7 lengths behind the likes of Monarchos, Silver Charm, Strike the Gold, etc.

[tzipi]

To TLG or anyone who wants to give an opinion,
Did you think Looking at Lucky ran a good race? All that trouble in the beggining and he still came on in the stretch. Good win bet for the Preakness if he gets to run his race? Also do you think the slop affected him?

[Robert Goren]

Lucky has been in trouble a lot. At some point you have stop looking at the excuses and start looking at the horse. JMO

[the little guy]

To TLG or anyone who wants to give an opinion,
Did you think Looking at Lucky ran a good race? All that trouble in the beggining and he still came on in the stretch. Good win bet for the Preakness if he gets to run his race? Also do you think the slop affected him?

I've just never been a big fan, but if you liked him today you can certainly give him another chance.

I thought the first steady was relatively meaningless ( most horses have some minor trouble ) but the second one was pretty bad. Paddy O'Prado cut over sharply, forcing in Stately Victor, who then caused Lookin at Lucky to check out badly and lose substantial postion.

Incidentally, it was also Lookin at Lucky that prevented Ice Box from winning, as he held the position Ice Box needed when they came into the stretch.

[tzipi]

You got a point Robert but I was just thinking it happened so early with that horrible post he had that I thought it was a toss. Maybe not. I'll have to see his odds in the Preakness I guess.

[tzipi]

I've just never been a big fan, but if you liked him today you can certainly give him another chance.

I thought the first steady was relatively meaningless ( most horses have some minor trouble ) but the second one was pretty bad. Paddy O'Prado cut over sharply, forcing in Stately Victor, who then caused Lookin at Lucky to check out badly and lose substantial postion.

Incidentally, it was also Lookin at Lucky that prevented Ice Box from winning, as he held the position Ice Box needed when they came into the stretch.


Yeah maybe I'll have to go back and look at the first steady again. I could be overplaying it. Well as I said to Robert, I guess I'll have to look at his odds in the Preakness before I make a final decision whether to bet. See what kind of value I'll get. Thanks Andy :ThmbUp:

[JustRalph]

I thought Ice Box ran a pretty darn good race today.
I also don't believe Super Saver, game as he was today, is any kind of a Triple Crown horse.


The Goalpost moves every year based on the Crop. He might well be a Triple Crown Horse...........in this year. What the hell, best chance as any.

But way too early to talk about a Triple Crown (happens every freakin year) until he wins the Preakness......then we can talk about it

[Valuist]

Rule is not going to be entered in the Preakness.

Winstar, a stallion farm, is going to take a chance at having their homebred colt, Super Saver, lose it's shot at the Triple Crown to one of their own horses. No freaking way.

I'm going by what I heard Pletcher say on HRTV. Granted this was BEFORE Super Saver won the Derby, but would Winstar deny a legitimate contender of theirs a shot at winning a Triple Crown race? Nobody has any idea who will win at Belmont. We've seen the Saravas and Da Taras and Commendables. Nobody can say with any confidence that their horse is a legit 1 1/2 mile horse. They should do the right thing and enter both horses at Pimlico.

[jonnielu]

Whether or not Ice Box ran a " good race " today...he ran the best race today.

Any idea how stupid that sounds? Running a good race would require not getting boxed in all the way.

jdl

[PaceAdvantage]

Any idea how stupid that sounds? Running a good race would require not getting boxed in all the way.

jdlOh snap Andy...I think you've just been schooled.... :lol:

[the little guy]

Oh snap Andy...I think you've just been schooled.... :lol:


I must be tired....I actually tried to make sense of that for a second.

[Sekrah]

If Ice Box gets a clean trip, he wins the race IMO. This from someone who was loaded for bear with Super Saver.

[Hank]

Any idea how stupid that sounds? Running a good race would require not getting boxed in all the way.

jdl

This is one for the PA time-capsule.:lol: PA you should save these to a special archive [with context]

[gm10]

Absolutely (re: Ice Box). That should mean a nice underlay in Baltimore.

Somebody, maybe Beyer or Davidowitz, wrote about how when there is a very fast pace in the Derby, invariably the Preakness pace is considerably slower. Obviously the Derby speedballs realize they have distance limitations, and the riders are more aware of the pace. A soft pace and Ice Box has no chance.

The Preakness will be decided by Lookin At Lucky or Ice Box if they are there. They are better animals than the winner.

[cj]

I often defend Beyer and am a big fan, but I will say the 104 is a farce as a pure speed number.

[sandpit]

There's no denying these horses are 5-7 lengths behind the likes of Monarchos, Silver Charm, Strike the Gold, etc.

If they are that far behind Monarchos, who ran very fast in the Derby but never won another race, and Strike the Gold, one of the most forgettable Derby winners ever, then they are pretty bad. It's a bit premature for me to condemn them as a whole off a slow Derby on a soaked racetrack.

[RXB]

If you accept the 104, that is still 5-6 lengths slower than Monarchos, IIRC. (113?)

Without splitting it off, just comparing it to the one-turn races, I get a 93.

[Robert Goren]

I always take any numbers on a sloppy track with 2 grains of salt.;)

[Steve R]

I often defend Beyer and am a big fan, but I will say the 104 is a farce as a pure speed number.
Forget the one-turn races and run a regression analysis on the variants for the routes. I come up with a correlation coefficient of 0.88 confirming a continuous slowing down during the day. From that you can project a more accurate variant for the Derby. I use a different scale than Beyer does, but my figure comes out to an equivalent BSF of 103. I think he's pretty much got it right.

[RXB]

I always take any numbers on a sloppy track with 2 grains of salt.;)

Especially when it was more than two hours since the previous dirt race.

Believe me, any time I have to project, I consider the number(s) to have a higher error probability.

[Valuist]

Under the conditions, I think the Derby number yesterday has to be a projection. I always believe in splitting variants between one and 2 turn races, but the differences seem even more pronounced on sloppy tracks. Also, any race run at a rarely run distance (obviously not many 1 1/4 mile races at CD) can result in a questionable figure. It would be great if Churchill would card one more 1 1/4 mile race on Derby day, but that would be a gift I don't think the racing secretary will ever give to figure makers.

[cj]

There were two races around two turns, the first and the Derby. How could you come up with a regression analysis based on that?

With the pace of the race what it was, about 35 points faster than the speed figure on Beyer, I have a hard time believing any of these could have run what a 104 projects for these horses. Super Saver would have run a new top despite running at least 10 points faster to the 6f call than he ever has, and probably more, and running a furlong further.

I would also have to believe Ice Box ran a career top despite being stop cold and having a ridiculous amount of trouble among other things that would make little sense.

[Thomas Roulston]

My suggestion that the race would go in 2:06 turned out to be only a marginal exaggeration.

[Steve R]

There were two races around two turns, the first and the Derby. How could you come up with an analysis based on that?
There were five races on the main track around two turns:

1- 8 1/2f, 3+, OCl
2- 8f, 3+, MSW
3- 8 1/2f, 3+f&m, MSW (off the turf)
5- 8 1/2f, 3+, OCl (off the turf)
11- Derby

[RXB]

Four, Steve. 8f is a one-turn at CD.

[cj]

There were five races on the main track around two turns:

1- 8 1/2f, 3+, OCl
2- 8f, 3+, MSW
3- 8 1/2f, 3+f&m, MSW (off the turf)
5- 8 1/2f, 3+, OCl (off the turf)
11- Derby

Oh, duh, I forgot about the off the turf races. I always do the figures two days later. However, I'm not the only one to goof....race 2 at 8f is still a one turn race.

Even so, when I put a pace figure alongside the 104, there is very little chance it is going to be logical at all. I'm not saying the number is way, way off, but anywhere from seven to 10 points lower makes a lot more sense given the history of the horses. I could be wrong if they all improved a whole lot, but it is highly unlikely.

If your number is incorporating pace, we don't disagree at all by the way. But final time only, I would have a real hard time assigning something like 140 pace, 104 speed.

[RXB]

We knew there was a lot of early speed in the race. On top of that, Conveyance and Sidney's Candy were 5.5 and 4 lengths, respectively, clear of the 3rd runner at 6f. Considering where they finished, and that with a 104 winning figure their own numbers come back at about 40 and 25, it seems reasonable that the first 6f were quite strong.

[cj]

We knew there was a lot of early speed in the race. On top of that, Conveyance and Sidney's Candy were 5.5 and 4 lengths, respectively, clear of the 3rd runner at 6f. Considering where they finished, and that with a 104 winning figure their own numbers come back at about 40 and 25, it seems reasonable that the first 6f were quite strong.

I agree, but that still puts Super Saver in at around 125...the same Super Saver that folded pretty poorly after a 107 at Tampa. I know he wasn't 100% that day, but his last 4 pace number have been 104, 107, 101, 104 and he didn't exactly fly home. I'll give this a much longer look tomorrow, these are just initial impressions.

The even bigger problem I have is with Ice Box getting a higher number than the Florida Derby despite the insanely bad trip he had.

[fast4522]

I regard Tampa with a grain of salt, sadly its like Rome and what is done in Rome. The track is a utter joke, but to not discredit something that you may have viewed. My reading of the form was that #4 had quality speed that could be measured in each of his last 3 races plus if you add the finish beaten lengths of # 4 last 3 or 4 combined it will resemble a profile of good horses of previous derby winners not counting last year.

[RXB]

I agree, but that still puts Super Saver in at around 125...the same Super Saver that folded pretty poorly after a 107 at Tampa. I know he wasn't 100% that day, but his last 4 pace number have been 104, 107, 101, 104 and he didn't exactly fly home. I'll give this a much longer look tomorrow, these are just initial impressions.

The even bigger problem I have is with Ice Box getting a higher number than the Florida Derby despite the insanely bad trip he had.

I know what you're saying. It's a difficult call for several reasons. That's why I like to keep note of figures that I think require more of a "range" in terms of potential error.

The way I see it is sort based on this:

1. Rain, combined with a 2.5-hour gap between dirt races, means that conditions could have changed significantly.

2. Two of the other three dirt races around two-turns were off-the-turf. I'm always wary of including those to create a daily pace variant, as I find those races often have a very different dynamic-- especially with true, classy/semi-classy grass horses.

3. I adjust a pace figure earned off a chasing/tracking trip behind a fast pace, otherwise I find that it overrates true pace ability.

4. The mile pace figure isn't that overwhelming. It's the 6f number that was crazy fast, and not unexpectedly so; the two leaders absolutely collapsed on the turn and were easily overtaken before the 1/4 pole.

5. From a pedigree standpoint, quite a number of the Derby animals seemed likely to do well on a sloppy track.

6. A lot of Derby horses are so lightly raced these days, it's not inconceivable that they might improve noticeably between starts.

There's definitely a lot of "if's" but when I looked at finish positions, last race numbers, etc., 104 was my best guess for a final figure.

[onefast99]

For those thinking Ice Box ran a good race, it was an optical illusion. He was running forward (closing) with a slow final 1/4 mile and all the others were backing up (puking the bit) with a slower final 1/4 mile.

All of these slugs can barely run 1m 1/8th. The Belmont only needs a true distance horse to upset Super Savers run for a Triple Crown. If one doesn't show up in the next 30 days (there are none in the Derby group), I'm afraid we will have a pretender to the Crown. (JMHO)
Chief Counsel.

[Bobzilla]

I know what you're saying. It's a difficult call for several reasons. That's why I like to keep note of figures that I think require more of a "range" in terms of potential error.

The way I see it is sort based on this:

1. Rain, combined with a 2.5-hour gap between dirt races, means that conditions could have changed significantly.

2. Two of the other three dirt races around two-turns were off-the-turf. I'm always wary of including those to create a daily pace variant, as I find those races often have a very different dynamic-- especially with true, classy/semi-classy grass horses.

3. I adjust a pace figure earned off a chasing/tracking trip behind a fast pace, otherwise I find that it overrates true pace ability.

4. The mile pace figure isn't that overwhelming. It's the 6f number that was crazy fast, and not unexpectedly so; the two leaders absolutely collapsed on the turn and were easily overtaken before the 1/4 pole.

5. From a pedigree standpoint, quite a number of the Derby animals seemed likely to do well on a sloppy track.

6. A lot of Derby horses are so lightly raced these days, it's not inconceivable that they might improve noticeably between starts.

There's definitely a lot of "if's" but when I looked at finish positions, last race numbers, etc., 104 was my best guess for a final figure.


Sharp post as usual, RXB.

Using your own methodology for assessing pace/speed, I'd be interested to know how many lengths quicker than the adjusted par for this race you would consider the 1/2 (46.16) and the 3/4 (1.10: 58) times.

I'm aware that CJ approaches this question based on positioning of the eventual winner so I'd be interested to know what his feeling on this would be as well. Conveyance certainly did not run a very efficient race but I would have to think that the pace he was setting would have to have had some effect on a large percentage of the field body, if for no other reason than to remain positioned within shouting distance.

Ice Box certainly had a pretty crappy trip and definitely had to cover considerably more ground than Super Saver, but when comparing perfomances, to what degree do you think SS's relative proximity to the front might mitigate any perceived differences in terms of an overall performance figure? It looks like SS was approximately 8 lengths and 6 1/2 lengths, respectively, behind the pace calls, albeit while enjoying the luxury of saving ground. Ice Box was approximately 22 lenghts behind both calls.

My early impressions are that both early pace calls were anywhere from 8 to 10 ticks fast when considering my best guess at the pace/speed variants. Exceptionally fast IMO and I'm going to look for old records to see how this might compare to 2001 and 2005. I differ from you a little on the raw speed figure which I think is more like a 98 - 100, but I'm not married to that range. In terms of a performance figure I think it might be in the low to mid 100s.

[Joey D]

104 it is:

"Super Saver's winning tine of 2:04.45 was the slowest since 1989. The Churchill Downs racing strip was slow, of course, but even when the track condition is taken into account, the race still produced a modest Beyer Speed Figure of 104, the second-lowest for the Derby in 20 years. When there is no horse in a field who can impose his superior talent, races are often won by the horse who gets the best trip. In three out of the last four Kentucky Derbies, that horse has been the one ridden by Calvin Borel."

From Beyer's article today

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/02/AR2010050203016.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

[RXB]

Sharp post as usual, RXB.

Using your own methodology for assessing pace/speed, I'd be interested to know how many lengths quicker than the adjusted par for this race you would consider the 1/2 (46.16) and the 3/4 (1.10: 58) times.

I'm aware that CJ approaches this question based on positioning of the eventual winner so I'd be interested to know what his feeling on this would be as well. Conveyance certainly did not run a very efficient race but I would have to think that the pace he was setting would have to have had some effect on a large percentage of the field body, if for no other reason than to remain positioned within shouting distance.

Ice Box certainly had a pretty crappy trip and definitely had to cover considerably more ground than Super Saver, but when comparing perfomances, to what degree do you think SS's relative proximity to the front might mitigate any perceived differences in terms of an overall performance figure? It looks like SS was approximately 8 lengths and 6 1/2 lengths, respectively, behind the pace calls, albeit while enjoying the luxury of saving ground. Ice Box was approximately 22 lenghts behind both calls.

My early impressions are that both early pace calls were anywhere from 8 to 10 ticks fast when considering my best guess at the pace/speed variants. Exceptionally fast IMO and I'm going to look for old records to see how this might compare to 2001 and 2005. I differ from you a little on the raw speed figure which I think is more like a 98 - 100, but I'm not married to that range. In terms of a performance figure I think it might be in the low to mid 100s.

Bob, I have the 6f call about 1.4 seconds faster than I would rate as "normal" for the Derby, given the final time. That's smokin'. And, that's pretty much what many of us had expected. However, the mile pace call isn't fast at all. I think that the salient factor that some might've missed upon first review is that it was utter collapse by the two speed horses on the turn. When that happens, "pace" horses tend to do well even though the race was fast early, because they don't have to exert themselves much to reel in the early leaders around the turn.

I have no problem giving Super Saver a 104 final figure; according to the chart, he was 6.5 lengths off that fast 6f to start, and then didn't really have to move much to get position-- he was able to just continue going along without having to be asked as the horses in front stopped cold. I think he had a very unstressful trip, saving ground the whole way, and the total expiration of the early horses meant that he didn't have to battle to get forward position for the drive.

[Sekrah]

* A very stiff headwind in the front stretch they had to run through twice.
* A sealed peanut butter track where it was likely much slower the 2nd time they had to run through it as they churned up the gunk the first time.
* An odd distance.
* Ice Box closed like a freight train because Lezcano got him out into the untrampled, freshly sealed part of the track.

Cut the figure makers a break. This race is pratically impossible to nail down perfectly and anyone claiming that "X has this race too fast" is full of it.

There's a reason why Doc Sartin didn't like using off track pacelines.

[RXB]

Thank you, Mr. "I Deleted My Post After The Horse I Denounced, Won."

[Bobzilla]

Bob, I have the 6f call about 1.4 seconds faster than I would rate as "normal" for the Derby, given the final time. That's smokin'. And, that's pretty much what many of us had expected. However, the mile pace call isn't fast at all. I think that the salient factor that some might've missed upon first review is that it was utter collapse by the two speed horses on the turn. When that happens, "pace" horses tend to do well even though the race was fast early, because they don't have to exert themselves much to reel in the early leaders around the turn.

I have no problem giving Super Saver a 104 final figure; according to the chart, he was 6.5 lengths off that fast 6f to start, and then didn't really have to move much to get position-- he was able to just continue going along without having to be asked as the horses in front stopped cold. I think he had a very unstressful trip, saving ground the whole way, and the total expiration of the early horses meant that he didn't have to battle to get forward position for the drive.


Thanks for the response and pretty good assessment in my opinion. The speed variant I'm working with could very well be too low but it really is hard to guage given the amount of time between races on the main track(especially the time between routes) and the amount of precipitation throughout the afternoon.

[Tom]

From Beyer's article today

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/02/AR2010050203016.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

I been riding on the rail road, all the lib long day.

[RXB]

Thanks for the response and pretty good assessment in my opinion. The speed variant I'm working with could very well be too low but it really is hard to guage given the amount of time between races on the main track(especially the time between routes) and the amount of precipitation throughout the afternoon.

My pleasure, Bob. BTW, if you want a standard for comparing various Derby calls to each other: 46.52 1:11.07 1:36.65 2:02.52

It's difficult to make a reliable pace variant for the Derby using other two-turn races as the difference between a 144-yard to the first turn (8.5f races) and a 474-yard run is rather significant, to say the least. I also don't have a Ragozin buddy to supply the wind conditions to me. So, I apply 45% of the speed difference to the 6f call and 60% to the mile call. For this year's Derby, with a 2:04.65 final time the equivalent pace numbers by my calculation would be 1:11.94 and 1:37.81. The actual times were 1:10.58 and 1:37.65. It works well enough.

And of course, if you just look at the early margins between the two leaders and the others, and then the positions of horses at the mile and finish relative to their early positions, you could figure out that the two frontrunners went too fast to the turn and then collapsed utterly, without even looking at figures.

[JPinMaryland]

This is a very interesting discussion from the historical pt of view. I dont make pace figures or anything but I do try to keep the derby in historical perspective.

The only derby I can find that seems most similar is the 1961 derby where surface is rated good, not muddy but there are some similarities.

That pace in '61 was run about a full second slower at 1.11.4 (all times in decimals) it also featured a number of front runners burning out (but no as many as sat.) However, Crozier who finished second, just off the pace managed to split the leaders at the end of the turn and then suddenly stopped in the last 100 yards or so. His race is actually simialr to that of Noble's Promise.


Perhaps more interesting is that the winner Carry back was some 2 sec. off the pace in 61 (about 13 lengths) and Ice Box on sat. was some 3 sec. back and so they both ran very similar 3/4 mile fractions about 1.13.5. Both of them closed very similar Carry Back I reckon at about 26 sec. final fraction and depalma in another thread has hand timed Ice box in about 25.8 or so.

Carry back also had a lot of trouble both coming off the turn he veered out alot and in the final strides brushed Crozier, but probably not as much trouble as Ice Box.

One other horse in '61 broke 26 sec. by my count and that was Bass Clef running about 25.8 or so. Bass Clef further back, came more inside and was appparently weaving all over the lane.

It is quite difficult to break 26 in the mud at CD at 10f although the Hoop Jr. in 1945 came home in about 26 he was running gate to wire, in a quagmire and was hardly pressured at all. He almost surely could have broke it if he had tried. I would imagine he had the benefit of choosing his running lane (maybe in the 3 or 4 path) as he was on the front end.

it looked like there were some dry lanes in between soggy lanes as Donna Brothers pointed out between races, the tire tracks made some deep furrows. It seemed there was decent lanes in differnet parts of the track if you picked your spots.

It might be better to think of the two front runners on sat. as basically running their own race as the rest of the herd stayed well off the insane pace. But you guys are the experts at making figures...

[jonnielu]

I know what you're saying. It's a difficult call for several reasons. That's why I like to keep note of figures that I think require more of a "range" in terms of potential error.

The way I see it is sort based on this:

1. Rain, combined with a 2.5-hour gap between dirt races, means that conditions could have changed significantly.

2. Two of the other three dirt races around two-turns were off-the-turf. I'm always wary of including those to create a daily pace variant, as I find those races often have a very different dynamic-- especially with true, classy/semi-classy grass horses.

3. I adjust a pace figure earned off a chasing/tracking trip behind a fast pace, otherwise I find that it overrates true pace ability.

4. The mile pace figure isn't that overwhelming. It's the 6f number that was crazy fast, and not unexpectedly so; the two leaders absolutely collapsed on the turn and were easily overtaken before the 1/4 pole.

5. From a pedigree standpoint, quite a number of the Derby animals seemed likely to do well on a sloppy track.

6. A lot of Derby horses are so lightly raced these days, it's not inconceivable that they might improve noticeably between starts.

There's definitely a lot of "if's" but when I looked at finish positions, last race numbers, etc., 104 was my best guess for a final figure.

Apparently, best guess is the way Beyer has always done it too.

jdl

[JustRalph]

Don't forget this one......... they ran it like a relay race............and the time showed it.....


c-yIpd-OqWY


44 half and 109 3/4 time

[46zilzal]

One of the STANDARDS in the Sartin methodology: NEVER USE the Kentucky Derby pace line in subsequent evaluations as it represents the most aberrant race these horses will ever run again in their careers...

As obtuse as Beyer's are for pace analysis, I can just imagine how totally irrelevant the final time would be as well.

At one point I recall even Andrew saying he no longer thought about how fast horses ran but rather how they ran fast.....He is catching on that final time means ZIP.

[PaceAdvantage]

He is catching on that final time means ZIP.My challenge is open to you as well...can you beat a mechanical Beyer system?

[46zilzal]

My challenge is open to you as well...can you beat a mechanical Beyer system?
wagering and handicapping are not the same...

Want to go head to head sometime with YOUR riding high in final time and my doing it with pace? SURE

[PaceAdvantage]

wagering and handicapping are not the same...

Want to go head to head sometime with YOUR riding high in final time and my doing it with pace? SUREAll I want to do is post picks using some sort of mechanical Beyer method and see if any of the Beyer bashers can beat me...

That's all...very simple...

[46zilzal]

All I want to do is post picks using some sort of mechanical Beyer method and see if any of the Beyer bashers can beat me...

That's all...very simple...

Name the time and place

[PaceAdvantage]

Name the time and placeI will indeed...shortly...

[JPinMaryland]

Woo hoo! DRFs at 50 paces! :jump:

[chickenhead]

Zilly Vs. Mechanical Beyer grudge match

Truly Epic.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1902/thunderdomeq.jpg (http://img401.imageshack.us/i/thunderdomeq.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[Tom]

One horse per race, correct? :rolleyes:

[fast4522]

There is no pace advantage in following what some old codger said 25 or 35 years ago. Today's old codger prefers to constantly refer to a standard that everyone does not follow and feels there is only one way, his. This is the mark of a fool who is not open to other things that work. There is a pace advantage in being open to all things that work when handicapping. To expound on the last sentence is to say figure handicapping works, velocity handicapping works, form cycle handicapping works, trip handicapping works and much more as well. But best employed as a vantage point to view the races from while being open to all things that work. I have seen many great examples here on this BBS from very giving individuals employing all different methods. 46zilzal's tone has always been one that espouses the know it all methodology and is at odds with most everyone here. Again I say that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

[46zilzal]

I will indeed...shortly...
Don't let sample error of a single card make the exercise prone to luck: two tracks over three days and I am going to suggest Belmont and Churchill Wed, Thursday and Friday

[46zilzal]

Also is this selection rankings only as that is not close to betting once that hierarchy has been established?

[Steve R]

Beyer gave Super Saver a 104. My figure correlates with BSF 103. The BRIS figure correlates with BSF 105 and The Racing Post figure correlates with BSF 108. These correlations are based on comparative studies I have done on hundreds of races over several years and although the relationships are not exact, they are close enough.

Just wondering why so many here insist the race was much slower. The figure makers are certainly not conspiring together.

BTW, Super Saver's Kentucky Jockey Club Stakes earned my best figure for any 2009 juvenile stakes race (figures available online).

[Ejmenz]

Pretenders don't win Triple Crowns...the racing gods make sure of that...

True that.

[cj]

I wound up with a 99. If I'm correct, you add pace in as well, right? I do also, the 99 is just the speed figure part of my equation. Overall, considering pace, Super Saver gets an overall rating of 104 from me as well.

My only question was the raw speed figure part. I still think 104 is too high. I don't, however, rate performances solely on adjusted final time. One thing people are leaving out of the equation is that all the horses were carrying more weight than they have in the past, so that would be further evidence the final time figure by Beyer might be too high.

[Mr. Nobody]

Just wondering why so many here insist the race was much slower. The figure makers are certainly not conspiring together.

The time for the Derby was dog slow on a day when the track was playing merely somewhat slow for the other races. You can argue that the intermittent rain made the track slower for the Derby than for the other races. You can also argue that a tiring track has a non-linear larger effect on the final time for a 10 furlong race than on a 7 furlong race. These are reasonable suppositions but have no dataset behind them.

I'm fairly sure that whoever made the Beyer figure for the Derby did so by throwing out the final time and creating a "best fit" for the top finishers. Give Super Saver a 104 and Ice Box gets 100, Noble's promise 94, Lookin at Lucky 93. This all seems very reasonable and is probably the best way to make figures on a day when it's difficult to determine the speed of the racetrack. Let's just not pretend that the figure has anything to do with the time of the race.

[Bobzilla]

I don't disbelieve the 104, especially considering that there seems to be a consensus among many of the professional figure makers that the number is somewhere in the mid 100s.

I will admit that I am a little surprised by the 104, however, if it's only supposed to reflect a raw final time speed figure. My reasoning is that the adjusted pace figure to the 3/4 was inordinately fast even by Derby standards. I could be way off but I thought it was around anywhere from 1 3/5 to 2 seconds fast given conditions. If that were true than I would think any animal within 10 lenghts might have been effected to some degree by that pace, even if they were sitting on a forward move and were enjoying what might appear visually to be the best of trips. RXB brought up a good point about how the pace slowed considerably to the mile, as might be expected under the circumstances, and maybe that nullified to some extent any damage (by early fractions) to the eventaul speed figure that this field could have been expected to produce. And perhaps my judgement on the 3/4 time is considerably off.

[PhantomOnTour]

With over an hour between the Woodford and the Derby (and even longer btw the last dirt race and the Derby) is the track manicured at all? Dragged? Harrowed?

Even without maintenance to the track, the Derby fig is always suspect to me. The mere fact that all the entrants are trying the distance for the first time, and it's a rarely run distance (too bad, but it is) bring any figure into question. How many races are there at 1m1/4 at CD in any given year? Two or three maybe...? A par time for that distance must be elusive.
Yes, folks will extrapolate their 1m1/8 times to get a 'par' for 1m1/4, but nothing beats races run at the actual distance, and there ain't much of that. Same with the Preakness at 1m316 and the Belmont at 1m1/2. Besides the Pimlico Special (which isn't going this year and is spotty at best) what other races do they card at that distance at Pim? I'm guessing zero.

Just my opinion.

[Mr. Nobody]

Pickapocket got a 99 Beyer for running 1:43.44 for 8.5 furlongs. If the same variant was used for the Derby, Super Saver would have gotten a 91.

[PhantomOnTour]

Actually, this is the number(s) I am most interested in. Anyone make Quirin style figs for Derby day?

[Steve R]

I don't disbelieve the 104, especially considering that there seems to be a consensus among many of the professional figure makers that the number is somewhere in the mid 100s.[snip]
I agree, and not just because my figure agrees with theirs. Unless one thinks these professional figure makers have some axe to grind (which they don't), their similar assessment of the race has to be taken seriously.

FWIW, the Racing Post tabs Super Saver's Derby the 4th best in the last 10 years:
2010 Super Saver 124
2009 Mine That Bird 121
2008 Big Brown 128
2007 Street Sense 123
2006 Barbaro 129
2005 Giacomo 121
2004 Smarty Jones 125
2003 Funny Cide 123
2002 War Emblem 123
2001 Monarchos 123

Theirs is not strictly a speed rating but, according to their definitions, a general measure of ability.

As DRF notes:
"Racing Post Ratings are a handicap rating determined by a horse's overall performance in a given race with respect to the race level, field quality, weight carried and time of the race. (Note: these are not directly comparable to speed ratings, which use different methodology)".

[Bobzilla]

Steve,

Based on your studies, is there typically a 4 or 5 point difference between BSFs and Racing Post figures, or is there more of a range where the actual difference will vary depending on how the RP variables are weighed for a particular event? Or perhaps I should ask this: could a BSF (strictly final time normalized for surface resistence) of a 100 ever correlate to a RP figure of 108, or would that not be realistic? I don't think most would have a problem accepting a performance rating in the mid 100s (Beyer Scale) as a quantifiable representation of SS's Derby effort when considering such factors as pace; impost; field composition; et cetera.

[Steve R]

Steve,

Based on your studies, is there typically a 4 or 5 point difference between BSFs and Racing Post figures, or is there more of a range where the actual difference will vary depending on how the RP variables are weighed for a particular event? Or perhaps I should ask this: could a BSF (strictly final time normalized for surface resistence) of a 100 ever correlate to a RP figure of 108, or would that not be realistic? I don't think most would have a problem accepting a performance rating in the mid 100s (Beyer Scale) as a quantifiable representation of SS's Derby effort when considering such factors as pace; impost; field composition; et cetera.
What I found was that the relationship between BSF and RPR is not simply a constant differential. These are the results from my studies:

BSF - RPR
66 - 75
69 - 79
72 - 83
76 - 86
80 - 90
83 - 94
86 - 98
90 - 102
94 - 107
97 - 111
101 - 115
104 - 119
108 - 123
108 - 124
110 - 126
111 - 127
113 - 129
115 - 131
118 - 136
122 - 140
125 - 144
128 - 149

Basically, the study was done by comparing the two figures for hundreds of races, then plotting the data and coming up with the equation describing the relationship. Obviously there can be quite a bit of scatter in the data, but the trend lines are pretty good and are a fair assessment of the general relationship.

[JPinMaryland]

Maybe I am ignorant but based on what Ive read on this thread and others it occurs to me that one could make a Beyer type figure based strictly on: history of this race + recent PPs of the contenders....Ignoring whatever the result was on sat.

Right or wrong :confused:

[JPinMaryland]

With over an hour between the Woodford and the Derby (and even longer btw the last dirt race and the Derby) is the track manicured at all? Dragged? Harrowed?

Even without maintenance to the track, the Derby fig is always suspect to me. The mere fact that all the entrants are trying the distance for the first time, and it's a rarely run distance (too bad, but it is) bring any figure into question. How many races are there at 1m1/4 at CD in any given year? Two or three maybe...? A par time for that distance must be elusive.
Yes, folks will extrapolate their 1m1/8 times to get a 'par' for 1m1/4, but nothing beats races run at the actual distance, and there ain't much of that. Same with the Preakness at 1m316 and the Belmont at 1m1/2. Besides the Pimlico Special (which isn't going this year and is spotty at best) what other races do they card at that distance at Pim? I'm guessing zero.

Just my opinion.



I understand your pt. but is there a reason why the historical data we have on hand from the ky derby cant be used to provide you with more data pts?

Perhaps not going all the way back to 1870s but seems that the last 60 years or so racing conditions have not changed all that much.

[Steve R]

Maybe I am ignorant but based on what Ive read on this thread and others it occurs to me that one could make a Beyer type figure based strictly on: history of this race + recent PPs of the contenders....Ignoring whatever the result was on sat.

Right or wrong :confused:
I suppose if you rely too much on projections, that is a possibility, although I doubt the result of the race itself is ignored. Not everyone who makes figures relies heavily on projections. Some emphasize the physics of time and distance and don't worry too much about what should be. Sometimes good horses, for whatever reason, run slow races and mediocre horses throw in a huge effort. It happens. Instead of just accepting the data, those who prefer to project their figures will ignore the data and come up with a more "acceptable" result. Like Beyer giving Thunder Gulch a 101 in his Belmont on a fast track in 2:32.0. It's the slowest Belmont in 40 years. I had it as somewhere in the mid-80s.

[cj]

I suppose if you rely too much on projections, that is a possibility, although I doubt the result of the race itself is ignored. Not everyone who makes figures relies heavily on projections. Some emphasize the physics of time and distance and don't worry too much about what should be. Sometimes good horses, for whatever reason, run slow races and mediocre horses throw in a huge effort. It happens. Instead of just accepting the data, those who prefer to project their figures will ignore the data and come up with a more "acceptable" result. Like Beyer giving Thunder Gulch a 101 in his Belmont on a fast track in 2:32.0. It's the slowest Belmont in 40 years. I had it as somewhere in the mid-80s.

I'm curious why twice now you have ignored my question about your figure also adjusting for pace? Have I done something to offend you?

Clearly RPR and Timeform ratings are not pure speed ratings, so you are comparing oranges to apples. This is specifically why I mention the speed figure part of my equation. Overall, I agree 104 is probably a good guess. The problem I have with it as a final time only figure is it is going to inflate the ability of suck up closers in the race like Paddy O'Prado and Make Music for Me.

[Steve R]

I'm curious why twice now you have ignored my question about your figure also adjusting for pace? Have I done something to offend you?

Clearly RPR and Timeform ratings are not pure speed ratings, so you are comparing oranges to apples. This is specifically why I mention the speed figure part of my equation. Overall, I agree 104 is probably a good guess. The problem I have with it as a final time only figure is it is going to inflate the ability of suck up closers in the race like Paddy O'Prado and Make Music for Me.
I had already mentioned many times on this forum that my figure incorporates pace AND final time into a single number. In a sense it measures the total kinetic energy output of a performance.

And it is irrelevant that RPRs and TRs are not pure speed ratings. If those figures display a high correlation with other types of figures, you can safely make the comparisons. And they do according to the studies I have done.

In any case, all race ratings are an approximation at best because they all use imprecise algorithms. Beyer makes projections on what the race should be. His experience probably makes him better at it than others, but it still is a speculative approach. Ragozin uses some of the dumbest corrections imaginable for wind, weight and lost ground. At least he's trying to take into account some aspects of the trip. The Euros roll a class component into their figures and Timeform has over a half century of experience doing it. My approach is to use pace and final time together. I don't think it is correct to separate them because speed and stamina are fused as opposite sides of the same coin. A horse at maximum efficiency in 1:11 may get 9f in 1:49. Ask him to go faster early and he will finish in 1:49+ because he has only so much energy to expend (unless he improves or regresses).

The only point is that there is a consensus among most professional figure makers about Super Saver's performance. It's perfectly normal that others may have a different perception of it.

[George Sands]

Ragozin uses some of the dumbest corrections imaginable for wind, weight and lost ground..

Yeah, if he ever gets his act together, perhaps he will become successful like you. Who are you, by the way?

[RXB]

Yeah, if he ever gets his act together, perhaps he will become successful like you. Who are you, by the way?

http://www.chef-de-race.com/

[Cratos]

I had already mentioned many times on this forum that my figure incorporates pace AND final time into a single number. In a sense it measures the total kinetic energy output of a performance.

And it is irrelevant that RPRs and TRs are not pure speed ratings. If those figures display a high correlation with other types of figures, you can safely make the comparisons. And they do according to the studies I have done.

In any case, all race ratings are an approximation at best because they all use imprecise algorithms. Beyer makes projections on what the race should be. His experience probably makes him better at it than others, but it still is a speculative approach. Ragozin uses some of the dumbest corrections imaginable for wind, weight and lost ground. At least he's trying to take into account some aspects of the trip. The Euros roll a class component into their figures and Timeform has over a half century of experience doing it. My approach is to use pace and final time together. I don't think it is correct to separate them because speed and stamina are fused as opposite sides of the same coin. A horse at maximum efficiency in 1:11 may get 9f in 1:49. Ask him to go faster early and he will finish in 1:49+ because he has only so much energy to expend (unless he improves or regresses).

The only point is that there is a consensus among most professional figure makers about Super Saver's performance. It's perfectly normal that others may have a different perception of it.

You make some good points, but the kinetic energy equation is dependent on mass, velocity, and distance. Therefore how do you approximate those variables?

Additionally, you are correct about the relationship between speed (it should be velocity) and stamina, but how do you account for environmental influences?

[George Sands]

Thanks, RXB. I didn't know that those guys made speed figures.

[Steve R]

Yeah, if he ever gets his act together, perhaps he will become successful like you. Who are you, by the way?
Your sarcasm aside, the Ragozin algorithms for wind, weight and lost ground are, if not dumb, then certainly misguided. All you have to do is think in detail about the physics involved and it will become clear. But as I said, at least he is trying to take trip into consideration and all figures are approximations at best.

And what, pray tell, is the connection between getting one's act together and being successful? If you are suggesting that commercial success relies on product quality, then Microsoft should be out of business.

[George Sands]

Your sarcasm aside, the Ragozin algorithms for wind, weight and lost ground are, if not dumb, then certainly misguided. All you have to do is think in detail about the physics involved and it will become clear. But as I said, at least he is trying to take trip into consideration and all figures are approximations at best.

And what, pray tell, is the connection between getting one's act together and being successful? If you are suggesting that commercial success relies on product quality, then Microsoft should be out of business.

How about telling me exactly what Ragozin's wind adjustment is, for starters?

As for the rest, I believe that one of Ragozin's goals was to be successful. Therefore, I give him credit for having his act together to the extent that he could reach at least one of his goals. I also give him credit for making speed figures that people actually spend good money for and have for years. This tells me he is making some people happy despite employing methods you think are dumb.

[the little guy]

I am not interested in the Ragozin figures, but to try to pass their concepts off as " misguided " is, in fact, misguided. You seem to be acting as though they are some sort of half-assed evaluations...when nothing could be farther from the truth.

One of the great things about this game is that we can all have a variety of different theories....and all be right some of the time and wrong a lot of the time.

[Steve R]

You make some good points, but the kinetic energy equation is dependent on mass, velocity, and distance. Therefore how do you approximate those variables?

Additionally, you are correct about the relationship between speed (it should be velocity) and stamina, but how do you account for environmental influences?
The calculations are moderately complex but can be done easily using a programmed spreadsheet. The output is not strictly a kinetic energy output but imagine plotting fractional times against distance and running a regression analysis on the data. Do that for the race in question and for a par pace line as well. This par pace line is the pace line that corresponds to a common class level at each track and distance. Then compare the area (actually part of it) under the two curves. The difference is converted to the raw number for the race, or how much better or worse it is than some universal standard common to all tracks. Then you do the same procedure for the par pace line of the race (i.e., at the expected class level and distance) and this difference is equivalent to the variant. I probably didn't explain it well, but the essence is that we are integrating distance over time, which is like measuring instantaneous velocities. The mass part of the kinetic energy equation can be treated as a constant because we are concerned primarily with measuring the overall quality of the race and then using a beaten lengths formula to arrive at individual performance. In fact, these numbers do correlate well with BSFs and other figures (with the expected variation). For example, in 10 of the last 13 Derbies the winner has come from horses within the top three or four best figures as a three-year-old. This year Super Saver had the second best figure going in and the best on dirt.

The environmental influences hopefully are captured by the variants, but unlike most figure makers I sometimes use a more complex method for calculating them. In other posts I have alluded to the occasional race-to-race variant observation that can be detected only by some sort of regression analysis. Temperature, precipitation, wind and humidity are dynamic elements, and why anyone believes variants should be constant throughout the day is a mystery to me. On a typical day they are pretty close, but in severe weather they can change dramatically during the day. The change in track condition on Derby day was captured by comparing the start time of each race with the figure variant. In this case, linear regression gave a line with a correlation coefficient of 0.91. That is very high and it indicates a progressive, directional and continual change in inherent track speed throughout the card. If the track speed wasn't changing in linear fashion, the correlation coefficient would be very low, on the order of 0.2 or so.

[Steve R]

How about telling me exactly what Ragozin's wind adjustment is, for starters?

As for the rest, I believe that one of Ragozin's goals was to be successful. Therefore, I give him credit for having his act together to the extent that he could reach at least one of his goals. I also give him credit for making speed figures that people actually spend good money for and have for years. This tells me he is making some people happy despite employing methods you think are dumb.
I can't tell you EXACTLY what his wind adjustment is, but I can tell you this. Unless he knows the surface area of every horse exposed to the wind at every point in the race, he's just guessing. Do you think he is making accurate adjustments for the differences in exposed surface area between tall, wide-chested horses and shorter, narrow chested types? Or taking into account when and where every horse is exposed or protected according to its relationship to other horses on the track? Or how about the instantaneous effects of wind gusts complicated by relative position and degree of exposure? I guarantee he's not capturing any of these things. Certainly wind can have an effect, but if you believe anyone can measure it accurately enough for every horse in a race and apply it meaningfully to a speed figure, you're dreaming.

[Steve R]

I am not interested in the Ragozin figures, but to try to pass their concepts off as " misguided " is, in fact, misguided. You seem to be acting as though they are some sort of half-assed evaluations...when nothing could be farther from the truth.

One of the great things about this game is that we can all have a variety of different theories....and all be right some of the time and wrong a lot of the time.
When you attempt to apply physical effects to something while ignoring the fundamental physical laws behind them, you may indeed be misguided. If not misguided, then perhaps poorly informed. If not poorly informed, then possibly duplicitous. I don't know where he falls on the spectrum but I never implied that what he was doing was half-assed. In fact, I commended him for trying to capture elements of trip that most figure makers usually ignore. That doesn't mean his application of these elements necessarily enhances the accuracy of his figures, yet I believe that is part of his sales pitch, which is unfortunate. If I remember correctly, several years ago he went on the road to apply his figures to a handicapping test and got creamed. I also recall an independent study some time ago that compared various figures, including his, to SR+TV and SR+TV won out.

Generally, many purveyors of figures fail to understand the difference between accuracy and precision. They promote their figures as the former while selling the latter. That doesn't make them bad, or half-assed. It's just good old American capitalism at work.

[George Sands]

I can't tell you EXACTLY what his wind adjustment is, but I can tell you this. Unless he knows the surface area of every horse exposed to the wind at every point in the race, he's just guessing. Do you think he is making accurate adjustments for the differences in exposed surface area between tall, wide-chested horses and shorter, narrow chested types? Or taking into account when and where every horse is exposed or protected according to its relationship to other horses on the track? Or how about the instantaneous effects of wind gusts complicated by relative position and degree of exposure? I guarantee he's not capturing any of these things. Certainly wind can have an effect, but if you believe anyone can measure it accurately enough for every horse in a race and apply it meaningfully to a speed figure, you're dreaming.

The real question, to my mind, isn't whether wind can be measured perfectly (of course it can't). The real question is whether Ragozin's wind adjustments lead to figures that are more accurate than figures that are unadjusted for wind. Now, it seems pretty clear that you know very little, if anything, about this wind adjustment you called one of the dumbest imaginable. So let me move on to Ragozin's groundloss adjustment. You also called it one of the dumbest imaginable. Do you know what it is? Or were you just, you know, doing what you were doing with the wind?

[George Sands]

If I remember correctly, several years ago he went on the road to apply his figures to a handicapping test and got creamed. I also recall an independent study some time ago that compared various figures, including his, to SR+TV and SR+TV won out.

Quite a display of academic rigor here, Steve. Did you see the Sport-Stat study? Did you see what Len Friedman of the Ragozin Sheets did to the Suncoast Tournament? Did you see what Jerry Brown (Thoro-Graph: wind, ground, weight) and his partners did to various contests?

[Steve R]

Quite a display of academic rigor here, Steve. Did you see the Sport-Stat study? Did you see what Len Friedman of the Ragozin Sheets did to the Suncoast Tournament? Did you see what Jerry Brown (Thoro-Graph: wind, ground, weight) and his partners did to various contests?
I'm not getting into a pissing match with you. If any figure system is that good, the figure maker has to be an idiot to sell it. Just like the guys want to sell you their secret to making a million dollars.

BTW, using my figures, I finished second in an online handicapping tournament involving more than 600 contestants over a four-month time span. So what?

[JPinMaryland]

BTW, using my figures, I finished second in an online handicapping tournament involving more than 600 contestants over a four-month time span. So what?

Will you sell them to me?

[George Sands]

I'm not getting into a pissing match with you. If any figure system is that good, the figure maker has to be an idiot to sell it. Just like the guys want to sell you their secret to making a million dollars.

BTW, using my figures, I finished second in an online handicapping tournament involving more than 600 contestants over a four-month time span. So what?

What you were doing was pissing on Len Ragozin. He has a website, by the way. www.thesheets.com (http://www.thesheets.com) It has a message board where you can ask questions and argue about Ragozin's methodology.

As for contest results? I agree. Not very meaningful. In fact, about as meaningful as that other BS (Ragozin on the road in some "test," etc.) you brought up and now no longer want to talk about.

[Cratos]

The calculations are moderately complex but can be done easily using a programmed spreadsheet. The output is not strictly a kinetic energy output but imagine plotting fractional times against distance and running a regression analysis on the data. Do that for the race in question and for a par pace line as well. This par pace line is the pace line that corresponds to a common class level at each track and distance. Then compare the area (actually part of it) under the two curves. The difference is converted to the raw number for the race, or how much better or worse it is than some universal standard common to all tracks. Then you do the same procedure for the par pace line of the race (i.e., at the expected class level and distance) and this difference is equivalent to the variant. I probably didn't explain it well, but the essence is that we are integrating distance over time, which is like measuring instantaneous velocities. The mass part of the kinetic energy equation can be treated as a constant because we are concerned primarily with measuring the overall quality of the race and then using a beaten lengths formula to arrive at individual performance. In fact, these numbers do correlate well with BSFs and other figures (with the expected variation). For example, in 10 of the last 13 Derbies the winner has come from horses within the top three or four best figures as a three-year-old. This year Super Saver had the second best figure going in and the best on dirt.

The environmental influences hopefully are captured by the variants, but unlike most figure makers I sometimes use a more complex method for calculating them. In other posts I have alluded to the occasional race-to-race variant observation that can be detected only by some sort of regression analysis. Temperature, precipitation, wind and humidity are dynamic elements, and why anyone believes variants should be constant throughout the day is a mystery to me. On a typical day they are pretty close, but in severe weather they can change dramatically during the day. The change in track condition on Derby day was captured by comparing the start time of each race with the figure variant. In this case, linear regression gave a line with a correlation coefficient of 0.91. That is very high and it indicates a progressive, directional and continual change in inherent track speed throughout the card. If the track speed wasn't changing in linear fashion, the correlation coefficient would be very low, on the order of 0.2 or so.

I sorry to inform you and I am not being critical of your methodology because I don’t fully understand it. However mass could never the constant because as you understand from physics, mass is the force and if it is constant, speed (velocity) will not change with respect to kinetic energy.

What I have found is that the average horse’s mass is 1,084 pounds plus the weight toted. Incidentally Secretariat was about 1.200 pounds and Zenyatta is about 1,250 pounds.

There are many websites on the Internet that you can go to and put in the racetrack’s zip code and you will get all of the weather conditions on a minute by minute and directional basis which will allow you to make some very good calculations.

[cj]

The only point is that there is a consensus among most professional figure makers about Super Saver's performance. It's perfectly normal that others may have a different perception of it.

I understand all this, but my point is that by rating Super Saver's final time a 104, many other horses in the field will be over rated on Beyer. It really is that simple.

[exiles]

[QUOTE=Steve R]Your sarcasm aside, the Ragozin algorithms for wind, weight and lost ground are, if not dumb, then certainly misguided.


Mr S,R. your comments about Mr Ragozin's work are disrespectful, and shortsighted, i guess you are mad because nobody pays attention to your dosage BS,and almost every big time trainer uses MR Ragozin's, SHEETS to evaluate their horses.

[classhandicapper]

I often defend Beyer and am a big fan, but I will say the 104 is a farce as a pure speed number.

We've both seen many instances of where a fast/slow pace (or some unknown factor) had an impact on the final time and some figure makers tweaked the figure so it made more sense to them given the typical figures of the horses.

Many figure makers are making performance figures, not speed figures.

I didn't make any figures for CD that day, but on a quick glance 104 looked a little too fast to me.

[classhandicapper]

I understand all this, but my point is that by rating Super Saver's final time a 104, many other horses in the field will be over rated on Beyer. It really is that simple.

Exactly. Agree totally.

Incidentally, did you happen to notice that we just had another high profile race and we are again having a discussion about the accuracy of the speed figure.

Doesn't it seem like this happens after every single high profile race and there are always a variety of opinions among people that are generally pretty sharp?

From a Class perspective I rated the race as mildly below the average Derby. I didn't look at any of the fractions, the final time, other routes that day etc.. to reach that conclusion. I didn't pay any attention to the wind, run up, any complex physics equations, weight or anything else either. I just looked at the quality of the horses coming in, the race development, the trips, and the finish. It took me about 2-3 minutes and I feel highly confident I am right. ;)

[Thomas Roulston]

What did Sunday Silence get when he won the Derby (in 2:05)?

[Bobzilla]

What did Sunday Silence get when he won the Derby (in 2:05)?


101 over a muddy track while zig-zagging down the stretch.

I found this article that some might find interesting:

http://www.examiner.com/x-12303-Horse-Racing-Examiner~y2010m5d4-Slow-Derby-time-compares-favorably-to-those-of-Sunday-Silence-Smarty-Jones?cid=edition-rss-National&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ExaminerNationalEditionArticl es+(All-+CO_GrandJunction)

[rastajenk]

I understand all this, but my point is that by rating Super Saver's final time a 104, many other horses in the field will be over rated on Beyer. It really is that simple.And I get your point about how the top number affects all that comes behind it, but I may not agree with your sense of overrated-ness. It seems to me from a 104 you pretty quickly get down to the low 90's high 80's that these guys brought into the race, for the top 7 or 8 positions anyway; and that looking ahead, the Derby Beyer looks not a bit out of whack.

The Preakness potentials listed in another thread have Dublin at 93, Noble at 95, Lucky at 94..that all seems fair to me. It looks like a group of not very fast horses got together and ran not very fast, for the most part. No need to drag 'em down any farther. :)

[cj]

I'd have to ask about Paddy O'Prado and Make Music for Me.

[eastie]

[QUOTE=Steve R]Your sarcasm aside, the Ragozin algorithms for wind, weight and lost ground are, if not dumb, then certainly misguided.


Mr S,R. your comments about Mr Ragozin's work are disrespectful, and shortsighted, i guess you are mad because nobody pays attention to your dosage BS,and almost every big time trainer uses MR Ragozin's, SHEETS to evaluate their horses.


I doubt even 1 in 5 "big time trainers" could even read the Rag sheets. Where do come up with a statement like that ?

[kenwoodall2]

Is it possible for the place horse to run a bigger Beyer? Was it ever listed that way by mistake?

[Cardus]

I sorry to inform you and I am not being critical of your methodology because I don’t fully understand it. However mass could never the constant because as you understand from physics, mass is the force and if it is constant, speed (velocity) will not change with respect to kinetic energy.

What I have found is that the average horse’s mass is 1,084 pounds plus the weight toted. Incidentally Secretariat was about 1.200 pounds and Zenyatta is about 1,250 pounds.

There are many websites on the Internet that you can go to and put in the racetrack’s zip code and you will get all of the weather conditions on a minute by minute and directional basis which will allow you to make some very good calculations.

A Zenyatta sighting... how rare.

[JeremyJet]

I often defend Beyer and am a big fan, but I will say the 104 is a farce as a pure speed number.

Cj,

Isn't in your best interest to downplay Beyer numbers since you're in the business of selling speed figures ... Beyer speed figures?

Regards,

JeremyJet

[JeremyJet]

What did Sunday Silence get when he won the Derby (in 2:05)?

102

JeremyJet

[JeremyJet]

Yeah, if he ever gets his act together, perhaps he will become successful like you. Who are you, by the way?

:lol:

I love it.

Regards,

JeremyJet

[cj]

Cj,

Isn't in your best interest to downplay Beyer numbers since you're in the business of selling speed figures ... Beyer speed figures?

Regards,

JeremyJet

To be honest, I guess I never thought about it. If I had, I probably wouldn't defend him 98% of the time here and say what a big fan I am.

I don't think people using Beyer's are very interested in pace. If anything, it would be the Moss figures I should downplay. Since they have never reached any kind of market, they aren't worth talking about. In any case, I always give my honest opinion. Cary Fotias has a similar product and I never give him a hard time. Same goes for Woodside when they were around. I do bash BRIS, but it is because I honestly think their numbers stink, there in no hidden agenda.

[JeremyJet]

Cj,

How can the Beyer number be a "farce" when the number you came up with is between a 99-to-104? To call it a "farce" would be an exaggeration on your part, IMHO. No?

Regards,

JeremyJet

[JeremyJet]

To be honest, I guess I never thought about it. If I had, I probably wouldn't defend him 98% of the time here and say what a big fan I am.

I don't think people using Beyer's are very interested in pace. If anything, it would be the Moss figures I should downplay. Since they have never reached any kind of market, they aren't worth talking about. In any case, I always give my honest opinion. Cary Fotias has a similar product and I never give him a hard time. Same goes for Woodside when they were around. I do bash BRIS, but it is because I honestly think their numbers stink, there in no hidden agenda.

Well, If you do defend Beyer, from time to time, I must have missed it, and I'll try to pay more attention in the future. I swear, I only notice the times you're bashing the Beyer numbers.

I agree with you on the Moss figs. They (DRF, Beyer, Moss) blew it since the Moss figs are not on the same scale as the Beyer figures. All those Moss figs in the Form are a complicated mess, IMHO.

I guess you can say Fotias has a similar product, but who the hell knows how his scale compares to yours, and the other popular figs on the market. Do you know how his scale compares to yours?

Same goes for Woodside Associates. There must be a reason they're not around anymore. Probably because they sucked and nobody really cared about them in the first place.

Regards,

JeremyJet

[Tom]

Woodside numbers were good - and the maker, John posted here a lot - good guy and got into a lot of interesting threads on numbers.

[JeremyJet]

Woodside numbers were good - and the maker, John posted here a lot - good guy and got into a lot of interesting threads on numbers.

Were they good only because the guy posted on PaceAdvantage?

Look, word of a good product spreads. In the 30 years I have been part of this game, I have never heard anyone tout the Woodside methodology. Must be a reason.

And BTW, why are they not around anymore?

Regards,

JeremyJet

[JeremyJet]

FWIW, Ragozin gave the winner a 4+. That's a 101 on the Beyer scale.

Thoro-Graph gave the winner a 1+. That's a 99 on the Beyer scale.

Beyer gave the race a 104.

CJ gave the race a 99-to-104

The Beyer number is [not] a farce. That's all I'm getting at. Everyone arrived at pretty much the same conclusion.

Regards,

JeremyJet

[JPinMaryland]

Were they good only because the guy posted on PaceAdvantage?



No. And I dont think Tom said anything like that. The use of the "and" was a good clue in this regard.

[cj]

Cj,

How can the Beyer number be a "farce" when the number you came up with is between a 99-to-104? To call it a "farce" would be an exaggeration on your part, IMHO. No?

Regards,

JeremyJet

Beyer purports to be a final time only number. That is the part I was referring to, not what others that use other factors conclude. Farce probably was too harsh a word.

[cj]

FWIW, Ragozin gave the winner a 4+. That's a 101 on the Beyer scale.

Thoro-Graph gave the winner a 1+. That's a 99 on the Beyer scale.

Beyer gave the race a 104.

CJ gave the race a 99-to-104

The Beyer number is [not] a farce. That's all I'm getting at. Everyone arrived at pretty much the same conclusion.

Regards,

JeremyJet

Those are close, but lets not pretend a 100 is the same as a 104...it is not. It is about 3 lengths different on Beyer. That is a pretty big amount, especially considering that on TG and Rags (and mine) credit is given for carrying 126 pounds. If the best a figure maker can do is get within three lengths, the figures are pretty worthless.

Once again, my problem isn't so much with the figure the winner is given, but effect it has on the other horses in the race, particularly the suck up closers.

[JPinMaryland]

Re suck up closers...But wouldnt that be true of any race like this 10f for 3 year olds? there are not many races like this and nearly always features some sort of pace meltdown, if not for the whole field usually the front runners who are setting the early pace. no matter what number is given there's gong to be this problem no?

A related question, if the front runners were far enough ahead, what difference does the pace matter anyhow? Can you treat the front runners as basically running a separate race.

[cj]

Re suck up closers...But wouldnt that be true of any race like this 10f for 3 year olds? there are not many races like this and nearly always features some sort of pace meltdown, if not for the whole field usually the front runners who are setting the early pace. no matter what number is given there's gong to be this problem no?

A related question, if the front runners were far enough ahead, what difference does the pace matter anyhow? Can you treat the front runners as basically running a separate race.

This isn't a problem if you get the number right. The other races aren't really a good guide for the Derby due to the huge time between races and the changing weather this year. I think the race is best rated using the horses in the race, after all there were 20 of them. For example, look at the top 2 finishers in the race.

Super Saver ran a 98 last out with an ideal trip in the Arkansas Derby. He tracked a fast, but hardly insane pace and couldn't catch the leader. He had a similar trip in the Derby, but he chased a much faster pace. I don't think it is unreasonable to guess he could equal his previous best and no faster. It is possible of course, but the most likely scenario is he ran a little slower overall.

The second finisher Ice Box came in with a 99, a career best, in the Florida Derby while lagging behind a very fast pace and getting a nice trip. It could certainly be argued he would improve again in the Derby, but is that likely given the nightmare trip that he had? Is it unreasonable to think he had to run no better final time wise and most likely slower than the previous 99? To me it makes by far the most sense.

If you give the 104 to Super Saver, you are forced (on Beyer) to give Paddy O'Prado a 100, and Make Music for Me a 97. You would have to believe both improved by 3 or 4 lengths while running in heavy traffic and running on a surface they had never run well on before. I would also have to believe Noble's Promise essentially matched his lifetime best while pressing then moving into a scorching pace and running a distance most likely too far for him as well.

To me, the evidence says the race should have a mid 90s rating on final time only, which again is what Beyer is suppose to be measuring.

[Cratos]

A Zenyatta sighting... how rare.

I hope you understand that this was about “mass” and not about Zenyatta. She was used as an illustration of size and nothing else.

[cj]

A related question, if the front runners were far enough ahead, what difference does the pace matter anyhow? Can you treat the front runners as basically running a separate race.

This sounds great on paper, but in real life it rarely ever plays out that way.

[RXB]

I think the race is best rated using the horses in the race, after all there were 20 of them. For example, look at the top 2 finishers in the race.

Super Saver ran a 98 last out with an ideal trip in the Arkansas Derby. He tracked a fast, but hardly insane pace and couldn't catch the leader. He had a similar trip in the Derby, but he chased a much faster pace. I don't think it is unreasonable to guess he could equal his previous best and no faster. It is possible of course, but the most likely scenario is he ran a little slower overall.

The second finisher Ice Box came in with a 99, a career best, in the Florida Derby while lagging behind a very fast pace and getting a nice trip. It could certainly be argued he would improve again in the Derby, but is that likely given the nightmare trip that he had? Is it unreasonable to think he had to run no better final time wise and most likely slower than the previous 99? To me it makes by far the most sense.

If you give the 104 to Super Saver, you are forced (on Beyer) to give Paddy O'Prado a 100, and Make Music for Me a 97. You would have to believe both improved by 3 or 4 lengths while running in heavy traffic and running on a surface they had never run well on before. I would also have to believe Noble's Promise essentially matched his lifetime best while pressing then moving into a scorching pace and running a distance most likely too far for him as well.

To me, the evidence says the race should have a mid 90s rating on final time only, which again is what Beyer is suppose to be measuring.

Where there's room for error-- and in rating this race, there is-- there's room for differences in judgment, too. Mine definitely differs in some regards.

Super Saver and Paddy O'Prado were both reported to be thriving in the final couple of weeks at CD. Why can't they move forward? Also, Super Saver might have been chasing a faster 6f than in Hot Springs but his "chasing" was done from about 4 lengths farther back. He had a beautiful trip, and his breeding suggests that he could/should move up on a wet track.

Ice Box, another who is bred to relish wet going, might've had a brutal trip in the upper stretch but he also got a fast 6f at which to launch his late run. And his trainer has won a few Triple Crown races so it's fair to wonder if perhaps such a horse is capable of improvement under those circumstances.

If Mine That Bird could pop a 105 last year, why can't Make Music For Me jump up to a 97? He had ran three times against Lookin At Lucky in G1/G2 competition, finishing 2nd twice and 3rd once, and the largest margin between them was 1 1/4 lengths. Plus, he's out of a Carson City mare, and Carson City was another excellent wet-track sire.

Noble's Promise didn't really press or move into a scorching pace; he sat a few lengths behind the pace until it collapsed utterly. And yes, 10f is almost certainly not what he wants, but on the other hand he is bred to absolutely love the wet going.

93 - 100 was the basic range of good recent figures for most of the horses in this race. I find it hard to believe that suddenly only one of them could run even into the lower end of that range-- and that even that one, with an excellent trip, excellent wet-track breeding and thriving by all accounts coming up to the race, would back off by a couple of lengths. Which would be the case if a mid-90's Beyer figure was assigned.

[Cardus]

I hope you understand that this was about “mass” and not about Zenyatta. She was used as an illustration of size and nothing else.

Comprendo, Cratos. I had to slip that one in there.

[Cardus]

FWIW, Ragozin gave the winner a 4+. That's a 101 on the Beyer scale.

Thoro-Graph gave the winner a 1+. That's a 99 on the Beyer scale.

Beyer gave the race a 104.

CJ gave the race a 99-to-104

The Beyer number is [not] a farce. That's all I'm getting at. Everyone arrived at pretty much the same conclusion.

Regards,

JeremyJet

Explain why you correlate the Ragozin 4+ with the Beyer Speed Figure.

I have attended a bunch of Friedman's seminars (Derby and BC) and I am almost certain that someone once asked him to correlate a Ragozin number to a BSF and he said that he could not do that.

That answer seemed to make sense to me because the former takes into account many more factors than the latter, as I understand that you know.

Is there a "Sheets=Beyer Speed Figure" scale?

[Tom]

Were they good only because the guy posted on PaceAdvantage?

Look, word of a good product spreads. In the 30 years I have been part of this game, I have never heard anyone tout the Woodside methodology. Must be a reason.

And BTW, why are they not around anymore?

Regards,

JeremyJet

They were good long before PA ever existed. I bought them probably back in the late 80's. They were originally made by Henry Kuck and endorsed by Tom Ainslie. You must not have paid a lot attention all those years, as they were prominately advertised on the first page of the NYRA tracks in DRF for years. After Henry died, John took over and did a great job.

John posted freebies here for a lot of big race days and was a part of this board for a long time. I guess you missed all that, too.

Did it ever occurr to you that people might have personal reasons for ending a business?

[Cardus]

They were good long before PA ever existed. I bought them probably back in the late 80's. They were originally made by Henry Kuck and endorsed by Tom Ainslie. You must not have paid a lot attention all those years, as they were prominately advertised on the first page of the NYRA tracks in DRF for years. After Henry died, John took over and did a great job.

John posted freebies here for a lot of big race days and was a part of this board for a long time. I guess you missed all that, too.

Did it ever occurr to you that people might have personal reasons for ending a business?

Ainslie has written a couple of handicapping books, no? Was he the man who died a few years ago, or within the last year? (And had a pen name?)

[cj]

Where there's room for error-- and in rating this race, there is-- there's room for differences in judgment, too. Mine definitely differs in some regards.


I agree, there is certainly room for judgment and I know I could be wrong. I will say that I've been doing this pace/speed combo thing for a long time and the chance all those horses improved when the pace is super fast as it was is remote, especially when carrying more weight than ever before at a new, longer distance.

[JPinMaryland]

This isn't a problem if you get the number right. The other races aren't really a good guide for the Derby due to the huge time between races and the changing weather this year. I think the race is best rated using the horses in the race, after all there were 20 of them. For example, look at the top 2 finishers in the race.

Super Saver ran a 98 last out with an ideal trip in the Arkansas Derby. He tracked a fast, but hardly insane pace and couldn't catch the leader. He had a similar trip in the Derby, but he chased a much faster pace. I don't think it is unreasonable to guess he could equal his previous best and no faster. It is possible of course, but the most likely scenario is he ran a little slower overall.

The second finisher Ice Box came in with a 99, a career best, in the Florida Derby while lagging behind a very fast pace and getting a nice trip. It could certainly be argued he would improve again in the Derby, but is that likely given the nightmare trip that he had? Is it unreasonable to think he had to run no better final time wise and most likely slower than the previous 99? To me it makes by far the most sense.

If you give the 104 to Super Saver, you are forced (on Beyer) to give Paddy O'Prado a 100, and Make Music for Me a 97. You would have to believe both improved by 3 or 4 lengths while running in heavy traffic and running on a surface they had never run well on before. I would also have to believe Noble's Promise essentially matched his lifetime best while pressing then moving into a scorching pace and running a distance most likely too far for him as well.

To me, the evidence says the race should have a mid 90s rating on final time only, which again is what Beyer is suppose to be measuring.

This is one of the best explanations of anything on this board. Thanks for the explanation. Everything you said, I think, makes sense to me.

[Bobzilla]

These are only approximations based on a cursory glance of the official chart, and I wasn't quite sure how to treat collective "head" and "neck" margins. The first figure is lengths back at the 6f point and the second would be beaten lengths.

SS ; 6 1/2
IB ;22 1/2 ; 2 1/2
PO'P ; 10 1/2 ; 2 3/4
MMFM ; 24 1/2 ; 4 1/2
NP ; 3 1/2 ; 6
LAL ;21 ; 7
D ; 11 1/2 ; 7 1/2
SV ; 14 1/2 ; 8 3/4
MI ;7 1/2 ; 10 3/4
DMC ; 8 1/2 ; 12

(can't seem to get the columns alligned, not good with this editor)

The horse on the front and the one pressing, along with Line of David are:

C ;42 1/4
SC ; 1 ; 53 1/4
LAD ;6 1/2 ; 59 1/2

Clearly a race of inversion to some degree. I don't think there is any argument among anyone that the adjusted pace time for 6f in this race is exceedingly fast. I think any difference of opinion in regard to the "Raw Final Time" speed figure most likely stems back to the pace call and what effects, if any, it would have on the final time.

Depending on whatever formulas one is using, some will feel that being 6 1/2 back behind this particular pace would have a negligible effect on any difference between speed figure and performance figure (speed figure adjusted for pace, ground loss, etc.,etc.), especially when considering the split time of 27:07 between 3/4 and the mile. Others might conclude that even being as much as 6 1/2 back behind this particular pace call would undoubtably have an eventual effect on widening the delta between speed figure and performance figure, and that the delta could only be closed if one of those from far back early was able to get through with a clean trip and win by open lengths. I don't think most would find it unreasonable to accept that SS was entitled to move up with an improved performance. But given the early fractions in this race, some might think that the step up would be better represented by a PF rather than the SF. The more I read this thread the more I believe that there isn't much difference of opinion on the merits of SS's performance. I think the only difference of opinion has to do whether or not there was an impact on the final time by the 6f pace figure.

[classhandicapper]

I agree with you on the Moss figs. They (DRF, Beyer, Moss) blew it since the Moss figs are not on the same scale as the Beyer figures. All those Moss figs in the Form are a complicated mess, IMHO.

Regards,

JeremyJet

The Moss figures are actually excellent.

The problem with them is that they were never explained well. Of course the issue of pace is so complex, even if they were, many people wouldn't understand it anyway.

In some ways that's a very good thing because if people actually understood both the issues and the Moss figures, they would be less valuable to me. :lol:

I use them in combination with the CJ figures because the Moss figures give more points of call and are actually early speed figures as opposed to figures that try to measure the relationship of the pace to the final time. The combination of the two is deadly.

[classhandicapper]

This isn't a problem if you get the number right. The other races aren't really a good guide for the Derby due to the huge time between races and the changing weather this year. I think the race is best rated using the horses in the race, after all there were 20 of them. For example, look at the top 2 finishers in the race.

Super Saver ran a 98 last out with an ideal trip in the Arkansas Derby. He tracked a fast, but hardly insane pace and couldn't catch the leader. He had a similar trip in the Derby, but he chased a much faster pace. I don't think it is unreasonable to guess he could equal his previous best and no faster. It is possible of course, but the most likely scenario is he ran a little slower overall.

The second finisher Ice Box came in with a 99, a career best, in the Florida Derby while lagging behind a very fast pace and getting a nice trip. It could certainly be argued he would improve again in the Derby, but is that likely given the nightmare trip that he had? Is it unreasonable to think he had to run no better final time wise and most likely slower than the previous 99? To me it makes by far the most sense.

If you give the 104 to Super Saver, you are forced (on Beyer) to give Paddy O'Prado a 100, and Make Music for Me a 97. You would have to believe both improved by 3 or 4 lengths while running in heavy traffic and running on a surface they had never run well on before. I would also have to believe Noble's Promise essentially matched his lifetime best while pressing then moving into a scorching pace and running a distance most likely too far for him as well.

To me, the evidence says the race should have a mid 90s rating on final time only, which again is what Beyer is suppose to be measuring.

The only reason you understand these things is because you make figures using more information (prior and current pace figures) and have a greater understanding of how they are related.

Everyone else is forced to tweak final time numbers and claim that the track changes speed etc... which is often false. (other than Ragozin who usually correctly accepts the final time without tweaking even if doesn't quite make perfect sense)

We both agree that kind of tweaking causes all sorts of accuracy problems with some of the horses in the race because not all them run the same fractions or have the same level of ability, yet tweaking the final time impacts them all the same.

[Tom]

Ainslie has written a couple of handicapping books, no? Was he the man who died a few years ago, or within the last year? (And had a pen name?)

The Dean of Handicappers. Dick Carter was his name, Ainslie was the pen name.
Yes, a few books and a huge influence on the people we now take for granted.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/news/story?id=3012828

He hooked up with Howard Sartin and was using Sartin advanced programs in his later years.

[Bullet Plane]

If you look at three rating systems, you get three slightly different answers. I looked at Beyers, Sheets, and RPR.

RPR ranks SS best: since 2003 has ranked MTB 121, Giacomo 121, and Funny Cide 123. SS is 124.

Next highest Sheets: Super Saver gets a 4+ on the Sheets with only Giacomo a 5

Next Beyer: with a 104 for Super Saver, with Giacomo being a 100.

IF you look at the history, I guess the most accurate has been the RPR. But, it is like comparing apples to oranges. Because the Sheets and Beyers are not telling you who the best horse is, only the fastest.

RPR is an opinion of the class of the racehorse. Sheets is an overall ability number - that you need to read patterns on. Beyer is simply how fast the horse ran- not necessarily who will win the next race, or who is the best horse.