Secretariat Stakes vs Arlington Million

[gm10]

The Secretariat Stakes was won by Treasure Beach in 2'03''91.
The Arlington Million was won by Cape Blanco in 2'05''39.

Both 10F races on the same day (race 8 and 10), with the temporary rail at 62 feet.

I remember that it rained that day, so the track may have slowed down between races 8 and 10, but the followings ratings are still remarkable:

Trackmaster ratings: 114 vs 125
Racing Post ratings: 119 vs 122
Beyer Speed Figures: 105 vs 102
(Treasure Beach vs Cape Blanco)

Treasure Beach ran around 7-8 lengths faster than Cape Blanco, yet Beyer only rates him about a length faster, while the others actually suggest he ran a slower race.

What's your opinion?

[Spiderman]

I will continue in my handicapping to not use any of the aforementioned rating services. The above is a prime example of how they can be contrived and manipulated.

[Valuist]

There was rain throughout the day and the Million was run later in the card as the course had taken more rain. Looking at the fractional times, we see a big difference in the 3rd quarter of the race:

Secretariat: 50 1:14 3/5 2.03.91
Million: 50 1/5 1:16 2.05.39

Not surprisingly, Cape Blanco and 3rd place finisher, Deans Kitten were up close to the slowish Million pace and Gio Ponti couldn't overcome it.

But I wouldn't underestimate Treasure Beach. I watched his Epsom and Irish Derbies on You Tube and he won one, and really should've won the other. He had worked to put away the other speed and never saw a deep closer who nailed him in the final jump. He was beaten a nose but clearly the best.

But turf figs are never 100% accurate. With the changing conditions, I'm sure they used projection to make those figs, and I think that was the correct call.

[cj]

But turf figs are never 100% accurate. With the changing conditions, I'm sure they used projection to make those figs, and I think that was the correct call.

They aren't ever 100%, but as you note in this case it was a pretty good projection. The two you mentioned came back to run 1-2 in the Turf classic. If you are going to make figures, you better check the weather before just assuming other guys have it wrong.

[Robert Fischer]

Gio Ponti probably looked the best of either race.

[cj]

Gio Ponti probably looked the best of either race.

Better than Cape Blanco? I don't see that.

[Robert Fischer]

Better than Cape Blanco? I don't see that.

well CJ, ... that's why we have horse races.

[gm10]

They aren't ever 100%, but as you note in this case it was a pretty good projection. The two you mentioned came back to run 1-2 in the Turf classic. If you are going to make figures, you better check the weather before just assuming other guys have it wrong.

Which specific projection are you referring to? I know of a few projection methods.

[cj]

Which specific projection are you referring to? I know of a few projection methods.

The one Beyer used since that is what you made the thread about.

[gm10]

The one Beyer used since that is what you made the thread about.

I think you're seeing ghosts, this thread is not about BSF. I wanted to hear people's opinion.


I think you're on shaky ground with the projection method. Treasure Beach and Ziyarid had never raced in the US before. So where are you going to project from for this race?

Trackmaster certainly didn't use this method, they've got the same track variant for both races. They would need very different DTV's to turn 1.5 seconds faster into 11 points slower. As an aside, but rather worryingly, Trackmaster have the first three turf races as being 25 points SLOWER than the last three. That makes little sense.

My guess is that all three of them used another type of projection method. They had a pre-designated rating in mind regardless of who showed up, assigned the winner that rating, made some minor adjustments, and worked down from there.

They aren't speed figures in any case. You could even argue whether they are true ability ratings. They seem to describe pre-race expectations more than the race itself.

[cj]

Treasure Beach ran around 7-8 lengths faster than Cape Blanco, yet Beyer only rates him about a length faster, while the others actually suggest he ran a slower race.

What's your opinion?

You seem to have missed that it was raining and the track almost assuredly slowed down. Turf races are tough here since only a few each day are run on it.

As an aside, but rather worryingly, Trackmaster have the first three turf races as being 25 points SLOWER than the last three. That makes little sense.

Arlington is tougher still because they use mutlitple rail settings throughout the day, another point you seem to have missed. They did on Million day as well, two vastly different rail settings.

If you are going to make figures, you better know the details...ALL of them.

[gm10]

You seem to have missed that it was raining and the track almost assuredly slowed down. Turf races are tough here since only a few each day are run on it.



Arlington is tougher still because they use mutlitple rail settings throughout the day, another point you seem to have missed. They did on Million day as well, two vastly different rail settings.

If you are going to make figures, you better know the details...ALL of them.

Well Sir mine throw up more winners than BSF and Trackmaster, so I my feel quite comfortable with my ability to construct figures.

Speaking of knowing the details, did you actually read my first post? I covered weather and rail settings there. Seems like you are the one missing the point so far.

Anyway your opinion on it is valued as well. I only have a suspicion and am open to other suggestions.

[cj]

Well Sir mine throw up more winners than BSF and Trackmaster, so I my feel quite comfortable with my ability to construct figures.

Speaking of knowing the details, did you actually read my first post? I covered weather and rail settings there. Seems like you are the one missing the point so far.

Anyway your opinion on it is valued as well. I only have a suspicion and am open to other suggestions.

If you covered rail settings, it seems you would have known why the first three races had different variants than the last three. You missed that and the rain, or am I off base?

[cj]

If you covered rail settings, it seems you would have known why the first three races had different variants than the last three. You missed that and the rain, or am I off base?

I stand corrected, you mentioned the rain. It just seems you are trivializing it when it is in fact a huge factor.

[classhandicapper]

Turf figures are normally more complicated by pace and less reliable than dirt figures to begin with. When you throw in rain and a changing surface condition, I think it's best to subjectively determine the horse's performances based on prior and subsequent form and almost pretend the races weren't timed.

IMO, Treasure Beach looked like a very good horse and standout in the Secretariat. It didn't look like any of the US based runners were world beaters (though they were OK by US standards) and Ziyarid finishing ahead of them more or less verified that. So it was probably a very solid but not spectacular race for that class given that Treasure beach won narrowly and the top two were not far ahead of the rest.

IMO the 2011 Arlington Million field was clearly below average for that race.

However, I still have to think the Million for older horses was the superior race, especially since the race has been very productive. 4 horses have since come back to win out of the race.

We could debate the difference between the two, but it's probably not as large a difference as is typically the case between the two races. Honestly given the weather conditions I don't even see the final times as particularly relevant.

[cj]

We could debate the difference between the two, but it's probably not as large a difference as is typically the case between the two races. Honestly given the weather conditions I don't even see the final times as particularly relevant.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.

[phattty]

i'm not stating that this is reason. but i thought BSF rating were built to and from Beyer Pars....not sure the difference in the 2 races pars, but it would seem an open sweepstakes would have a Par higher than a sweepstakes limited to 3 yr olds...

this has been my presumption as explained to me years ago, but my age addled brain may be playing tricks on me

[Valuist]

i'm not stating that this is reason. but i thought BSF rating were built to and from Beyer Pars....not sure the difference in the 2 races pars, but it would seem an open sweepstakes would have a Par higher than a sweepstakes limited to 3 yr olds...

this has been my presumption as explained to me years ago, but my age addled brain may be playing tricks on me

They don't always use pars. And despite what some claim, there are cases when projection is the best (and only) option. In this case you had changing track conditions (they maybe weren't officially listed differently but the course clearly had taken on more water for the Million). You also had two very formfully run races. Treasure Beach was one of the higher regarded runners for this race in years; the two top American runners in the race ran 3rd and 4th. And the runnerup was a lightly raced Euro who could easily move forward. Cape Blanco wins the Million, and likely will win the Eclipse Award and he beat a former Million winner in Gio Ponti with Deans Kitten, who'd come back to run 2nd narrowly losing to Cape Blanco in the Turf Classic. Overall I felt the Secretariat was a strong running while the Million was below average for Million standards. But the figs they came up with I believe were accurate and reflected the talent for both races.