andicap
01-02-2004, 01:05 PM
Simulcast Racing Weekly has a relatively new (I think about 6 months) column in which it supposedly profiles a less than high-profile trainer. Good idea. Terrible execution, although some weeks are better than others depending on the writer.,
Michael Sherack is the worst.
The better columns are ones that tell you something about the trainer's philosophy -- why he tries with first timers or why he is patience with them. What he does with layoff horses and claimed horses: crack down right away or wait?
The majority of the columns, however, are merely features with no information about a trainer's methods that would do a handicapper much good.
Look at this week's Sherack column about Bruce Levine, a real interesting New York trainer having a good meet at Aqueduct. The text contains a bio of Levine, some quotes from him about how tough it is to get into the stakes game, and a rundown on the better and stakes runners in his barn.
The stats (which by themselves can be misleading or incomplete, more on that later) show Levine excels with 1st/2nd after a claim. Why not ask him how he does it or which claimed horses seem to do better than others?
He's awful with 1st time starters? Why? But his blinkers off wins at 33% with a nice profit while his blinkers on is a huge money loser at 12% wins. His turf record is awful -- why not ask Levine about this, probably has to do with the stock he has. And he's terrible with 2 yr olds. Very good with first time off a layoff, less so the 2nd time. I'd like to know how this fits in with Levine's philosophy.
Like I said some of the other writers do try and understand the trainers' strengths and weaknesses, but most do not, especially Sherack.
And the stats themselves can be tough to discern. 60-180 since last race is a pretty wide gulf. If a trainer has a 25% win rate, it's highly possible, many of those winners came within 90 or 120 days or so, but the trainer could be awful with horses off 4-6 months.
And 2nd off layoff of 45-180 days is really useless. 50 days is a freshening, almost a possible move if a horse needs a rest off some top performances or seems tired. 150 days could mean an injury and the horse might need a few races to get back into shape. Big, big difference. Meaningless stat.
And some of the trainers they choose have almost no races to profile! Why choose a guy with about 20 starts in the 2 years they focus on? 1 start a month -- gee that's really helpful to us handicappers.
On the other hand, I love Steve Davidowitz's rundown of the strengths and weaknesses of jockeys. People may ask why give this info away, but I imagine he still gets 10x more than I do out of the jockey evaluation since he did them.
Michael Sherack is the worst.
The better columns are ones that tell you something about the trainer's philosophy -- why he tries with first timers or why he is patience with them. What he does with layoff horses and claimed horses: crack down right away or wait?
The majority of the columns, however, are merely features with no information about a trainer's methods that would do a handicapper much good.
Look at this week's Sherack column about Bruce Levine, a real interesting New York trainer having a good meet at Aqueduct. The text contains a bio of Levine, some quotes from him about how tough it is to get into the stakes game, and a rundown on the better and stakes runners in his barn.
The stats (which by themselves can be misleading or incomplete, more on that later) show Levine excels with 1st/2nd after a claim. Why not ask him how he does it or which claimed horses seem to do better than others?
He's awful with 1st time starters? Why? But his blinkers off wins at 33% with a nice profit while his blinkers on is a huge money loser at 12% wins. His turf record is awful -- why not ask Levine about this, probably has to do with the stock he has. And he's terrible with 2 yr olds. Very good with first time off a layoff, less so the 2nd time. I'd like to know how this fits in with Levine's philosophy.
Like I said some of the other writers do try and understand the trainers' strengths and weaknesses, but most do not, especially Sherack.
And the stats themselves can be tough to discern. 60-180 since last race is a pretty wide gulf. If a trainer has a 25% win rate, it's highly possible, many of those winners came within 90 or 120 days or so, but the trainer could be awful with horses off 4-6 months.
And 2nd off layoff of 45-180 days is really useless. 50 days is a freshening, almost a possible move if a horse needs a rest off some top performances or seems tired. 150 days could mean an injury and the horse might need a few races to get back into shape. Big, big difference. Meaningless stat.
And some of the trainers they choose have almost no races to profile! Why choose a guy with about 20 starts in the 2 years they focus on? 1 start a month -- gee that's really helpful to us handicappers.
On the other hand, I love Steve Davidowitz's rundown of the strengths and weaknesses of jockeys. People may ask why give this info away, but I imagine he still gets 10x more than I do out of the jockey evaluation since he did them.