Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cj
Come on, you know I considered it. I've watched the replay, checked the gate, and even looked for signs of increased wind. There is nothing to indicate this race figure isn't accurate. All the races before and after the race in question fall right in line.
If you consider the maturity from earlier races and the fact that synthetic surfaces come back slower than dirt, none of the top four horses, save the winner, had any big jump up in figures.
|
CJ,
I' sure you looked at the day.
I am talking about looking at the race in isolation just for the sake of trying to make sense of it because I'm sure you will agree that figures of 117 and 112 for January 3YOs is quite unusual. We aren't just talking about the Dutrow horse here.
In isolation if you look at the prior Beyer figures of the top 4 horses and assume all the CA and other artificial horses either hated dirt or the ship to Florida (not really an unreasonable assumption), the top 4 fall into line pretty well at a figure of 100 or a little higher.
Kelly Leak has been running peak figures in the low mid 80s on turf/artificial. There was no certainty he would like sprinting on dirt.
Ju Jitsu Jak just ran a peak race of 86, loose on the lead, at 5 1/2 furlongs, against weaker horses, and dueled a superior horse in this race.
I see nothing unreasonable about assuming they both ran a race in the mid 80s again. They finished 7 1/2 lengths behind the winner. Depending on the beaten length chart you use (another issue) that translates into about 15-18 Beyer points and a winning figure of around 100 +/- a little.
A figure in the high 90s would not be out of line for a very fast horse like You Luckie Mann either. He peaked in a 5 1/2 race with a 107 but ran in the mid 90s stalking at 6F last out and dueled at 6F this time out.
The most likely figure for the winner is somewhat arbitrary because we know the horse moved up, but what makes more sense, 99-103 or 117 based on prior efforts?
Even the 5th place finisher, Billionaire Bob who was beaten around 20 lengths in what was not an especially competitive effort had a peak dirt/artifical figure of 66 against non-entities and was 46-1 in this race. A figure of 100 or so for this race would translate into a figure in the upper 50s or low 60s depending on the beaten length chart used. I don't even think that's an unreasonable figure for this horse in a race in which it was totally overmatched and outrun by superior horses.
I understand that your figures are not perfectly in sync with Beyer's, there are pace issues, young horses sometimes improve etc... I also understand your reluctance to arbitrarily lower a figure. But I find 117 and 112 for the top two no more logical than the assumption that a lot of CA based horses and artificial/turf specialists ran a clinker in a tough 3YO dirt sprint in Flordia on the ship.
I don't know what the right figure is. Perhaps 117 is most logical. But I've seen strange races like this in the past that proved to be wrong.
I don't think I'll be playing any of these horses back at short prices based on a 117 Beyer until I see some evidence that this wasn't a fluke final time. If the prices are huge, perhaps I'll reconsider.
But the greater point is "IF" (big if) Beyer and others have this race much too fast because something freaky happened with the track, then a lot this debate is moot.
I would be interested to see how fast TG, RAGs, and some other figure makers made the race and am looking forward to the next starts of some of these horse (hopefully all on dirt at 6F).
