Derby Beyer

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by Speed Figure

I remember when Candy Ride won the PC in 2003 he got a 123 Beyer. Seems like after that the numbers started getting smaller.

Ghostzapper received 2 or 3 huge beyers in 2004, but i agree it's been a slow decline and the last few years a steep decline. I've said it before but the 97 california chrome got in the Derby took the cake. 108 in the San felipe. 107 in the santa anita derby 113 in the bcup classic but a 97 in the Kentucky derby. If he ran 5th I could've seen a 97 but he won easily.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Steve R

It's not just Beyer. Equibase, Ragozin and even the Racing Post (where time is a minor component of their ratings) have all shown a general decline in performance over the last couple of decades, at least for the American classics.

I don't think that's true of Ragozin. On his figures (at least for the Derby) the recent figures are more or less in line with the long term average other than a period Len Friedman referred to as the "steroid era" where his figures started getting faster for awhile. Then they dropped back to normal after the changes to the steroid rules.

On Thorograph horses seemed to be getting faster practically every couple of years, but lately the figures seem more stable and there have been fewer really giant numbers that I've noticed.

I think trying to compare horses across many years using figures is mostly intellectual masturbation even though all the figure makers will claim they can do it. IMO, you can't control for all the changes in drugs (legal and illegal), surfaces, breeding etc... over time.

One thing I will say is that I remember many years ago that if a speedy high level middle distance horse dropped back to a sprint, he probably had an edge in class over the better sprinters. Now I think that's less certain. That could be because the sprinters are better, the routers aren't quite as strong, a little of each, or the purses and opportunities are getting better in sprints so there's less of a reason to try to stretch some of those horses out only to drop them back later.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by Tom

As CJ pointed out, if the tracks are deeper and more tiring, it will be harder for routers to approach the top than sprinters...

So if tracks are deeper and more tiring I can understand it could affect routers more than sprinters. That still doesn't explain why sprint records are still being broken. Do sprinters actually run faster on deeper, tiring surfaces? I don't think so.

Beyond that I'm not sure you can generalize about tracks slowing up over time. It's a mixed bag according to the American Racing Manual. These are the fastest times in 2010 and 1999 at the most common distances on dirt for three tracks selected randomly.

Belmont appears faster at both distances, by a lot in sprints and marginally in routes. Churchill and Hawthorne are both faster in sprints and slower in routes.

Belmont:
2010, 6f, 1:07.66
1999, 6f, 1:08.57

2010, 8 1/2f, 1:40.72
1999, 8 1/2f, 1:40.79

CD:
2010, 6f, 108.07
1999, 6f, 109.29

2010, 8 1/2f, 1:42.60
1999, 8 1/2f, 1:42.88

HAW:
2010, 6f, 108.90
1999, 6f, 109.05

2010, 8 1/2f, 1:43.17
1999, 8 1/2f, 1:42.04

[classhandicapper]

I mentioned this earlier, but another reason we may not be getting faster route times is that many of the very best horses (which are usually the routers running for the biggest purses) are retired to stud before they even peak at 4 or 5. That was not always the case. Many of our former champions from years ago ran at 4. I'd be willing to bet that if we had a few champion geldings and they were souping up the tracks on big race days like they used to years ago, some of those route records would be in jeopardy. A peaking American Pharoah at 4 or 5 would be dangerous given his BC Classic.

I don't think it's any one thing and I don't think you can isolate the individual impacts.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I don't think that's true of Ragozin. On his figures (at least for the Derby)...

All I can tell you is that if you run a regression analysis of the Derby Ragozin # vs. year for the last 20 Derbies the linear trend line starts out at just under 2.00 in 1997 and is at 4.00 in 2016.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Steve R

So if tracks are deeper and more tiring I can understand it could affect routers more than sprinters. That still doesn't explain why sprint records are still being broken. Do sprinters actually run faster on deeper, tiring surfaces? I don't think so.

That's more convincing evidence to suggest that sprinters are getting better in relation to routers since the routers are not really slower. Though I'm not sure the 1999-2010 period is long enough to capture some of the track surface changes.

The point I was making about top routers dropping back to sprints suggests the gap is not as large as it used to be.

Years ago (like in the 70s and 80s) Aqueduct/Belmont used post the cushion depths on a chart as you entered the track. That info is probably still available somewhere at the track. I just don't know where it is. But the last time I actually paid attention to it the cushions were deeper than when I first started getting interested in this game. I have no idea if they have changed in the last 10 years.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I mentioned this earlier, but another reason we may not be getting faster route times is that many of the very best horses (which are usually the routers running for the biggest purses) are retired to stud before they even peak at 4 or 5. That was not always the case. Many of our former champions from years ago ran at 4. I'd be willing to bet that if we had a few champion geldings and they were souping up the tracks on big race days like they used to years ago, some of those route records would be in jeopardy. A peaking American Pharoah at 4 or 5 would be dangerous given his BC Classic.

I don't think it's any one thing and I don't think you can isolate the individual impacts.

This is absolutely true. It's not accidental that Game On Dude ran his 1:58 flat at age 7.

Or to pick an example from right now-- California Chrome ran the best race of his career in Dubai not too long ago, at age 5.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Steve R

All I can tell you is that if you run a regression analysis of the Derby Ragozin # vs. year for the last 20 Derbies the linear trend line starts out at just under 2.00 in 1997 and is at 4.00 in 2016.

His data goes back to 1973. Take a look at it on the left side of the homepage. Other than the "steroid period" where he claims his figures got faster for awhile, they are not much different now than earlier. The start and end point of the data is critical if you believe steroids were a probably a factor.


http://www.thesheets.com/

[Speed Figure]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

Ghostzapper received 2 or 3 huge beyers in 2004, but i agree it's been a slow decline and the last few years a steep decline. I've said it before but the 97 california chrome got in the Derby took the cake. 108 in the San felipe. 107 in the santa anita derby 113 in the bcup classic but a 97 in the Kentucky derby. If he ran 5th I could've seen a 97 but he won easily.

I forgot about GZ he ran 120, 128 & 124 in 2004 & 123 in 2005. So when did the numbers start going downhill?

[Tom]

Andy is a guest on ATR Monday, top of the second hour.
He gives very truthful recap of he race.

Agree with him or not, Andy will tell you what he thinks!

[bisket]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

The comment about Big Brown and steroids is right on in terms of it being a point where the change became really noticeable. But it doesn't really explain much, does it? Are the real, raw times of these high-end stakes races within a range that they've always been in, or are they too noticeably slower? If they are approximately the same, it has be in the methodology, does it not?

I wonder if it's over-reliance on projection. When BSR's were first published in the Form, and Best Pal and his pals were knocking out one-teens and occasional one-twenties with impunity, who could argue with those results, as there was no frame of reference except the racing that was going on at that time? Was projection a part of the process then; I don't know, maybe someone here does; or were those big figs merely what the charts produced, take it or leave it?

Then, with a few years of maturity, Beyers began showing up in bloodstock advertising and started to attain some historical significance, as opposed to the everyday handicapping tool they were meant to be. That's when, I believe, that projection of pars began to affect the methodology. I suppose I can't blame them for wanting to evolve, stay ahead, or keep up, but I think that's what contributes to the compression that classhandicapper has mentioned. It's not unreasonable to suppose that a figure-maker who has seen a particular situation about 10,000 times already in his career will stick to his projection SOP instead of keeping to the charts.

I haven't been an everyday observer like most of you here for several years, so I may be off-base here, but I once was, and that's my historical take on it. These days, it seems like it would take a 15-length crushing of a Derby field just to get near 110 like Funny Cide or Smarty Jones.

I'm not sold on the breeding angle. Beyers are only 25 years old. Too soon to tell, even if it's a staple of conventional wisdom.

I think Beyers are good gauge of speed and effort for you're everyday racing for a group of runners at the same track. I don't bet figures (not just Beyers all figs) when a race is comprised of runners from different tracks. There are many reasons for this, but the most important is class and hierarchy are next impossible to assign from one circuit to another. This occurred to me while I was rereading Ainsley some years ago. He was discussing the difference between speed ratings in the form and Beyers. Of course Beyers were new at the time and he was giving Beyer his well deserved props. Beyer essentially took a large amount of data from different tracks, and he found that purse values in relation to race conditions were the most accurate determination of class. The introduction to casino's and they're effect on purses along with State Bred racing has significantly decreased the amount of data that can be used from one track to the next. Add the fact that there's only a handful of 1 1/4 mile races every year..... anybody trying to make a number out of that is pissing in the wind. It's a great spot for a recreational dude with lots of handicapping experience and general knowledge of the game to hit a few big ones every now and again.

[bisket]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That's also why I pound the table on it so much. There are a lot of really smart people that thought American Pharoah was mediocre because his Beyer figures were mediocre relative to horses from years ago. I thought that was laughable. That crop was good and he was toying with them. IMO loads of horses from the last 10 years or so are underrated because of various figure quirks and probably wildly overrated on other figures.

Anyone relying on figures to vote for year end awards shouldn't be allowed to vote... I'm sure they're a winning bettor overall, but when it comes to horses at the highest level of the game their methods are worthless. I can think of a 3 year old filly that beat a few mediocre males in the spring when fillies routinely run as fast as males, and she was enshrined as one of the greats. While an older mare that beat males and routinely ran as fast as older males was thought to be an allowance horse figure wise. It wasn't until the end of her career when she ran a superior race and finished second to the best older males in the world did the figure makers correctly measure her talent. 3 years of running and they couldn't figure her out... It speaks volumes to the methods they're forced to use because of the lack of data.

[bisket]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Game on Dude ran a 1:58 flat a couple of years ago, second fastest in history, which suggests our top horses can still be very fast.

made lots of money on Da Dude!!

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by bisket

...There are many reasons for this, but the most important is class and hierarchy are next impossible to assign from one circuit to another...

I had a problem with this way back when, too. When I was making my own BSR's for Latonia, River, and Beulah back in the 80's, I developed the guideline that "No numbers beats good numbers nearly all the time." The No Numbers were shippers usually from Churchill or Arlington at that time, or turfers switching to dirt. I never felt compelled to take it to the next level and see just what kind of shippers were earning what kinds of numbers on my charts, because the idea was simply to cash tickets, not order the entire North American horses-in-training population.

About the time Beyers began appearing in the Form, my participation in the game changed and I used those instead of making my own. Then, as Bisket alludes to, the casino-fueled purses altered things beyond my comprehension, as far as comparing circuits. I still trust today's Beyers because it's what I know, but definitely the foundation is shakier than a system based merely on local class levels.

[bisket]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

I had a problem with this way back when, too. When I was making my own BSR's for Latonia, River, and Beulah back in the 80's, I developed the guideline that "No numbers beats good numbers nearly all the time." The No Numbers were shippers usually from Churchill or Arlington at that time, or turfers switching to dirt. I never felt compelled to take it to the next level and see just what kind of shippers were earning what kinds of numbers on my charts, because the idea was simply to cash tickets, not order the entire North American horses-in-training population.

About the time Beyers began appearing in the Form, my participation in the game changed and I used those instead of making my own. Then, as Bisket alludes to, the casino-fueled purses altered things beyond my comprehension, as far as comparing circuits. I still trust today's Beyers because it's what I know, but definitely the foundation is shakier than a system based merely on local class levels.

I can tell you that adjusted times for state bred races vary from year to year. Just like 3 year Olds in training for the derby, there are good crops of MD Breds and bad crops. How can you compare class levels when they rarely run in open races... before casinos and state bred races you could mathematically determine class, today it's an endeavor thato can only be accomplished with human judgement. When it comes to grade 1 racing there are regional rivalries. Lol I can tell you just about every year grade 1 horses from new York always have better Beyers than horse from California. You can always find great spots when the horsesun get together in the Breeders Cup, in Florida, and Kentucky to bet against some runners with puffed up figs...