Travers Stakes

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

I may not be on board with the theory yet, but at least he's thinking, Burnsy.

Makes some interesting comments about the pace rhythm.

.

I agree and while I myself have not gone into his Travers analysis in sufficient detail to explain all the disappointing Travers performances I feel that the author of the article is on to something. The sudden accelerations and decelerations a horse may make in a race can definitely have an effect on it's performance. Yes, pace figures can explain this to a considerable extent, as pace handicapping shows us, but their is an an additional variable at work when one considers large differences in the sectional 1/4 times. The Thoroughbred is a huge animal and sudden changes of velocity at high speeds can drain a lot of energy. This is illustrated by how MPG efficiency of cars is greater on the highway than in city traffic. Taxi cabs, with their stop and go driving have the worst millage and wear out faster.
Pace analysis is very useful in showing how much energy is used in call pace variations but it does not take into account the effects of sudden changes in velocity from 1/4 to 1/4 and their draining energy effect. For that we need sectional times such as the author illustrated in his Travers analysis in comparison with previous runnings.
I'm not surprised that some would be resistant to this, especially those who are mathpohbic and are already resistant to numerical speed-pace figures and would be totally hostile to this more sophisticated mathematical analysis.

One good thing about the TimeformUS PPs is that one can click for a horse's sectional 1/4 quarter times and see if there were sudden changes that could effect a horses performance. This effect merits its own thread.

[Tom]

NY riders getting out-ridden by ship-in jocks who understand early speed is nothing new. Happens a lot.

That and ship in horse are frequently better.

[classhandicapper]

I thought the premise of the article was good, but I don't think he's accounting for the straights and turns properly in terms of their impact on the times. The Travers has a much longer run to the 1st turn than the Personal Ensign. So the point in the race when the pace slows down because of the turn will be different.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, I noted during the day that the maintenance crew did not seem to be watering the track in a pattern that was keeping the track the same from dirt race to dirt race. It looked different in the middle of the card than it did at the start of the card and for the Travers (at least to me).

That pattern also fits how the track was playing. Early in the day it looked to me like it was inside speed favoring (as it probably was on Friday). In the middle of the card the track seemed to playing more neutral and then in the Travers the 2 leaders went around the track one/two and several short priced favorites did little running from the back.

It also looks like Beyer broke the Personal Ensign out from the rest of the card and then had the track getting slower for the Forego and Travers. Thorograph also had the track getting slower according to comments from Jerry Brown.

I'm not saying I can make sense of it all, but I think the track was clearly changing due to moisture content. That was probably impacting both its speed and the way the races were developing. In fact, maybe the maintenance crew was actively trying to tweak it before the bigger races to mitigate the impact of any bias.

I almost never make a note about a shifting bias. It's hard enough to figure it all out when looking at a sample of 9-10 races, let alone just a few. But I think something was going on Travers day.

[Tom]

Looks like Beyer broke races 9 and 11 out for the day.
Races 1-2-6-7-8-were fast 23-27, then R9 was only fast 18 and race 11 was fast 14.

I am going to use race 9 as 110 instead of a 104 in my database.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Tom

Looks like Beyer broke races 9 and 11 out for the day.
Races 1-2-6-7-8-were fast 23-27, then R9 was only fast 18 and race 11 was fast 14.

I am going to use race 9 as 110 instead of a 104 in my database.

I am with Beyer. No way is Catholic Boy that good.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I am with Beyer. No way is Catholic Boy that good.

The entire day is screwey on the figures, its like projection for 3-4 of the races.

I am trusting what Timeform has.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

The entire day is screwey on the figures, its like projection for 3-4 of the races.

I am trusting what Timeform has.

I agree. TFUS has Catholic Boy paring up his previous turf figures, which makes sense since he is just as good on grass and dirt.
I hope CJ posts his figures for the race. I suspect that Bravazo also ran his usually reliable figure.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

When speed/closer biases exist they have little or nothing to do with magical hooves, but they may have something to do with how tiring the surface is, the relationship between speed/stamina the horse has, how the horse distributes his energy, and how much kickback the horses near the front are whacking the closers in the face with given the moisture content and makeup of the track that day.

When one looks at what is really causing a speed/closer bias one can usually point out to some other less mysterious cause for the phenomena.
First, there may be a difference in the composition and speed of different paths so when the rail is faster, and since most leaders try to get to the inside to save ground, the so-called speed bias is really a rail bias.
In addition the track speed does not explain this speed/closer bias. This is because if a track is fast it is just as fast and advantages for the pressers and closers chasing the leaders and will be just as advantages to them when they make their late moves. By the same token a tiring track will also tire both the leaders and closers.
The idea that the leaders advantage by avoiding kickback can vary significantly by daily differences in track composition is dubious. First of all, different horses are affected or not at all by kickback so it's effect is highly dependent on this. Plus, a horse who is forwardly placed behind a front runner will get more kickback than a closer far back beyond another horse Yet your explanation that more severe kickback causes a speed bias would give the advantage to the forwardly placed horse getting more kickback. In addition too many closers are also not subject to kickbacks since they are running in a different path, perhaps wider than the horse in front of them. Except for the leader, or another horse lapped outside of him, the notion that a speed bias aids forwardly placed horses due to differences in kickback falls apart. We are therefore talking more about trip and path biases here than speed/closer bias. In addition, kickback is not an issue on grass races and yet people still talk about speed/closer biases in these races.
In a days card most speed/closer advocates will invoke a speed bias when 8 of 10 races are won by horses going from wire to wire. On closer examination however one finds that more than half of these wins are may be to a golden rail. Maybe 3 of these races are due to the leader getting an easy early lead. Maybe In 3 others races the early leader just happened to be the best horse in the race. Maybe in 2 others the closer had a poor trip. That does not leave enough races and definitely not a large enough sample to say there was a speed bias, independent of other variables, to explain the days results.
In conclusion, just as any phenomena that cannot be explained, independently of any other scientific phenomena, are considered magical and superstitious so also is the notion of a speed/closer bias, independent of any other causative variable.

[Robert Fischer]

1. Break!
2. Scoot to the front
3. Rate into the 1st-turn
4. After completely on the backstretch - Open Up a touch
5. Rate into the 2nd-turn
6. Wait as long as you can (top-of-the-stretch) and FINISH!

When good horses ace that flight-plan, it's tough to close on them. It really helps closers on the dirt to have that plan go astray due to a hot/contested pace.

[classhandicapper]

Most people that have been handicapping for awhile realize that rail biases can masquerade as speed or closer biases because front runners tend to move closer to the rail. As long as you are aware of that and are looking at how all the horses that raced inside and outside did relative to expectations you can usually discern when it was the rail that was good/bad, when it was speed that was good/bad, and when both were at work.

Kickback is tougher but sometimes that's clear.

If it's officially a "fast" track but at the end of the race the non leaders come back looking like they just ran on a sloppy track and the jocks have goop on their faces, extreme kickback was probably an issue and the moisture content was probably high.

You can sometimes even visually see clumps of grass getting kicked back when the turf is off.

There's just no doubt that sometimes tracks are more or less speed favoring and it has nothing to do with paths. It's not a requirement to know exactly what in the composition and depth of the track is causing it. It's just necessary to try to understand which horses might benefit so you make more informed bets.

IMO, it usually has more to do with whether the track is more or less tiring than usual, how the horses distribute their energy, and how much natural speed vs. stamina they have, and how they were used in the race. Even if horses have similar overall ability, if they have a different ratio of speed vs. stamina a "more or less tiring" track will impact them differently because they ARE different animals.

[classhandicapper]

Here's a Dick Jerardi article discussing the Personal Ensign figure.

https://www.drf.com/news/jerardi-con...-ensign-stakes

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Here's a Dick Jerardi article discussing the Personal Ensign figure.

https://www.drf.com/news/jerardi-con...-ensign-stakes

I couldn't justify breaking those races apart personally.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by cj

I couldn't justify breaking those races apart personally.

I wonder if part of the problem with the "context" of these standout races is the system of beaten lengths. Perhaps the simple conversion of 1 length = -2.5 BSF points (or whatever it is) is only accurate over a small range of values (say 0-5 lengths).

In both the Personal Ensign this year and last year's Frontrunner, the decision to alter the BSF was based heavily on the horses running 3rd and 4th who would have earned new lifetime "tops". Well, those horses were 10 lengths back or more. Just as Beyer says the last two horses in the Personal Ensign (that were fried by the pace) were inconsequential, I don't think it's a big leap to say a horse 10 lengths behind the winner (regardless of finish position) was of no consequence either.

Another historical example that was not adjusted was the 1998 Kentucky Cup Classic. In that race, Derby winner Silver Charm and Met Mile winner Wild Rush dead-heated for the win, both earning a 123 BSF. That figure was 5 points higher than Silver Charm ever earned both before and after that race. I believe it was also the same for Wild Rush (he earned a 118 for the Met Mile). No one seemed to bat an eye then. The show horse in that race was the Grade 1-placed Acceptable. He was beaten 17 lengths.

To me, it seems it would make more sense to adjust the figures of the also-rans first and then decide if the horses that actually contended for the win ought to have their numbers adjusted, too.

Even if Wow Cat was assigned a new lifetime top in the Personal Ensign, I don't think many handicappers would have faith that her triple digit Beyer stemming from a double-digit length defeat would be reproducible next time out, unless she was taken a substantial drop in class. But on the other hand, after witnessing the maturity of recent starts like Gun Runner and Accelerate relative to their 3yo performances, I don't think it would be shocking to see either Abel Tasman or Elate repeat their respective efforts this past weekend. One of them is even a possibility for the BC Classic off the race.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Here's a Dick Jerardi article discussing the Personal Ensign figure.

https://www.drf.com/news/jerardi-con...-ensign-stakes

This may be why the Beyer's are shrinking over the years p he has a glass ceiling to prevent the good horses from getting good numbers.

When I handicap a race, I want to know how fast the horse ran, not how fast Andy thinks he should have run.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Tom

This may be why the Beyer's are shrinking over the years p he has a glass ceiling to prevent the good horses from getting good numbers.

When I handicap a race, I want to know how fast the horse ran, not how fast Andy thinks he should have run.

If you just want a "pure" figure of how fast a horse ran with no consideration of track speed than you don't apply a variant. Anytime you include a variant you are depending on the opinion of the one making it. The question is how compelling you find the argument behind what that variant is. If you find that argument convincing you find the figure based on it correct. If you don't, you have to use a different variant and speed figure based on it.