Which line do you prefer

[imofe]

You have two horses. Both raced at the same class and both wired the field.

Horse A 29 59 128 155
Horse B 27 57 126 155

Just curious how people would rate the two different efforts and which they would prefer.

[Stillriledup]

I prefer the horse who came home slower.

People always give benefits to horses who come home fast, but all decent harness horse can come home flying with a big last quarter if the internal pace is slow enough...so, really, a fast last quarter is just a product of the internal pace, it doesn't necessarily indicate how good the horse is.

The slower finisher will have "done more" in the middle stages of the race, got more "tightened" and forced to "Race hard" and that horse will have more "bottom" the following week if he has to go to the well to win.

Not to mention that you'll get higher price on the "slow" last quarter.

Those quarters are just a product of internal pace, any decent horse can sit thru a slow 3/4s and then blow home fast....doesnt mean a heck of a lot, but handicappers fall in love with that fast LQ, so they usually take more money than the horse who got used in faster pace and had to work harder coming home.

[Ray2000]

Horse A 29 59 128 155......29 30 29 27
Horse B 27 57 126 155......27 30 29 29

I'd go with B if the call at Q1 was 1°
I'm looking for the brush with a fight

JMO

[Sea Biscuit]

Originally Posted by imofe

You have two horses. Both raced at the same class and both wired the field.

Horse A 29 59 128 155
Horse B 27 57 126 155

Just curious how people would rate the two different efforts and which they would prefer.

If horse A had come from off the pace to win the race, I would definitely have picked horse A.

Since both wired the field, my pick would be horse B.

[traynor]

It is an interesting question, but the answer (in the race analysis and race analysis applications I use) would be that it depends on what the other horses in the same races were doing--not just the two horses in question.

"Wiring the field" only considers leading--not how much pressure or contesting went on to get and maintain that lead, for how long, and how seriously, during how much of the race.

I think that one-dimensional race analysis is more often misleading than illuminating. Considering an entry's performance as if it were in isolation can create a distorted view that is less than useful when comparing that performance to the performance of other entries in subsequent races.

So my choice would be, "It depends."

[Charlie]

Although Horse A did not display much pre- stretch energy, its 27.0 come home time should not be ignored. Horse B did display very good pre-stretch energy with the 27 opening quarter and its 29 come home time cannot be faulted for that reason. If competing in their next start and both had good post positions, I would have to choose Horse B. The reason being is that pre-stretch energy is so very important and that 27 opening 1/4 was very fast. An if that 27 was earned while dueling to the first turn, all the better. That's my take...

[traynor]

This is an important issue. I think it is so important, in fact, that I coded the apps I use to evaluate each entry's performance in relation to the other entries in the same race, rather than in isolation. One of the first issues I dealt with was setting a minimal set of criteria to qualify "contenders," and then ignoring (for comparative purposes) pace and speed ratings earned in races with less than four "contenders."

I ran a dual analysis of races for close to a year--with the multi-entry analysis clearly superior for predictive purposes--before abandoning the isolated analysis perspective completely. I think comparisons of pace and speed based on single "pace lines" extracted from the contexts of the races from which they are derived is a major reason for the (apparent) failure of much pace analysis to accurately predict the outcome of future race scenarios.

[imofe]

I will give some more info for those that would like it. Both races were on big tracks.

Horse A gets the lead easily in his own fractions. The half is still single file. In Q3 the horse 4th on the rail takes a shot first over and pulls even with the lead horse at the 3Q call. Second over is gapped cover and not a threat. About half way down the lane Horse A puts away the first over horse and wins by a length with the horses second and third on the rail finishing behind him. These horses behind Horse A on the rail have plenty of room but are out closed.

Horse B is a fast horse from the gate. He gets the lead without being parked but has to speed up the quarter a bit to allow an outside leaver room to drop in the hole behind him. In the second quarter the cover flow begins from way back. The 1st 5 sit rail. The 1st over horse gets to within a half length a the 3Q call and the second and third over horses begin to go three wide. The 2hole horse that left initially is starting to gap and destroy the rail horses. The horse second over runs up to lose by a length with the horse third over running third.

[thaskalos]

Standardbreds are much more flexible in running style than their thoroughbred counterparts...so these two horses could very easily switch fractions the next time out. I would be unable to spot a difference between these two horses from these two races alone...and would need to see the rest of their past performances in order to render a handicapping opinion.

[senortout]

Re: standardbred racing. Can someone tell me why the splits are posted so the drivers can see them? Also, is there a rule stating you can't create a false pace in an attempt to back up a field behind? In thoroughbred racing, as often stated, the better jocks have a 'clock in their head'.

[imofe]

The good drivers have a very good idea as to how fast they are going.

As far as your second question, horses have been taken down for not going at a reasonable pace. But this does not happen often, and is very subjective.

[Ray2000]

When I was a regular track goer back in the 70-80-90s, the "33" second rule was used for fining a driver who slowed the pace down excessively. I think most tracks used it.

It doesn't appear in the USTA rule book now (at least I can't find it),

http://www.ustrotting.com/pdf/USTARuleBook.pdf

But
Driving a Horse in an Unsatisfactory Manner.—...18.05 section (b)
could apply.

[harness2008]

For me it would also depend on the typical pace percentages that a track generally throws off. Its only after knowing what these figures are that I can determine whether a pace was fast, normal or slow. Ray was so kind enough to post a list of tracks and their corresponding pace percentages at each 1/4 mile interval a while back.

Scenario 1 - If these 2 horses ran on a racetrack with pace %s of 25%, 25%, 25% and 25%, then they would have to be considered equal since each deviated from par the same amount within the individual fractions while recording the same final time.

Scenario 2 - If these 2 horses ran on a racetrack that has pace percentages of 24%, 24%, 26%, 26%, I would favor Horse A

Scenario 3 - If these 2 horses ran on a racetrack that has pace percentages of 26%,26% 24%, 24%, I would favor Horse B

Both horses recorded the same final time but each horse chosen in scenario 2 and scenario 3, ran against the grain so to speak and in my opinion performed better.

I reccommend even taking this further by recording what the 1/4 mile pace percentages on a given night are since these figures can deviate from the typical track pace percentage norm due to factors such as track maintanance, wind etc.

[Just a Fan]

Drivers can get DQ'ed if the judges feel that the driver "took up abruptly" in front of a field, causing a dangerous accordion-like affect. John Campbell was somewhat famously DQ'ed for this at the Red Mile a couple of years ago, and I have seen Jim Marohn Jr get DQ'ed twice for this (I think both were at Tioga).

The less severe infraction is for a more gradual slowing of the pace to an unreasonable level for the class, and the driver can get fined for that. I would like to think that the owner would be willing to pick up the fine when that happens.

I could argue either way on horse A vs horse B. Horse B's fractions are obviously more in line with a typical race, and that 1:55 mile might be just about as fast as he can go. Horse A very well might be able to go faster than 1:55 with more reasonable fractions, but when you set such slow fractions, your class doesn't really get tested. Horse B's display of tactical early speed, and the fact that he showed some gameness (to win) after being tested/pushed during the mile, has value.

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by Ray2000

Horse A 29 59 128 155......29 30 29 27
Horse B 27 57 126 155......27 30 29 29

I'd go with B if the call at Q1 was 1°
I'm looking for the brush with a fight

JMO

The OP asks how one would rate each of these two races....That is a tough one, because, as Traynor stated it really depends on the "class" of the race and how well qualified the "contenders" may have been in each of those two-scenarios....

This is really insignificant to this thread, but saying just for fun, I find it odd or at a minimum very co-incidental that, both of these races aren't sporting any additional "5ths of a second" in any of the the 8-quarter mile splits that are shown....(not important I know, but odds are very against it, imo, heehee)

On the surface, for a 1-mile track, I would, just off the top of my head, say that these two races are either cheap stock races or mid-level Trotting races...Because neither one of them is very impressive for a 1-mile track (split wise at least) imo...

The half mile pace-patterns are A: 59.0 59.0 56.0... B: 57.0 59.0 58.0 ...

If both of these races were of the same class, generally I would give the B: horse the nod if they were to team up in the next race....Still, so much depends on the quality of the race, and the condition of the horses, so I would definitely demand and need to know more....Conversely, If horse A: were to invert his 56-second last half and use it early (alluding to a Harness-Truth that Thaskalos stated), then it could be cakewalk for A: over B:..(again, depends on the profiles of each horse)

In the A: race, it may have been won by a Classy horse making his debut in a cheap event, and the field is well aware that this guy probably cannot be beaten, and then just follow around, and sprint on home just trying to get a good kash...And, in this case it would be a very good tune up for the classy debuter (the last halves count for a lot in these situations for debuters)....Or perhaps this race was one that was loaded with a bunch of out of shapers, with the leader being one of the same, so while the rest of the field figured that they could catch him anytime they wanted to in the last part of the race, and they being out of shape, just followed along, without any serious challenges or contention, when only to find out that they were outfoxed...(Ron Pierce & John Campbell are expert at this, imo)..

In the case of Race B: Probably won by the only horse in shape enough to win a race, and maybe on a biased wire night at that...He got away cheap through the middle, and that may have been all she wrote from thereon...This is how it is in many races full of cheap out of shape stock....

Or, these races may have occurred on an off track or an Off Fast Track...

Further info is sorely needed in any case...Handicapping just ain't comparing two sets of numbers, is all, imo...

It is still "Fun" to guess tho...