i love Justify, but he is a big time bet against on Belmont day

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

Talk about small sample sizes and/or randomness!

I agree it is a small sample size on the TC. But there is a much larger sample size of "horses whose form cycle is tailing off trying to do something difficult". Iam applying a standard handicapping principle here, not something unique to the TC.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I agree it is a small sample size on the TC. But there is a much larger sample size of "horses whose form cycle is tailing off trying to do something difficult". Iam applying a standard handicapping principle here, not something unique to the TC.

That is much different than the very specific criteria you were giving.

I'm not really sure where people are seeing this declining form anyway. Race dynamics were the reason the race got close last time IMO. Extended pressure from a very good horse will do that at the end. Remember Rachel Alexandra's Preakness? She was battling with eventual Breeders' Cup Sprint winner Big Drama.

Had Justify lost a nose on the wire to Bravazo, wouldn't everyone be saying he was the best horse in the race despite losing?

YouTube

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

That is much different than the very specific criteria you were giving.

I'm not really sure where people are seeing this declining form anyway. Race dynamics were the reason the race got close last time IMO. Extended pressure from a very good horse will do that at the end. Remember Rachel Alexandra's Preakness? She was battling with eventual Breeders' Cup Sprint winner Big Drama.

Had Justify lost a nose on the wire to Bravazo, wouldn't everyone be saying he was the best horse in the race despite losing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD9AwA-N4EU

I probably rate Rachel Alexandra somewhat lower than you do (and I probably would have bet against her if she had run in the Belmont), but taking your point as it stands, it matters that the second place finisher there was the Kentucky Derby winner who had run a smashing race two weeks earlier.

In contrast, I give credit to Justify for surviving the speed duel. That counts for something and if you want to excuse him for that I don't argue with that.

But in terms of the final time / performance rating-- this was Justify with a bunched up field of mostly bums directly behind him. It looks to me like he ran a poor figure, and it looked to Randy Moss like he did too. And the Beyer looks right to me.

So I think you are comparing a horse who repeated her smashing performance in the Kentucky Oaks 15 days later and who then took time off and didn't come back in the Belmont to a horse who ran the worst race of his life, at best had an excuse (the pace duel), and even if we take the excuse at face value, he's likely to be tired three weeks later.

[classhandicapper]

I think the impact of pressure on Rachel and Justify depends the quality of the horses in the battle, how badly the loser of the battle did, how the other horses near the pace did, and who was coming at them late.

Rachel was pressured by Big Drama. He was a quality sprinter that was probably going too far, but he was very fast. He finished 5th beaten 5 1/2 lengths. Other horses near the pace also didn't fair very well. The 3rd, 4th and 5th horses early all finished up the track and a couple of them were pretty good. That included Friesan Fire, Pioneer of the Nile, and Take the Points. They all ran worse than expected. She was trying to hold off Mine That Bird who at the time was the Derby winner. He was probably not an especially strong Derby winner, but I'd say he was clearly better than Bravazo at the same point in their careers. MTB (2nd) came from 13th, Musket Mn (3rd) came from 8th, and Flying Private (4th) came from 10th. Bid Drama came out of the race to win next time.

Justify was pressured by the very high quality Good Magic. Good Magic finished 4th beaten a length and Bravazo (2nd) was the horse sitting a close 3rd right behind them all the way. Tenfold came from 6th.

I seems to me like Rachel probably faced the tougher pace/pressure scenario (given how those tracks were playing also) and held off the better horse.

My thinking is that Justify and Good Magic were the 2 best horses in the Preakess. Had they not "gone at it", imo they would have finished 1st and 2nd maybe 2-3 lengths ahead of Bravazo. So I think it was a good effort, but I don't think it was anything to write home about.

[dilanesp]

One other thing about Rachel Alexandra. Rachel's Beyer was 108, which makes her Preakness the second fastest of the past 11 years (only I'll Have Another's was faster). In other words, she ran good enough to beat American Pharoah on Preakness day.

[cj]

I probably rate Rachel Alexandra somewhat lower than you do (and I probably would have bet against her if she had run in the Belmont), but taking your point as it stands, it matters that the second place finisher there was the Kentucky Derby winner who had run a smashing race two weeks earlier.

Mine that Bird never came close again in eight starts. Derby winner or not, he had little going for him before the Derby and not much at all after the Preakness. Would anyone be surprised if Bravazo or Tenfold turns out to be a better horse than Mine that Bird? The 3rd and 4th finishers in Rachel's Preakness also did squat the rest of their careers.

But in terms of the final time / performance rating-- this was Justify with a bunched up field of mostly bums directly behind him. It looks to me like he ran a poor figure, and it looked to Randy Moss like he did too. And the Beyer looks right to me.

I actually have them equal overall, which I didn't know when I posted about her race, but it makes a lot of sense. She did go faster early but she also caught a pretty lengthy breather when Big Drama packed it in. I disagree with Beyer obviously about Justify, and though I certainly respect him, I think I've been right more often in these cases than he has as I haven't been as slow to give a big number. California Chrome, American Pharoah, and Gun Runner come to mind right away.

So I think you are comparing a horse who repeated her smashing performance in the Kentucky Oaks 15 days later and who then took time off and didn't come back in the Belmont to a horse who ran the worst race of his life, at best had an excuse (the pace duel), and even if we take the excuse at face value, he's likely to be tired three weeks later.

She didn't come back in the Belmont but she came back a few weeks after and won by like 20 again. Not like she was turned out for a few months or something.

I'm far from saying Justify is a cinch in the Belmont. I'll probably bet against him. I just don't see the declining form others do. I see a new, longer distance, a tougher field (maybe), and a sixth race in like 13 weeks. I don't think he declined in the Preakness. That doesn't mean I don't think he will in the Belmont.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I seems to me like Rachel probably faced the tougher pace/pressure scenario (given how those tracks were playing also) and held off the better horse.

I think they were different but similar in how tough they were. One was against a faster horse that packed it in and allowed a breather, a pretty substantial one at that. The other battled a horse of more quality though not quite as quick, but able to maintain the battle a lot longer. If I had to pick one, I think the longer battle is slightly tougher. It was reminiscent of Frosted and American Pharoah in the Travers.

[Robert Fischer]

lot of vocal contrarian horseplayers

we had that poll "Do you bet Justify to win/single on Belmont day or do you spread?" and 25/60 respondents voted that Justify is a 'toss'...

it's just who we are

I thought Justify's performance declined a little bit in the Preakness, but I respect TimeformUS.

They lay out all the details.

If I were to quibble about the TFUS, I would say Preakness was correct, but Derby should have given more credit to the hot 170 151 pace.
TFUS had Jus-127 GM-124 Aud-122.
I had Jus-132 GM-126 Aud-121.

I get that if you start giving too much more weight to pace, it's going to start projecting cheap speeds as winners when they shouldn't be. It's impossible to personally cater to every race, and it already does a good job of factoring pace.

Preakness seems spot on.

Strongly feel that the horse's physical condition was a significant issue. He's been improving physically since the Preakness. Whether his 103Beyer-->97Beyer or a 127TFUS-->128TFUS or a 132->128 or whatever from Derby to Preakness are more representative, the important thing to focus on is his improving physical condition. As far as performance goes, we're going to see a horse that is thriving in the Belmont, and probably healthier through the stretch-run than he's been since his OC 2nd race.

As far as raw speed goes, you've got his improving physical condition, and the likelihood that he'll be the controlling speed.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

lot of vocal contrarian horseplayers.

Sure. And obviously that's part of it.

But historically, the TC is extremely difficult (and supremely difficult since 1979). So even if I wasn't so vocal about it, I am sure you would run into a board full of people who articulated reasons to bet against Justify. It just seems like the standard play is to take a stand against a TC, at least until we find out we are in another era like the 1940's or 1970's where we are going to see a bunch of TC winners.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

...at least until we find out we are in another era like the 1940's or 1970's where we are going to see a bunch of TC winners.

Randomness.

[JustRalph]

This web page can tell you all you need to know about today’s Triple Crown

http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=2

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by cj

Would anyone be surprised if Bravazo or Tenfold turns out to be a better horse than Mine that Bird?

That ship sailed already. Neither Bravazo nor Tenfold won the KY Derby nor ran 2nd in the Preakess.

Even if either of them run ITM in the Belmont Stakes they are already 2 steps behind Mine That Bird.

Wake me up when their career earnings are up over $2 million like MTB's.

Originally Posted by cj

The 3rd and 4th finishers in Rachel's Preakness also did squat the rest of their careers.

It's true that Rachel Alexandra wasn't running against world-beaters in the Preakness, but they were "good" horses.


As for Justify "declining" in the Preakness, I know you guys have your numbers, and everyone else has their numbers, but I really can't depend on numbers when a track is in as bad condition and the weather is like it was for the Preakness....that was pretty bizarro. That is a variable that you can't really assess unless you could interview each of the horses and asked them "how did ya like getting 3" of rain poured on ya and running over tractor tire tracks almost ankle deep in slop, etc.?"

I don't think he declined a whole lot if at all. And I'm not even a huge Justify fan.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

Randomness.

Honestly, cj, I probably would have bet against the TC attempts in the 1970's too (don't know about the 1940's) had I been old enough to do so. My position is it is really difficult to win the TC, full stop. I think it's pretty obvious that the 1970's, at the very least, WERE random variance. (Again, the 1930's and 1940's are more interesting cases in that you could posit that the Depression and WW2 made the TC easier to win.)

I was describing the board's behavior (that given the recent record of TC attempts, people are inevitably going to look for reasons to bet against it happening unless we see a bunch of them succeeding like happened in the 1970's), not my own.

[Rex Phinney]

I'd really advise against walking out too far on a plank based upon anything derived from the Preakness. There is no other way to put it except that the race, the conditions were a mess.

Honestly I'm getting a chuckle from reading all the talk about the ups and downs of the horses involved in that race.

If the track comes up dry on Belmont day, you can (and should) toss every sheet from Pimlico.

I still think the class of the also-rans is Good Magic. Justify has taken his best shot twice now and turned him back both times. I hold Good Magic and Chad Brown in very high regard, so I feel like I have seen all I need to see from Justify.

Seeing him win in those conditions at Pimlico and the fact that the horse has Baffert and Smith on his team just has me feeling like he can do this.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

Had Justify lost a nose on the wire to Bravazo, wouldn't everyone be saying he was the best horse in the race despite losing?

Sure. They'd say that Justify was a little better than Bravazo...but they'd still insist that Bravazo would win given the added distance of the Belmont.