|
06-14-2019, 10:29 AM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
|
Belmont TG Figures
Here are the TG figures for the Belmont top finishers:
1) Sir Winston 3
2) Tacitus 1
3) Jovia 3 3/4
4) Tax 3 1/4
5) Master Fencer 3 1/2
6) Spinoff 2 3/4
|
|
|
06-14-2019, 11:55 AM
|
#2
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,834
|
Did they use a "good rail" notation?
|
|
|
06-14-2019, 12:40 PM
|
#3
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 11,474
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Did they use a "good rail" notation?
|
I believe they have it listed with a "5* Gold Rail" notation.
Sir Winston wins by a length and gets a lesser fig than the 6th place finisher. 3rd best fig in the race.
At least this makes me feel much better about my Tacitus/Spinoff TG Sheets Exacta.
|
|
|
06-14-2019, 01:14 PM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker
I believe they have it listed with a "5* Gold Rail" notation.
Sir Winston wins by a length and gets a lesser fig than the 6th place finisher. 3rd best fig in the race.
At least this makes me feel much better about my Tacitus/Spinoff TG Sheets Exacta.
|
It was pretty much expected that Tacticus would be highest rated with his very wide trip. Spinoff was a bit of a surprise. Too bad they don't pay off on that. Sorry about that. Got to watch the replay again. Useful to know, though in evaluating performance next time they run.
|
|
|
06-14-2019, 02:42 PM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Did they use a "good rail" notation?
|
I didn't see one. Did you note a golden rail?
Did you post the TFUS figures? I like to look at pace, as you do, and ground loss, like TG does, when evaluating a performance
Last edited by bobphilo; 06-14-2019 at 02:45 PM.
|
|
|
06-14-2019, 05:42 PM
|
#6
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,834
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobphilo
I didn't see one. Did you note a golden rail?
Did you post the TFUS figures? I like to look at pace, as you do, and ground loss, like TG does, when evaluating a performance
|
Here you go. Don't use much pace adjustment at 12f.
|
|
|
06-14-2019, 06:00 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Here you go. Don't use much pace adjustment at 12f.
|
Thanks. I thought the pace was about average. I think pace is a factor in the Belmont when it's uneven with premature moves like with Smarty Jones and Real Quiet.
Very close final figures, especially for the Belmont which tends to spread them out. Actually these 3YOs have been pretty closely packed all year with trips deciding the outcomes and different winners each race.
Last edited by bobphilo; 06-14-2019 at 06:06 PM.
|
|
|
06-15-2019, 09:46 AM
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 930
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Here you go. Don't use much pace adjustment at 12f.
|
cj, has any publicly produced outlet ever made "true" speed figures ie (what I think Ragozin did) which would put Tacitus clearly with the highest figure for the Belmont?
I know you picked Tacitus, what do you think of a number regarding these for effort or possibilities?
Of course, the problem with this angle (though everyone does it it's the point of handicapping) is the question "What is the average trip"?
We know lots of horses get better trips than others, consistently, and for many reasons.
|
|
|
06-15-2019, 12:13 PM
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LemonSoupKid
cj, has any publicly produced outlet ever made "true" speed figures ie (what I think Ragozin did) which would put Tacitus clearly with the highest figure for the Belmont?
I know you picked Tacitus, what do you think of a number regarding these for effort or possibilities?
Of course, the problem with this angle (though everyone does it it's the point of handicapping) is the question "What is the average trip"?
We know lots of horses get better trips than others, consistently, and for many reasons.
|
Check the previous post and you will see the Thoro-Graph clearly gives Tacitus the highest figure for the Belmont by adjusting his figure for ground loss. That's exactly what the Rag sheets also do, though not as well. TFUS adjusts for pace. There are several trip factors that go beyond a horses raw figure in evaluating their performance. Ground loss and pace are the ones that can best be quantified. Other factors like path bias and traffic are matters of judgement. CJ can correct me on this and I think TFUS mainly uses their spotlight figure, which is the horses most recent representative race figure along with a series of check factors in making it's selection.
The next part in selection, once one has the quantified rating, is predicting what kind of trip (ground loss, pace, traffic, path) the horse will encounter in this race and to what extent that will effect his figure today.
Last edited by bobphilo; 06-15-2019 at 12:23 PM.
|
|
|
06-15-2019, 01:27 PM
|
#10
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,834
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LemonSoupKid
cj, has any publicly produced outlet ever made "true" speed figures ie (what I think Ragozin did) which would put Tacitus clearly with the highest figure for the Belmont?
I know you picked Tacitus, what do you think of a number regarding these for effort or possibilities?
Of course, the problem with this angle (though everyone does it it's the point of handicapping) is the question "What is the average trip"?
We know lots of horses get better trips than others, consistently, and for many reasons.
|
It depends what you mean by "true". If you base it only on final time, it would be impossible. But if you base it on ground traveled for each horse in conjunction with the time they ran he'd surely be in front.
Final Time (Per Trakus):
Sir Winston 2:28.30
Tacitus 2:28.47
Feet Per Second based on Trakus ground covered:
Sir Winston 8022 ft / 148.30 seconds = 54.09 feet per second
Tacitus 8077 ft / 148.47 seconds = 54.40 feet per second
Side note, this shows the ground loss is always inflated on Trakus. There is no way Sir Winston lost 102 feet of ground during this race (1 1/2 miles is 7920 feet).
Last edited by cj; 06-15-2019 at 01:31 PM.
|
|
|
06-15-2019, 01:58 PM
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
It depends what you mean by "true". If you base it only on final time, it would be impossible. But if you base it on ground traveled for each horse in conjunction with the time they ran he'd surely be in front.
Final Time (Per Trakus):
Sir Winston 2:28.30
Tacitus 2:28.47
Feet Per Second based on Trakus ground covered:
Sir Winston 8022 ft / 148.30 seconds = 54.09 feet per second
Tacitus 8077 ft / 148.47 seconds = 54.40 feet per second
Side note, this shows the ground loss is always inflated on Trakus. There is no way Sir Winston lost 102 feet of ground during this race (1 1/2 miles is 7920 feet).
|
Actually, acording to Trakus, Tacitus ran 65 feet more than Sir Winston. That's about 8 lengths, which seems right considering how much wider he was on the turns.
Average speed for Sir Winston: 36.9 mph. Tacitus: 37.9 mph.
It's in their chart.
https://www.nyra.com/belmont/racing/trakus
Last edited by bobphilo; 06-15-2019 at 02:11 PM.
|
|
|
06-15-2019, 02:16 PM
|
#12
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,834
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobphilo
Actually, acording to Trakus, Tacitus ran 65 feet more than Sir Winston. That's about 8 lengths, which seems right considering how much wider he was on the turns.
Average speed for Sir Winston: 36.9 mph. Tacitus: 37.9 mph.
It's in their chart.
https://www.nyra.com/belmont/racing/trakus
|
Misread it, doesn't really change the point though. Feet per second for Tacitus is 54.47.
Last edited by cj; 06-15-2019 at 02:55 PM.
|
|
|
06-15-2019, 04:01 PM
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Misread it, doesn't really change the point though. Feet per second for Tacitus is 54.47.
|
My point was that the ground loss for Tacitus on Trakus was fairly accurate at 65 feet or about 8 lengths
The original question was about which figure service provided a "true" figure adjusted the way the Rags sheet does for ground loss. I explained that I'd already answered that in an earlier post. TG did that with a ground loss of about 6 lengths with a 4w4w trip while my own estimation was 7 lengths with a 4w5w trip. All within about the 7 length average ground loss by about a length.
However, just adjusting for ground loss does not give a complete "true" figure as there are other factors, such as pace and trip, etc, which play a role in evaluating a performance.
Last edited by bobphilo; 06-15-2019 at 04:09 PM.
|
|
|
06-15-2019, 04:07 PM
|
#14
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,834
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobphilo
My point was that the ground loss for Tacitus on Trakus was fairly accurate at 65 feet or about 8 lengths
The original question was about which figure service provided a figure adjusted the way the Rags sheet does for ground loss. I explained that I'd already answered that in an earlier post. TG did that with a ground loss of about 6 lengths with a 4w4w trip while my own estimation was 7 lengths with a 4w5w trip. All within about the 7 length average ground loss by about a length.
|
No doubt, I was just showing that it can actually be measured and expressed mathematically.
As for the inflated ground loss I mentioned, it is pretty consistent from horse to horse so it isn't a big deal, but you can't take it literally. The differences are fine, the actual amount of ground traveled not so much.
|
|
|
06-15-2019, 04:36 PM
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
No doubt, I was just showing that it can actually be measured and expressed mathematically.
As for the inflated ground loss I mentioned, it is pretty consistent from horse to horse so it isn't a big deal, but you can't take it literally. The differences are fine, the actual amount of ground traveled not so much.
|
True, no one source is perfect nor one factor to adjust for. That's why I try to compare alternate sources as well as additional factors.
I depend mainly on numbers but some factors cannot be quantified so their is no one perfect number to completely evaluate a performance.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|