Preakness Beyer

[cj]

104

[cj]

I should mention Beyer clearly split the variant between the earlier races and the last two routes. Given the extremely slow pace of the 10th, I think he is on pretty shaky ground.

[keithw84]

Originally Posted by cj

I should mention Beyer clearly split the variant between the earlier races and the last two routes. Given the extremely slow pace of the 10th, I think he is on pretty shaky ground.

Can you explain a little what this means?

[cj]

Originally Posted by keithw84

Can you explain a little what this means?

Sure...

The pace for the 10th race was abnormally slow. It is very unlikely that those horses were good enough to still run the "normal" speed figure, that which they are capable of running with an honest pace. Yet, Beyer boosted the figure from what would have been a 92 if he used the same variant as the other races to a 100.

He is, in effect, saying the track slowed over the day. I am not saying that it isn't possible. It happens all the time. However, I think given the pace of that race, and the fast pace of the Preakness, that it is much more likely that the pace caused the figures to be lower than he expected for races 10 and 12, not a changing race track.

[Tom]

So a the Preakness may be only a 96 or so?

[keithw84]

Originally Posted by cj

Sure...

The pace for the 10th race was abnormally slow. It is very unlikely that those horses were good enough to still run the "normal" speed figure, that which they are capable of running with an honest pace. Yet, Beyer boosted the figure from what would have been a 92 if he used the same variant as the other races to a 100.

He is, in effect, saying the track slowed over the day. I am not saying that it isn't possible. It happens all the time. However, I think given the pace of that race, and the fast pace of the Preakness, that it is much more likely that the pace caused the figures to be lower than he expected for races 10 and 12, not a changing race track.

Got it...

Not sure if people here look at PFs much, but I see Shackleford got a -64 and that the top three finishers all bested Animal Kingdom's -52 in the Derby.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Tom

So a the Preakness may be only a 96 or so?

I'll be honest, it is a really tough call. I think it is in the high 90s range since I have the other races a little different as well. I'm still not done.

People might wonder what the difference is if the pace changed the final time.

In the Preakness, if I gave the same 104 final figure as Beyer, that would give Animal Kingdom pretty much the same race as he ran in the Derby? Does anyone believe he ran as well this week as he did with a bias in his favor two weeks ago?

Also, it would give Shackleford pace figures of 132-115-104, meaning he ran HUGE and still held on. Neither of those pass the smell test for me. I think AK regressed a bit and Shackleford ran his usual race, which for me means when combining speed and pace he gets a low 100s rating.

[PhantomOnTour]

What was the Beyer for R4-Gr3 DuPont Distaff? Must be very close to the Preakness fig, huh?

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by keithw84

Got it...

Not sure if people here look at PFs much, but I see Shackleford got a -64 and that the top three finishers all bested Animal Kingdom's -52 in the Derby.

I think the race was about average for recent editions of the Preakness. If you plot the route race variants vs race number (or starting time of the race) and run a regression analysis you get a straight line with a correlation coefficient of 0.99, which is virtual linearity. The line suggests the variant was changing continuously throughout the day with the track getting progressively slower. By the 12th race the variant was 6 to 7 slow so the adjustment brings the Preakness time down to about 1:55.0 or 1:55.1. 1:55.0 is exactly the average Preakness time over the previous 10 runnings on a fast surface. IOW, taking into account the continuous change in track speed throughout the day, this Preakness was about average. Beyer's Preakness par is 110 which I think is a little high. Incidentally, you get an identical linear trend (correlation coefficient 0.99) when analyzing the sprints. It's almost impossible to explain the observed linearity without invoking a continuously changing track variant.

Frankly, I think the calculation of variants is the weakest aspect of figure making. Not many figure maker seem to realize that variants aren't necessarily constant throughout the day or, occasionally, can't simply be split between groups of races. It's a much more dynamic process, especially when environmental conditions change rapidly. It had rained in Baltimore for several days prior to the Preakness, so the excess moisture set the track up for a change in surface characteristics as it was slowly drying out. The turf course remained soggy and was dead slow. The interaction of heat, humidity, wind and sunlight is very complex and I think Beyer may have missed the subtlety of a continuously changing variant scenario. I see this phenomenon quite often and routinely apply some type of regression analysis to variant calculations. Even so, the BSF equivalent to my PF for Shackleford is between 105 and 106, so I don't think Beyer was that far off.

[The Hawk]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

What was the Beyer for R4-Gr3 DuPont Distaff? Must be very close to the Preakness fig, huh?

100.

[outofthebox]

Originally Posted by cj

Sure...

The pace for the 10th race was abnormally slow. It is very unlikely that those horses were good enough to still run the "normal" speed figure, that which they are capable of running with an honest pace. Yet, Beyer boosted the figure from what would have been a 92 if he used the same variant as the other races to a 100.

He is, in effect, saying the track slowed over the day. I am not saying that it isn't possible. It happens all the time. However, I think given the pace of that race, and the fast pace of the Preakness, that it is much more likely that the pace caused the figures to be lower than he expected for races 10 and 12, not a changing race track.

Agree 100%. There was no pace on paper in the 10th. Gomez quoting that they backed up the pace down the backside which is why he moved Apart into it. They came home the last 5/16 in 30, just wasnt fast enough to record a faster final time.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by cj

I'll be honest, it is a really tough call. I think it is in the high 90s range since I have the other races a little different as well. I'm still not done.

People might wonder what the difference is if the pace changed the final time.

In the Preakness, if I gave the same 104 final figure as Beyer, that would give Animal Kingdom pretty much the same race as he ran in the Derby? Does anyone believe he ran as well this week as he did with a bias in his favor two weeks ago?

Also, it would give Shackleford pace figures of 132-115-104, meaning he ran HUGE and still held on. Neither of those pass the smell test for me. I think AK regressed a bit and Shackleford ran his usual race, which for me means when combining speed and pace he gets a low 100s rating.

I think AK ran a huge race. To get within half a length from that position, against such a slow pace (yes, a slow pace), was simply brilliant. Shackleford isn't a bad sort but got the perfect set up, and is very unlikely to ever beat AK again over 9-10F (in my opinion). Also, this was vintage Velazquez. He's not a bad rider but he was too far back and too focused on Dialed In. He just makes this kind of mistake a bit too often to be a five star jockey (same with Ramon).

I don't really buy the Kentucky Derby late speed bias. Most of the speed horses that finished up the track were improbable longshots anyway. I acknowledge that late speed probably did a little bit better than usual on the day, but calling it a bias goes too far in my opinion. If that long shot hadn't won the Humana Distaff (the speed easily stayed on for 2nd/3rd), we'd be looking at 4 winners on/near the lead and 5 winners that were 3-6 lengths off the lead. That's not significant enough.

[cj]

Originally Posted by gm10

I think AK ran a huge race. To get within half a length from that position, against such a slow pace (yes, a slow pace), was simply brilliant. Shackleford isn't a bad sort but got the perfect set up, and is very unlikely to ever beat AK again over 9-10F (in my opinion). Also, this was vintage Velazquez. He's not a bad rider but he was too far back and too focused on Dialed In. He just makes this kind of mistake a bit too often to be a five star jockey (same with Ramon).

A perfect set up? He went faster than he would have liked and still held on. You'd rather give credit for laying well off a fast pace. To each his own, but I think Shackleford is clearly the better horse. I don't boost horses on dirt that don't show enough speed early.

It will be interesting to track those coming out of route races on Derby day in the coming weeks.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by cj

A perfect set up? He went faster than he would have liked and still held on. You'd rather give credit for laying well off a fast pace. To each his own, but I think Shackleford is clearly the better horse. I don't boost horses on dirt that don't show enough speed early.

It will be interesting to track those coming out of route races on Derby day in the coming weeks.

He didn't go fast at all. The race went in 72.01 over the first 6F. That's the slowest Preakness fractions I have in my database (=since 2001). He didn't have to duel either, the sprinter Flashpoint just stopped. All he had to do after that was defend his 15 length bonus on AK on a speed favouring surface.

If I could bet the race again, I'd bet AK even harder. All he needed was a better ride. Give me GG or Mike Smith over JV any day.

[cj]

Originally Posted by gm10

He didn't go fast at all. The race went in 72.01 over the first 6F. That's the slowest Preakness fractions I have in my database (=since 2001). He didn't have to duel either, the sprinter Flashpoint just stopped. All he had to do after that was defend his 15 length bonus on AK on a speed favouring surface.

If I could bet the race again, I'd bet AK even harder. All he needed was a better ride. Give me GG or Mike Smith over JV any day.

How fast did he go compared to other "winners" of the Preakness? I don't care about those that chucked it in.

I've said already I don't think JV did Animal Kingdom any favors, but I still don't think he was the best horse in the race.

How was the surface speed favoring? He was the only horse to win near the front in the four routes all day. The winners were 7th of 8, 5th of 6, and 4th of 6 early.