0/21

[Blenheim]

ubercapper wrote in the Louisiana PPs thread, " . . . per a STATS Race Lens query I ran, sire War Front's sons and daughters are 0 for 20 the last five years at distances of nine to ten furlongs on dirt." With War of Will coming in seventh in the Derby, looks like the percentages hold and will now be extended to 0/21.

It'll be interesting to see how War Of Will performs in the 9.5f furlong Preakness . . .

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

ubercapper wrote in the Louisiana PPs thread, " . . . per a STATS Race Lens query I ran, sire War Front's sons and daughters are 0 for 20 the last five years at distances of nine to ten furlongs on dirt." With War of Will coming in seventh in the Derby, looks like the percentages hold and will now be extended to 0/21.

It'll be interesting to see how War Of Will performs in the 9.5f furlong Preakness . . .

This is actually a wonderful demonstration of how silly those small sample Derby statistics are. (I won money last year betting against one of them with Justify.)

War of Will ran really well and was fouled to boot. There's no reason to treat him as proof of the incompetence of War Fronts at the Derby distance.

[Blenheim]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This is actually a wonderful demonstration of how silly those small sample Derby statistics are. (I won money last year betting against one of them with Justify.)

War of Will ran really well and was fouled to boot. There's no reason to treat him as proof of the incompetence of War Fronts at the Derby distance.

Racing Post data from 1998 to present for War Front. Stallion Register data shows War Front's progeny average maximum winning distance lifetime and current year average maximum winning distance.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

Racing Post data from 1998 to present for War Front. Stallion Register data shows War Front's progeny average maximum winning distance lifetime and current year average maximum winning distance.

Even those aren't large enough sample sizes.

You probably need something like 10,000 races before you have a real convergence.

To be clear- the intuition here (he is not a long distance sire) is probably accurate. But the absolutism really isn't. War of Will might have won on Saturday had some breaks gone differently. And had he won, that wouldn't have proven War Front a great stamina sire either.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This is actually a wonderful demonstration of how silly those small sample Derby statistics are. (I won money last year betting against one of them with Justify.)

War of Will ran really well and was fouled to boot. There's no reason to treat him as proof of the incompetence of War Fronts at the Derby distance.

However, the shortening of his stride at route distances is a great reason to wager against him.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This is actually a wonderful demonstration of how silly those small sample Derby statistics are. (I won money last year betting against one of them with Justify.)

War of Will ran really well and was fouled to boot. There's no reason to treat him as proof of the incompetence of War Fronts at the Derby distance.

A statistical outlier like Justify doesn't change whatever the reasons are non raced two year old horses have a poor Derby winning record. Only a fool would have said one could never win. I, too, made some money on Justify.

I'm not putting WOW on top in the Preakness but it won't be because of War Front. He ran his Derby, aided by a ground saving trip with a modest 3/4 fraction. Perhaps he was also aided by the slop as sometimes seen with turf horses. Some argue he may have had something in the tank before the check and I suspect he's gonna get bet down in the Preakness as a result. I'm not convinced he was really any better than most in that mess. Further, the Preakness pace appears like it will be more lively than the Derby and more horses should get a fair trip.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

ubercapper wrote in the Louisiana PPs thread, " . . . per a STATS Race Lens query I ran, sire War Front's sons and daughters are 0 for 20 the last five years at distances of nine to ten furlongs on dirt." With War of Will coming in seventh in the Derby, looks like the percentages hold and will now be extended to 0/21.

It'll be interesting to see how War Of Will performs in the 9.5f furlong Preakness . . .

How can it be 0/21 when he sired a horse who already won at 9 furlongs this year?

[Blenheim]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Even those aren't large enough sample sizes.

You probably need something like 10,000 races before you have a real convergence.

To be clear- the intuition here (he is not a long distance sire) is probably accurate. But the absolutism really isn't. War of Will might have won on Saturday had some breaks gone differently. And had he won, that wouldn't have proven War Front a great stamina sire either.

The data (6,245 starts) indicates War Front gets grass runners with an AWD of 7.43f; Average Maximum Winning Distance of 7.73f.

~

I'm not putting WOW on top in the Preakness but it won't be because of War Front. He ran his Derby, aided by a ground saving trip with a modest 3/4 fraction. Perhaps he was also aided by the slop as sometimes seen with turf horses. Some argue he may have had something in the tank before the check and I suspect he's gonna get bet down in the Preakness as a result. I'm not convinced he was really any better than most in that mess. Further, the Preakness pace appears like it will be more lively than the Derby and more horses should get a fair trip.

I actually like the colt and thought he was much the best in the Kentucky. Difficult to say how many lengths the foul, the veer and the intimidation cost the colt but I figure if he runs unimpeded he wins by daylight - wrapped up. I agree the ground saving trip and the surface favored this fine son of War Front . . . interesting he may have been the first to win the race from that post in some twenty years - I think that is significant. What would the colt have done had he run from the 10 spot?

W/respect to the Preakness, it's gonna be an intriguing horse race: How will War of Will run on the dry fast compared to the sloppy fast and did the Kentucky take somethin' out of or put somethin' into the colt; will we finally get to see Improbable's elastic stride (please), will Money Mike (fourth different jock) make any difference and will Baffert figure this colt out SOMETIMESOON!; and how fast will they go up front and for how long . . . I think the speed will likely fade w/Anothertwistafate giving way grudgingly w/the class comin' at him deep stretch stride for stride.

Lookin forward to it . Shaping up to be a real horse race and should be fun to watch.

~

How can it be 0/21 when he sired a horse who already won at 9 furlongs this year?

I interpret the words by ubercapper, "of nine to ten furlongs" as, from nine to ten furlongs; you may interpret it differently.

[thaskalos]

A Preakness victory by War of Will would be a total shock to me...and I'm not talking about any "breeding deficiencies" that he might have going into this race. Going over the probable Preakness field...I count seven horses who have exhibited more running ability than WOW...and I will be enthusiastically excluding this horse from all my vertical wagers.

[Blenheim]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

A Preakness victory by War of Will would be a total shock to me...and I'm not talking about any "breeding deficiencies" that he might have going into this race. Going over the probable Preakness field...I count seven horses who have exhibited more running ability than WOW...and I will be enthusiastically excluding this horse from all my vertical wagers.

Please define "more running ability."

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

Please define "running ability."

It means that, IMO...seven horses in the probable Preakness field can run faster than War of Will can.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This is actually a wonderful demonstration of how silly those small sample Derby statistics are. (I won money last year betting against one of them with Justify.)

War of Will ran really well and was fouled to boot. There's no reason to treat him as proof of the incompetence of War Fronts at the Derby distance.

,
I strongly agree. I put little faith in these race specific analyses. There is too much variance from year to year and as you say, they are based on far too small a sample so the confidence interval (margin of error) is too large. Plus the horses don't know they are running in a particular race.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

However, the shortening of his stride at route distances is a great reason to wager against him.

Except in turf races almost all horses shorten their stride in the final stages of a race depending on how much energy they used earlier. This is even true of most closers whose "acceleration" is usually an optical illusion based on the fact that the speed is delerating even more.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

A Preakness victory by War of Will would be a total shock to me...and I'm not talking about any "breeding deficiencies" that he might have going into this race. Going over the probable Preakness field...I count seven horses who have exhibited more running ability than WOW...and I will be enthusiastically excluding this horse from all my vertical wagers.

Right, the best test of ability is that particular horse's past performances.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

A Preakness victory by War of Will would be a total shock to me...and I'm not talking about any "breeding deficiencies" that he might have going into this race. Going over the probable Preakness field...I count seven horses who have exhibited more running ability than WOW...and I will be enthusiastically excluding this horse from all my vertical wagers.

I always get a combination of a chuckle and annoyance at TV announcers who say about that a horse who has been beaten by several other horses in the race, "But he is by a sire who has produced several (name the big race) winners so he can't be discounted. Nonsense. Genetics aint that simple.