Bossert blames Z loss on schedule - I disagree

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by pandy

First of all, why leave the BC races out?

Since some people are having trouble understanding what I'm saying here. Let's look at an example based on auction prices. Say there's a breeder/consigner who puts 11 horses into a sale.

The horses are bid upon and the results are as follows.

1. $9,500
2. $3,200
3. $11,000
4. $7,500
5. $1.5m
6. $2,500
7. $1,000
8. $12,000
9. $9,500
10. $10,000
11. $2.75m (RNA)

Now, asked to evaluate the quality of the horses auctioned how do we do it?

Some might say, "look there were two who got bid up over $1m, so there's great quality throughout." But what do the numbers really show.

Total bid on 11 horses: $4,316,200
Average of all 11 horses bid upon: $392,382

Total paid for 10 sold horses: $1,566,200
Average of 10 horses which sold: $156,620

Both of those look real good, decent quality there. Now, let's look at the average without the two 7-figure horses.

Total paid for 9 non-7-figure sold: $66,200
Average of 9 non-7-figure horses: $7,356.

That's quite different. That's not very good.

Does that mean that the RNA didn't get bid up pretty high? No.

Does that mean that the $1.5m horse wasn't sold? No.

What it means is that focusing solely on the high ticket horses gives you a false picture of the overall quality of the horses consigned. It shows that 96% of the gross for the 10 sold horses comes from 1 horse.

So, yes, the two big horses were consigned, and one sold, but that doesn't mean the overall quality of the consignment was high.

Bonus: Quartiles for our three scenarios. They show less unbalancing due to a outlier or two.

      All      	  Sold		non-7-fig
Q1: $ 5,350	$ 4,275		$ 3,200
Q2: $ 9,500	$ 9,500		$ 9,500
Q3: $11,500	$10,750		$10,000

It's just a shame we don't have universally accepted field strength numbers from which we could get a median for a horse's year and/or lifetime career.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Trainers may have trouble assessing the condition of the other horses in the race...but they know more about THEIR OWN HORSES' condition, than we can ever be expected to know.

Looking at a few Past Performance lines spaced 2 months apart is a poor substitute to spending every hour of every day with the horse.

Traditionally comments from Trainers and Jockeys are less than forthcoming. Not saying they always lie but they seem to speak like you would expect most politicians to speak. The are worried about offending Owners, Track Executives, or Racing Officials for the most part.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Trainers may have trouble assessing the condition of the other horses in the race...but they know more about THEIR OWN HORSES' condition, than we can ever be expected to know.

Looking at a few Past Performance lines spaced 2 months apart is a poor substitute to spending every hour of every day with the horse.

No doubt, and yet, they are often just as wrong as we are. Therefore, the value of what they say usually somewhere between slim, none, and outright negative.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by andymays

Traditionally comments from Trainers and Jockeys are less than forthcoming. Not saying they always lie but they seem to speak like you would expect most politicians to speak. The are worried about offending Owners, Track Executives, or Racing Officials for the most part.

In this case, I think Mike Smith was speaking from the heart and saying what he really believed. Is what he believed the actual truth? Who knows?

But I don't think he was lying when he said it was his fault that Z lost the race.

Should you always listen to jocks and trainers? Of course, not. This game is not black and white. There are many shades of grey.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Who said that? I never even commented on who I think is the better horse. I would have to say off that race, they're pretty much equal. They both ran their race, unlike Quality Road, who clearly did not run his race.

So you'll put 100% trust into Pletcher in this case, but then when we look back on the Life At Ten debacle, what should we say then?

Again, I have never stated she is clearly inferior to Blame. Where do you get this? How can anyone say this when she came so close to beating him?

In the same way, how can anyone say that QR ran his race? Are you trying to state that QR is THAT BAD of a racehorse? We all know this isn't the case.

Who said that Blame was better than Zenyatta? How can anyone say this when she came so close to beating him?

CJ has said it no less than 5 times already! He has also added that Blame had the tougher trip. I guess those 2 tiring horses in front of him should have parted a little more, so Blame could win without even a straw in his path.

As far as the Life At Ten incident, I think we all know that Pletcher was aware of her problems...and he ran her anyway.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Who said that Blame was better than Zenyatta? How can anyone say this when she came so close to beating him?

CJ has said it no less than 5 times already! He has also added that Blame had the tougher trip. I guess those 2 tiring horses in front of him should have parted a little more, so Blame could win without even a straw in his path.

As far as the Life At Ten incident, I think we all know that Pletcher was aware of her problems...and he ran her anyway.

I believe I said they both had clean trips. Blame was better that day, and would probably win more often than not. If the pace is slower, he would certainly win. If it were faster, maybe not, but it couldn't get much faster. If it were the same, I'd call it a tossup but Blame won the tossup. Maybe he loses that a few times.

Now, switch riders, and maybe it is a different story. But since the Z camp chose to stick with a lesser guy, that is their problem, not mine. They did plenty of things wrong that could have maybe altered the outcome, like not testing her against a real horse all year.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

I believe I said they both had clean trips. Blame was better that day, and would probably win more often than not. If the pace is slower, he would certainly win. If it were faster, maybe not, but it couldn't get much faster. If it were the same, I'd call it a tossup but Blame won the tossup. Maybe he loses that a few times.

Now, switch riders, and maybe it is a different story. But since the Z camp chose to stick with a lesser guy, that is their problem, not mine. They did plenty of things wrong that could have maybe altered the outcome, like not testing her against a real horse all year.

Agreed!

Didn't I mention in the "war room" on race day that I wished for Gomez to be on Zenyatta for the Classic?

Can we now call a "truce" by agreeing that she was a special horse...the kind that we very rarely get to see?

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Agreed!

Didn't I mention in the "war room" on race day that I wished for Gomez to be on Zenyatta for the Classic?

Can we now call a "truce" by agreeing that she was a special horse...the kind that we very rarely get to see?

Sure, getting beat a head as a 6yo mare in the BC Classic is pretty special. I've never disliked the horse, just the connections and the schedule. I think maybe she could have reached all time great status if they had been even a little ambitious instead of worrying about padding her phony record.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

Sure, getting beat a head as a 6yo mare in the BC Classic is pretty special. I've never disliked the horse, just the connections and the schedule. I think maybe she could have reached all time great status if they had been even a little ambitious instead of worrying about padding her phony record.

Great!

I was going to also ask you to retract that "crack" about the Z-fans being inferior handicappers and bettors...but that would have been asking too much.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Great!

I was going to ask you to retract that "crack" about the Z-fans being inferior handicappers and bettors...but that would have been asking too much.

You are a wise man.