Look: even Beyer is a raw times guy now

[RXB]

The race was run in a terribly slow 1:57.54 for 1 3/16 miles, one of the weakest runnings of the race ever.

http://www.drf.com/news/andrew-beyer...winners-circle

Hmmm... purely from an adjusted final time standpoint it shouldn't be too far from the Preakness par of 109. Should be around 105.

[cj]

Originally Posted by RXB

The race was run in a terribly slow 1:57.54 for 1 3/16 miles, one of the weakest runnings of the race ever.

http://www.drf.com/news/andrew-beyer...winners-circle

Hmmm... purely from an adjusted final time standpoint it shouldn't be too far from the Preakness par of 109. Should be around 105.

I suspect that some work was done on the track to speed it up prior to the Preakness. The track was definitely on the slow side all day long.

[RXB]

Originally Posted by cj

I suspect that some work was done on the track to speed it up prior to the Preakness.

I don't think so. The time for the final race (8.5f dirt) wasn't fast, and if I use 105 for Oxbow I get these numbers for the others:

2nd -Itsmyluckyday 102 (right between of his two best GP numbers)
3rd - Mylute 102 (minor increase over his Ky Derby figure)
4th - Orb 91 (thirteen points below his Ky Derby, six below his best fast track Beyers)
5th - Goldencents 91 (well below his best Beyers)
6th - Departing 90 (a few points below his Illinois Derby)

I think that Beyer overreacted to the raw time and hadn't accounted yet for how slow the track was.

[cj]

Originally Posted by RXB

I don't think so. The time for the final race (8.5f dirt) wasn't fast, and if I use 105 for Oxbow I get these numbers for the others:

2nd -Itsmyluckyday 102 (right between of his two best GP numbers)
3rd - Mylute 102 (minor increase over his Ky Derby figure)
4th - Orb 91 (thirteen points below his Ky Derby, six below his best fast track Beyers)
5th - Goldencents 91 (well below his best Beyers)
6th - Departing 90 (a few points below his Illinois Derby)

I think that Beyer overreacted to the raw time and hadn't accounted yet for how slow the track was.

I don't want to go too deep into this, but I don't believe Beyer ever really had a good "chart" for the 9.5f distance. I imagine some of this is because it isn't a distance run very often, and when it is, usually only good horses run it.

I made brand new speed charts within the last two years. I based them on very good horses, not claimers. and the 9.5 furlong chart has held up very well, including for the Pimlico Special yesterday. But for today, if I used the same variant as the other routes, the top four horses (yes, even Orb) would have run significant new tops.

Maybe I shouldn't draw conclusions on my numbers and compare them to what Beyer does. Our methodologies are way too far apart these days.

[JPinMaryland]

The track look deep and tiring to me, but I only watched the Preakness. Rosie said the inside was very slow when they interviewed her right after. I am surprised CJ thinks it was sped up; maybe it was that much worse earlier? Are these horses really that bad? SUrely the track must account for a lot of this.

[cj]

Originally Posted by JPinMaryland

The track look deep and tiring to me, but I only watched the Preakness. Rosie said the inside was very slow when they interviewed her right after. I am surprised CJ thinks it was sped up; maybe it was that much worse earlier? Are these horses really that bad? SUrely the track must account for a lot of this.

Only for the Preakness. And I'm in no way saying it was fast, just faster than the other routes on the card.

[JPinMaryland]

Right, I figured as much CJ. Can you explain to me how they rate that track as "fast," which I see on the chart. Was the track actually rolled before the race? Do they do some other sort of smoothing, but less than rolling it? I have a hard time seeing these jocks with mud all over their face, and obvious problems in the inner path and the track is rated; "Fast."

Can you shed any light on this?

[RXB]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't want to go too deep into this, but I don't believe Beyer ever really had a good "chart" for the 9.5f distance. I imagine some of this is because it isn't a distance run very often, and when it is, usually only good horses run it.

I've never used the Beyer chart at 9.5f because I found that it overrated the Preakness/Special performances. Always used a lesser adjustment that produces a lower BSF that a chart would. Still don't get a "terribly slow" number.

[rastajenk]

Still no white pope smoke from the Conclave? Or, to put it in another context, are State and the CIA still working on the edits to make the talking points fit the narrative?

[BlueChip@DRF]

Originally Posted by JPinMaryland

The track look deep and tiring to me, but I only watched the Preakness. Rosie said the inside was very slow when they interviewed her right after. I am surprised CJ thinks it was sped up; maybe it was that much worse earlier? Are these horses really that bad? SUrely the track must account for a lot of this.

Is it me or did it look like everybody headed towards the middle of the track during the stretch run?

[rastajenk]

The first run up the stretch, too.

[pandy]

Definitely a dead rail yesterday, track favored outside closers and the jockeys were way off the rail all day. That helped Oxbow because the jockeys figured they could wait and rally wide and Stevens kept Oxbow off the rail and stole it.

[FantasticDan]

106 Beyer for Oxbow.

[pandy]

slow track.

[cj]

Originally Posted by RXB

Still don't get a "terribly slow" number.

OH, me either. I have it about the same as the Derby. But, I didn't have the Derby being a big top for Orb either.