Steven Roman - Dosage Index, Leaving the game

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Class, I think he's partly responsible for what he calls the "misuse" of his work for a couple of reasons.

First of all, he never poured cold water on it. I was around when everyone was talking Dosage in the 1980's, and Roman was a minor celebrity in horse racing. He enjoyed it. As long as the system was winning, he wasn't out there saying "hey, don't use this for handicapping".

I didn't follow the story closely enough to know how much responsibility he has for the way the public chose to use it or define the standards for measuring its success. I was only suggesting that I understand the point he was making. If you create a tool that you believe has value, that does not guarantee that people will use it correctly or hold it to the appropriate standards for measuring that value. That goes double in horse racing where there seems to be a lot of negativity. He seems to think it was misused. I would tend to agree with him. When it comes to pedigree, a lot of times you don't which qualities a sire will pass on until after the fact. So of course it's going to miss some Derbies and will have to be updated as new information comes in.

[Tom]

You could also argue it has mitigated some top horses meeting during the year.

Not only not meeting, not even running in many races during the year.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Tom

Not only not meeting, not even running in many races during the year.

That's one of the biggest criticisms I have.

So much weight is put on the Breeder's Cup for year end awards, the smartest trainers are trying to keep their top horses fresh enough to peak in Oct/Nov instead of running the horse more regularly. They don't want their horses to peak too soon and be over the top by year end.

[clocker7]

1. There's no question that selective breeding has altered the breed, and not just lately. There's also no question that it can be done over a short period of time. Begin with the changeover after the Civil War. It was a radical change. In only a few decades, the arms race for speed had made the inherent heat racing capabilities obsolete.

2. Roman's emphasis on the Kentucky Derby distracted from his basic, valid theory that speed has gained the upper hand over stamina. Because the Kentucky Derby of late--with 20 horse fields--punishes the stamina set artificially, it has skewed the statistics about that race.

3. For fun, I just compiled the DIs for the top 3 horses for the last 6 Belmonts, where traffic is less of an issue. With the exception of AP's 4.33, all of the rest were under 4.00. In fact, except for Orb's 3.21, all of the rest were at 3.00 or under.

[ebcorde]

unless his friend is taking everything over, sad to toss your work in the trash.

He was on the right track. Years of Cancer research and still no cure. I hope he passes everything along for others to pick up the cause.

and his pf's were a-okay. he could have sold those ratings easy.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by clocker7

1. There's no question that selective breeding has altered the breed, and not just lately. There's also no question that it can be done over a short period of time. Begin with the changeover after the Civil War. It was a radical change. In only a few decades, the arms race for speed had made the inherent heat racing capabilities obsolete.

2. Roman's emphasis on the Kentucky Derby distracted from his basic, valid theory that speed has gained the upper hand over stamina. Because the Kentucky Derby of late--with 20 horse fields--punishes the stamina set artificially, it has skewed the statistics about that race.

3. For fun, I just compiled the DIs for the top 3 horses for the last 6 Belmonts, where traffic is less of an issue. With the exception of AP's 4.33, all of the rest were under 4.00. In fact, except for Orb's 3.21, all of the rest were at 3.00 or under.

3 is a small sample, and 2 is a total supposition- Pleasant Colony, a stamina horse with good dosage, won a Derby with a 21 horse field. Orb, who you mention, won in a 20 horse field.

[clocker7]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

3 is a small sample, and 2 is a total supposition- Pleasant Colony, a stamina horse with good dosage, won a Derby with a 21 horse field. Orb, who you mention, won in a 20 horse field.

Could you clarify?
Thanks.

[o_crunk]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That's one of the biggest criticisms I have.

So much weight is put on the Breeder's Cup for year end awards, the smartest trainers are trying to keep their top horses fresh enough to peak in Oct/Nov instead of running the horse more regularly. They don't want their horses to peak too soon and be over the top by year end.

I'm not a fan of the BC. I do agree with one particular point in the Roman's piece w/r/t the BC. This:

When so much influence is placed on one divisional race it reduces the significance of all the others within it.


That is the strongest anti-BC point. What isn't a particularly strong point is the idea that with so much weight put on the BC, trainer's hold back on racing. If this were true, we'd find the avg starts per horse at the lower levels (those horses who are never going to run in the BC) unchanged versus the higher levels.

This is an imperfect query but here's an example of what I'm talking about. These are the avg number of starts per year within a sub-group of race type.

1992
avg number of starts of distinct horses who only started in straight allowance and stakes: 3.69

avg number of starts of distinct horse who only started in mcl and clm: 6.86

2000
3.59
5.84

2005
3.12
5.49

2010
2.58
5.31

2015
2.65
5.26

So the idea that the BC is to blame for the best running less is mostly BS. The BC is just part of a much larger trend of horses starting less than before.

[clocker7]

Just for more fun, I compiled the DIs for the top 3 finishers in the last 12 Belmont Stakes. That is a total of 37 runners. (in 2008, there was a tie for 3rd).

In 2015, AP won with a DI of 4.33. In 2009, Mine That Bird finished 3rd, sporting a 4.33

The rest of them had DI's of 4.00 or under. (Fly Down and Anak Nakal being right at 4.00)

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by o_crunk

I'm not a fan of the BC. I do agree with one particular point in the Roman's piece w/r/t the BC. This:

When so much influence is placed on one divisional race it reduces the significance of all the others within it.


That is the strongest anti-BC point. What isn't a particularly strong point is the idea that with so much weight put on the BC, trainer's hold back on racing. If this were true, we'd find the avg starts per horse at the lower levels (those horses who are never going to run in the BC) unchanged versus the higher levels.

This is an imperfect query but here's an example of what I'm talking about. These are the avg number of starts per year within a sub-group of race type.

1992
avg number of starts of distinct horses who only started in straight allowance and stakes: 3.69

avg number of starts of distinct horse who only started in mcl and clm: 6.86

2000
3.59
5.84

2005
3.12
5.49

2010
2.58
5.31

2015
2.65
5.26

So the idea that the BC is to blame for the best running less is mostly BS. The BC is just part of a much larger trend of horses starting less than before.

I agree 100% that on a broad basis horses are running less frequently for a whole BUNCH of reasons other than the BC. But I think at the Grade 1 level the BC is having an incremental negative impact on starts also.

When I started playing horses 40 years ago, the typical healthy Grade 1 horse might get 4-5 starts, a brief freshening, and then another 4-5 starts in the late summer and fall. Some would start tailing off by year end and you could sometimes find value betting the fresher ones over the ones that dominated early in the season.

Now you hear guys say they want extra spacing or perfect timing into the big races like the BC.

When the connections of Zenyatta were getting trashed for not shipping or taking on boys early in her final season, it was almost certainly because they had the BC in mind. They were giving her 6-7 weeks between races to keep her fresh instead of piling up earnings or going in tougher spots.

Last year Baffert skipped a race with American Pharoah between the Travers and the BC because he wanted to be fresh for the BC. He gave him 2 months off. If the BC was just another Grade 1 on the schedule, he probably would have had 2 races, one each month.

The general belief now is that to get a peak effort for a major race like the BC, you need good spacing. If anything, it's getting worse. They used to talk about 4-5 weeks being good. Now more horses are coming into the BC off 6-8 weeks or even longer.

[SuperPickle]

Exactly. I think blaming the BC for the reason elite older stakes horse don't race as much isn't really accurate.

Assmussen hit the nail on the head when he had Curlin. He talked about once an older male becomes an elite horse by winning a triple crown race, an elite race like the Met Mile or even a couple Grade one's he essentially stops being a "racehorse" and starts being a "stallion who is still racing." Basically ever decision is based around increasing both his appeal and value as a stallion. Racing takes a backseat.

The BC didn't have anything to do with Crome going to England. The BC didn't have anything to do with Baffert stretching AP to try and win the Travers. Both those decisions were driven by the horse's value as a stallion.

So if you're unhappy with how three year old males and older horses are raced it's far more driven by breeders than the BC.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by pandy

I thought it was an excellent piece by Mr. Roman. The only thing I disagreed with was the part about the synthetic tracks being put in because they would save money in the long run due to less cancellations.

I've always found dosage interesting and I still use it to check pedigrees as a basic reference point.

The highest priced winner I've ever hit on a win bet was $150, a first time starter. I bet the horse because it had a high DI in a short 4.5 or 5 furlong two year old sprint, something like a 6.0, and the other horses in the race had stamina-type, low dosage numbers. I actually hit quite a few bombs using that same theory.

I agree, Dr. Roman's closure piece was well written and informative.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by clocker7

Just for more fun, I compiled the DIs for the top 3 finishers in the last 12 Belmont Stakes. That is a total of 37 runners. (in 2008, there was a tie for 3rd).

In 2015, AP won with a DI of 4.33. In 2009, Mine That Bird finished 3rd, sporting a 4.33

The rest of them had DI's of 4.00 or under. (Fly Down and Anak Nakal being right at 4.00)

American Pharoah is a pretty gaping hole in the Dosage theory, isn't it?

I mean, the Triple Crown is the hardest thing to do in these races, so you would at least expect that the horse who finally won it would have good dosage!

In fact, AP is really awful for dosage. He ran the second half of his Belmont in the same time as the first half (1:13 and change). He never slowed down! An index that is supposed to measure stamina sure missed it with him.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The general belief now is that to get a peak effort for a major race like the BC, you need good spacing. If anything, it's getting worse. They used to talk about 4-5 weeks being good. Now more horses are coming into the BC off 6-8 weeks or even longer.

The weird thing is that this would have been seen as ridiculous by old-time trainers.

It's not like they didn't have big races before the BC came along. The Kentucky Derby was a big race. You wanted your horse to be at his or her peak on Derby day. And yet trainers thought the way to do that wasn't to come in fresh but rather to come in right on top of the race. Indeed, for years, one of those stupid "can't win the Derby" stats involved horses who had more than seven weeks rest. And many important Derby winners ran in preps such as the Blue Grass, Derby Trial, and Stepping Stone which were all less than two weeks out. The Wood Memorial, the major New York prep, was exactly two weeks out.

This idea that you benefit from NOT running your horse is of extremely recent vintage. I have no doubt that had the Breeders' Cup been around in the 1950's, Jimmy Jones would have thought that the best way to prep for it would have been to come off a prep race 2 weeks before the thing or less.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I agree, Dr. Roman's closure piece was well written and informative.

By the way, this is a minor thing, but can we stop calling him "Dr." Roman? That's an obvious attempt to make him sound more credible, when all he was doing in this instance was handicapping and statistical correlation, just like numerous very smart handicappers without doctoral degrees do.

"Dr." Roman is also really pretentious. And dosage wasn't peer reviewed.

"Mr. Roman" is just fine. Let's not award him any presumption of intellectual superiority here that he isn't really entitled to.