Andy Beyer: Zenyatta's fast, but doesn't belong in racing's pantheon

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

PA...it is comments like these that belie CJ's and Dahoss's assertion that Rachel fans are better handicappers than the Zenyatta fans.

I can't believe you are still bothered by that. I know there are some very good handicappers that also are Zenyatta fans. But I have never seen a horse that makes rational people so nutty. Not you per se, because for the most part you are one of the sane voices in the crowd.

But, if you don't think she's the best ever, you don't get it. If you aren't amazed by her dancing, you don't get it. If you dare criticize the campaigns she has had, you're a hater. If you aren't moved to tears by her every movement, you don't get it.

The truth is most of us do get it. We get it when we bet and we get it when we discuss racing. We might not be as good at expressing ourselves as someone like Ralph the Cat, but it get's pretty tiring seeing the same confused people tell the not so confused about how they "don't get it."

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Tom, it was a race restricted to female horseys.

So what you are saying is, horses with penis's weren't eligible?

[mountainman]

I liked Rachel for H.O.Y. last season and can hardly be characterized as an ardent fan of Zenyatta. And my well documented sentiments toward synthetic surfaces are similar to what Voldemort feels for Harry Potter. I do think, however, that Zenyatta's record has been sold a bit short on this thread. Perhaps she has been cautiously managed and CAN fairly be called the poster girl for fake tracks. But her win streak is astounding, and we aren't talking Pepper's Pride here. As her supporters have stated, Zenyatta's slow figs and nail-biting margins can be somewhat attributed to the nature of synthetic racing. Had she not beaten grade-1 colts and geldings or won on dirt, her critics would have a stronger case. As it is, her mystique remains intact. Until the BC classic at least, when my money says the big girl goes down. And I'm going to love it, because, like I said, I'm not a fan of Zenyatta or fake tracks.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

So everyone who criticizes Zenyatta is a moron.

That's it in a nutshell, is it not?

That's what WT, Classhandicapper, gm10 and all the rest of the hangers-on are clearly stating.

Interesting theory.

No.

Everyone that compares the speed figures earned by a closer like Zenyatta in slow paced synthetic races (sometimes pathetically slow) with the speed figures earned by great dirt horses that set or prompted faster dirt paces is a moron. Of course the same goes for winning margins because they are related and also more likely to be exaggerated when dominant speeds bottom out the other contenders on dirt.

[Robert Fischer]

HEY Thaskalos

You attempted to tackle quite a bit (and in part this lead to the length of the post).

I think you did pretty well, and I wanted to quote several parts of your post for expansion/debate/whatever.

Originally Posted by thaskalos

...in a match race, it is well documented that the horse taking a clear early lead holds a monumental advantage over the horse running in second, in the early going.

Right on. That is the "general consensus"(important theme for the development of this entire post response )
obviously there are some weird occurrences - and you touch on them as well.
some factors could include the following, with pre-race clues/hints listed adjacent in "( )"parenthesis: If there is a suicidalPace(1orboth known as unratable, or sporting all blazing early pacefigs), or


if there is a situation where the "closer" in the match race is considered much better could lead to a wacky pace with the speed trying to 'leave and/or disrupt the comfort-zone of the closer(no pre-race hint,obvious type of thing)

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It is no earth-shattering revelation that a softer early pace often results in a faster final time...the horses stay well within themselves in the early going, and have a lot of energy left for the latter part.

Originally Posted by thaskalos

***All this applies to DIRT racing...synthetics are an altogether different ballgame, and your post criticizing Zenyatta and her "backers" fails to take this into account.

This isn't a given. A softer early pace does not guarantee a faster final time. The key here is PERSPECTIVE. When compared to a "suicidal" early pace, a "softer" EP certainly leads to a a faster final time. In Contrast, when compared to slow EP - an even softer EP will often lead to a SLOWER final time.

***with dirt surfaces in general i've actually noticed the opposite in that a "softer" early pace tends to result in a SLOWER final time. The reason I've known this to be true in general is that as a general truth hoses are able to decelerate less on turf or synthetic(sometimes on Trf/synth they may even accelerate- however, this is always? related to VERY slow previous fractions and always? a sign that the final time could have been run faster.) than on dirt where on dirt-it's usually hard for a horse run very fast late and extremely rare to accelerate/run a last quarter faster than previous quarters. Ive heard the word 'traction' thrown around as the explanation. So following all this logic... the most efficient early pace for final time speed is slightly faster on dirt than on turf or synthetic.

Originally Posted by thaskalos

In the synthetic route race game...NOBODY wants the early lead. The early pace is not slow...it is CRAWLING, and it remains so until the late stages...and that's when the serious running really begins.

In general this is right on. There are a few exceptions.

1. 1st of all the track itself becomes important - if the track is very much against forwardly-placed runners then that is that... and the opposite is the occasional, albeit rare, synth track
2. there are some racehorses, albeit rare, who happen to specialize going wire-to-wire in synthetic.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Steve R

You keep saying this but it isn't necessarily true. As I have noted before on this forum, I use a different system incorporating pace and final time into a single figure. The scale is different from Beyer's but I have developed a reasonable equivalence that generates an acceptable correlation. So here's what I've done. To limit variability as much as possible I restricted the analysis to graded races for older males on dirt or an AWS at a mile or more on a fast surface. I included all Class A and Class B tracks with at least 30 such races (there are 14 of them) and determined the average figure for the top three finishers since the start of 2007. The initial result is (using the Beyer equivalents of my figures):

Dirt (228 data points): BSF 103
AWS (228 data points): BSF 102

To reduce the effect of any track having a disproprtionately high or low average (reflecting large class differentials) I eliminated the tracks with the highest and lowest average (SAR and AP), the result is identical:

Dirt (204 data points): BSF 103
AWS (207 data points): BSF 102

If I eliminated the next two high and low average tracks (DMR and WO), the remaining ten tracks show the following result:

Dirt (201 data points): BSF 103
AWS (138 data points): BSF 103

IOW, not all figure systems are biased in favor of dirt. Maybe yours is. Mine isn't.

That said, of all the horses with at least six graded race placings on dirt or an AWS since 2007, Zenyatta ranks 11th of 49 on my scale. Since my system does not discriminate between the two surfaces, I would conclude that certainly Zenyatta is among an elite group of contemporary horses and that her win streak has as much to so with how she has been placed to advantage against her competition as it does with her ability. I would also point out that only Quality Road and Blame among those possibly contesting the BC Classic have a higher average figure. If Quality Road is not well-suited to a mile-and-a-quarter, I would argue that Blame is her main competition...but we already knew that.


That is an arrogant, self-serving statement to say the least.


Isn't that the whole point of par final times and par pace lines...to normalize the differences in track characteristics? If I can accurately determine that Player X can hit 20 home runs in season at Ball Park A and only 10 home runs a season at Ball Park B, then I ought to be able to make the adjustment for homer friendly venues.

I haven't examined your system, but I ventured down the same path and eventually rejected it. Despite 30-35 years of making figures, I concluded that some of the interrelationships between pace and final time are too complex to put into a one size fits all formula for all horses that you can feel really confident in. It gets twice as complicated if you try to compare horses across surfaces.

Every horse not only has a different level of overall ability, it also has a very unique set of individual talents (like degrees of brilliance, stamina, early speed, late speed etc...). Those things will even impact individual horses of similar overall ability very differently depending on the pace and surface, let alone when they have different levels of overall ability

There are some adjustments that will get you into the ballpark "on average", but IMHO it's virtually impossible to accurately measure a single performance this way.

Ballpark is sometimes OK for gambling purposes because you don't always have to have perfect numbers. So I'm sure your method has a lot of value to you as did some of the similar tweaking I did. I am also fairly confident that your method is probably superior to Beyer figures alone. But IMHO there are better ways to compare.

It's not self serving for me to hold the view that numbers aren't
a good way to compare horse across surfaces. I have no attachment to Zenyatta or any other horse.

I hold that view because after 35 years of handicapping, my growing understanding of the issues, and my results at the windows make it plain as day to me.

I hope you can appreciate that I'm not criticizing your system. I just think I have a better way.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Tom

Actually, the new KMS speed figures, in a full year long study, have their best results on AWS sprints and routes.

Tom,

Are they using dirt, turf, and synthetic figures interchangeably to evaluate ability?

Figures work fine for evaluating horses that stay on the same surface.

What I am saying is that if Rail Trip runs a 100 in a very slow paced synthetic affair, that does not tell you what he is capable of running in a faster paced dirt affair assuming he handles both surfaces equally well.

I am also saying that even though there are some "average adjustments" you can make to improve the comparisons across surfaces, the multitude of pace combinations and extremities, combined with the unique qualities of individual horses, combined with different levels of overall ability makes those formulas and adjustments barely ballpark in a lot of cases.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Tom, it was a race restricted to female horseys.

I know you just wanted to take another parting shot at Rachel....but remember.....you are supposed to be helping the Zenyatta camp....and not giving me more easy ammo.

I think something needs to be clear here.

Most fans of Zenyatta like me (a huge fan of Rachel also) have never claimed that Zenyatta belongs in the same conversation as Secretariat, Bid, Slew, Affirmed, Fager etc... The bar was simply moved there by her critics when she won the Classic on synthetic last year and surprised them.

What we have claimed is that she belongs in the conversation with Bayakoa, Go for Wand, Personal Ensign, Ruffian, Rachel Alexandra etc..

However, we have also claimed that horses like Miesque, Goldikova, Zarkava etc.. belong in that conversation also because greatness is independent of surface.

IMO the fact that most of these great horses would not have been able to translate their enormous talents across surfaces is more or less meaningless. I wouldn't care if ruffian finished last in the BC Turf Classic.

If anything, those that did translate their form (like Secretariat and Fager) deserve extra special consideration for greatness and versatility.

So if Zenyatta were to run a huge race in the Classic (even if she didn't win) IMHO it would heighten her greatness not diminish it. If she were to fail miserably (like 10TH-12TH), it would simply say she wasn't a great dirt mare ALSO because most of the all time great mares would at least finish mid pack or better (like Azeri) in the typical BC Classic on dirt.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

So if Zenyatta were to run a huge race in the Classic (even if she didn't win) IMHO it would heighten her greatness not diminish it. If she were to fail miserably (like 10TH-12TH), it would simply say she wasn't a great dirt mare ALSO because most of the all time great mares would at least finish mid pack or better (like Azeri) in the typical BC Classic on dirt.

What would you call her if she runs poorly and 10 years for now synthetics are gone?

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by cj

What would you call her if she runs poorly and 10 years for now synthetics are gone?

As long as she finishes 9th or better she ran well.

[ralph_the_cat]

Originally Posted by mountainman

. And I'm going to love it, because, like I said, I'm not a fan of Zenyatta or fake tracks.

Based on what?... Not taking to the surface or being overmatched?

Curious on that.

[classhandicapper]

I'd like to add one special insight.

When Rachel went at it with Life at Ten in the Personal Ensign, IMO it was because both riders perceived the other horse as their main competitor and neither wanted to concede the lead and a softer pace to their main rival.

IMHO if there was a really high quality closer in the race they probably would not have done that because they would have known they were simply setting it up for the closer.

IMO something similar is happening in CA.

No matter how many speeds, semi speeds, stalkers etc.. are in the race, Zenyatta has faced an amazing number of extremely slow paces (even slow by synthetic standards).

IMO one reason that's the case is because the riders all know they have no chance of beating her if they go out aggressively. They do the only thing they can do to have a chance. They back up the pace and hope to out sprint their main rivals and her to the wire.

In many of those races they succeeded in eliminating some of the other quality closers (including her Ladies Classic winning stablemate at least twice), but even though they came really close a couple of time they did not beat her (at least yet).

In any event, I am saying IMO it is no accident that Zenyatta is in a lot of slow paced races that prevent her from running faster speed figures. It's the logical result of trying to beat a deep closer that all the riders, trainers and owners know they cannot not beat with an honest pace.

Maybe we should refer to this as "reverse rabbit syndrome".

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

What would you call her if she runs poorly and 10 years for now synthetics are gone?

I would call her one of the greatest mares I have ever seen whose unique qualities were especially suited to synthetic racing and it's a shame we never saw her on turf.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by the little guy

As long as she finishes 9th or better she ran well.

It your attitude genetic or the result of years of gambling.

Seriously, I'm sure you understand the point I am making.

Assuming no biases, honest pace, reasonable trip etc...

If she makes a big run to finish a 5th beaten 5-6 lengths and earns a 100-103 figure I would consider that a decent race but an indication that she's not an all time great dirt mare.

If she's totally outrun, never makes a serious move and is well beaten, I would consider that a total failure and proof that she's not any good on dirt because I know she has more talent than that on a relative basis.

If she finishes in the money, just misses a few lengths, runs a figure in the 106-110 range etc.. I would consider that an indication that she's equally talented on dirt and an all time great dirt mare because that's the kind of race I would expect from some of the great mares of the past in a situation "they all avoided".

If she wins and runs another 112 or higher, one statue and movie won't be enough.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by ralph_the_cat

Based on what?... Not taking to the surface or being overmatched?

Curious on that.

A little of both pal. Just speculation on my part, but would wager she can't beat top-class males on dirt. And in the end, that's what it's about, right? Backing opinions with cash. Not some pointless food fight about her place in the "pantheon."