Michael Pizzolla's 2019 Kentucky Derby Rant

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

Did you notice the geniuses that came up with the plan to rate Motion Emotion in the Oaks? It was actually quoted, they really said it.

You have to worry about the dumb ones as much as you have to realize the smarts ones might mess up your plans too!

I thought that was a terrible idea (especially considering I bet the race expecting a contested pace ).

I honestly don't know what to do in those cases. You more or less know you aren't going to win if you take a horse that looks like a "need the lead" type off the pace. But you also know that if other riders get aggressive and you get into it with them, you aren't going to win either.

If I owned the horse, I probably would have instructed the rider to go for the lead, but if someone else was hell bent on it or just faster out of the gate to not strangle the horse but not commit suicide either. Then you live with the fact that you probably aren't going to win because of the setup, but maybe you can salvage something. However, you have to least try for it.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Maximillion

The way the fulcrum was presented in the HM book.....its not really about predicting the actual pace of the race,its more of a conservative/common sense type of tool used to make eliminations or to give possible excuses for bad races-in that context i think it can be useful.

That makes perfect sense to me, but I still think if you are trying to evaluate how much speed the horse has, if he's going to impact the pace, or if he can run fast early and sustain it, you have to keep in mind that horses only run as fast at they have to secure the position the rider wants. So if the horse just happened to draw into some slow paced races recently, that's telling you nothing about how fast he's capable of running and whether he can sustain it. You have to look further back.

Also, if you ask me, the only reason Vekoma ran fast early fractions in his last race was that a lot of people thought KEE was somewhat speed favoring and the inside couple of paths were better that day. So it made perfect sense to get more aggressive than usual to secure a forward position near the inside. Then the track would help carry you even though you ran very fast early. IMO, that's pretty much exactly what happened. He ran fast early but that extra effort did not take a toll and he won.

So to me (and obviously sometimes I am very wrong ) he was not as good as any energy or pace related figure suggested and probably wasn't going to be as aggressive in the Derby. Of course it didn't matter because my horses were losing a ton of ground but maybe that was predictable too.

[Tom]

That makes perfect sense to me, but I still think if you are trying to evaluate how much speed the horse has, if he's going to impact the pace, or if he can run fast early and sustain it, you have to keep in mind that horses only run as fast at they have to secure the position the rider wants. So if the horse just happened to draw into some slow paced races recently, that's telling you nothing about how fast he's capable of running and whether he can sustain it. You have to look further back.

You have to remember, Sartin was a teaching outfit, and key to success was having a procedure for people to follow to ensure everything was considered. After setting the fulcrum, you would then do form cycle analysis, +, 0 and look to see the horse's form in race within +/- 2/5 of the fulcrum. This kept you focused on races similar to today's and somewhat compensated for using raw numbers (IMHO).

Nowadays, we have multiple tracks we can play everyday, so it is even more beneficial to have a set procedure in place to tell you quickly if a race is worth your time going any further into.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I thought that was a terrible idea (especially considering I bet the race expecting a contested pace ).

I honestly don't know what to do in those cases. You more or less know you aren't going to win if you take a horse that looks like a "need the lead" type off the pace. But you also know that if other riders get aggressive and you get into it with them, you aren't going to win either.

If I owned the horse, I probably would have instructed the rider to go for the lead, but if someone else was hell bent on it or just faster out of the gate to not strangle the horse but not commit suicide either. Then you live with the fact that you probably aren't going to win because of the setup, but maybe you can salvage something. However, you have to least try for it.

Oddly enough there was another horse that was basically exactly the same. They tried for the lead, got it, and won. That is what you do if you really want to win. If you don't get the lead, you lose. If you don't try for the lead, you still lose.

[Tom]

Richard Migliore said it it best - they have to go where you have already been.

If I owned a horse and the rider grabbed it, I would certainly grab HIM when he got back!

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

Oddly enough there was another horse that was basically exactly the same. They tried for the lead, got it, and won. That is what you do if you really want to win. If you don't get the lead, you lose. If you don't try for the lead, you still lose.

It can be trickier than that for the connections sometimes.

Depending on the size of the field and the specifics of your horse, each position is worth a lot of money. So if you try for it and can see you are getting outrun, it can make sense to back off and and try to save a minor award. i'd rather go for it, but if it's clear the other horse is faster, I'd rather pray for 2nd or 3rd than commit to being up the track.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It can be trickier than that for the connections sometimes.

Depending on the size of the field and the specifics of your horse, each position is worth a lot of money. So if you try for it and can see you are getting outrun, it can make sense to back off and and try to save a minor award. i'd rather go for it, but if it's clear the other horse is faster, I'd rather pray for 2nd or 3rd than commit to being up the track.

This was their prerace strategy and it was dumb. In all honesty that horse probably shouldn't have been put in the Oaks. But if you're going to run, what was the point? That horse was never hitting the board or even getting a check if not on the lead.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by cj

This was their prerace strategy and it was dumb. In all honesty that horse probably shouldn't have been put in the Oaks. But if you're going to run, what was the point? That horse was never hitting the board or even getting a check if not on the lead.

Go back to the Fla Derby, when Mott said that they were trying to get Hidden Scroll to "rate" in his works and in the race. Changing a young horse's running style is never a good idea, IMO. Watch horses trained by Baffert and Pletcher. They are usually on the lead in their first race and they will try to gradually change the running style over a period of a year or so, and they do not try to do it in one race.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

This was their prerace strategy and it was dumb. In all honesty that horse probably shouldn't have been put in the Oaks. But if you're going to run, what was the point? That horse was never hitting the board or even getting a check if not on the lead.

I agree.

Having that as a pre-race strategy was a terrible idea.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Go back to the Fla Derby, when Mott said that they were trying to get Hidden Scroll to "rate" in his works and in the race. Changing a young horse's running style is never a good idea, IMO. Watch horses trained by Baffert and Pletcher. They are usually on the lead in their first race and they will try to gradually change the running style over a period of a year or so, and they do not try to do it in one race.

That's why I'm saying it's sometimes a difficult position be in.

They already saw that if they tried to outsprint a field full of very fast front runners they could do it, but the horse couldn't last 9F, let alone 10F.

1. They could have gunned again and tried to outrun Maximum Security (who was out quickly). Maybe that would have worked, but there was also the potential of getting a replay of the last race where he tired. They also would have made no progress towards getting him to relax and go 10F.

2. They could see what would happen if they tried to rate him after giving him some work behind horses.

Both options sucked because the goal was to win AND teach him to relax with the Derby in mind.

IMO, they did the worst of all possible things. They tried to get him to relax but it was obvious fairly quickly he was not comfortable. Once a horse starts fighting, you are doomed. At that point you more or less have to try to get outside and let him go, but there was no place to go

From the rail, IMHO they should have gone. Then after he cleared most of the other horses if they were hell bent on trying to rate, they should have let MS go and then moved outside and just of him. All that is easier said than one.

It's starting to look more like he's less talented than we thought to begin with. His first start is looking more like a speed favoring slop fluke.

[cj]

Call Paul was an interesting case today. He took it to the favorite and won the battle but lost the war. If he runs his usual race he probably loses anyway, but to the favorite instead of the lucky longshot.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

Call Paul was an interesting case today. He took it to the favorite and won the battle but lost the war. If he runs his usual race he probably loses anyway, but to the favorite instead of the lucky longshot.

My feeling is that if you are confident you have the best speed, it's almost always the right move to go. Often times, you can put away the other speeds without going all out. So there's a pretty good chance your horse will keep going even if the pace seems fast.

However, if you look at the PPs and are pretty sure one or more horses are just as fast or faster and higher quality than you, you are more or less screwed. That's when if you go, it's very likely it's you that's going to be the battle loser and finish up the track.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

My feeling is that if you are confident you have the best speed, it's almost always the right move to go. Often times, you can put away the other speeds without going all out. So there's a pretty good chance your horse will keep going even if the pace seems fast.

However, if you look at the PPs and are pretty sure one or more horses are just as fast or faster and higher quality than you, you are more or less screwed. That's when if you go, it's very likely it's you that's going to be the battle loser and finish up the track.

I should add that Call Paul wound up winning that duel, but the favorite was so bad I'm not so sure how much of that was strategy and how much was the other horse just having a bad day. He may have backed up on his own.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I should add that Call Paul wound up winning that duel, but the favorite was so bad I'm not so sure how much of that was strategy and how much was the other horse just having a bad day. He may have backed up on his own.

Quite possibly, but there was no reason to believe that horse could run with the favorite early based on the PPs. Somebody actually planned it and it worked out pretty well I'd say.

That is really my main point. Using a horse's speed works out better more often than trying to throttle a horse down does. I don't even think it is a close decision. If you are running for minor shares I guess there is something to that, but I'd like to believe most people don't enter a race hoping to be 3rd or 4th.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

That is really my main point. Using a horse's speed works out better more often than trying to throttle a horse down does. I don't even think it is a close decision. If you are running for minor shares I guess there is something to that, but I'd like to believe most people don't enter a race hoping to be 3rd or 4th.

I think all people enter to win, but their plans are sometimes dependent on the number and quality of the other speeds in the race.

IMO, the plan should:

1. Give the jockey some discretion to do whatever he thinks is best depending on the break, who else goes, and how the horse is behaving.

2. Never involve going all out in a duel with superior horses.

3. Never involve choking the horse back if he's fighting an attempt to be rated.

Some spots just suck and you know you probably aren't going to win unless the superior speed horse has a bad day or gets off poorly. I guess I don't think there are clear cut answers to these things like "always go".