If Justify becomes the 2nd unbeaten Triple Crown winner...

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by upthecreek

“NBC’s Randy Moss: ‘When there's four horses right there at the wire, it means it was a slow race. It's gonna be tough for Justify to win the Belmont.’

“Daily Racing Form’s Mike Watchmaker: ‘It is plainly obvious -- to me, anyway -- that Justify tailed off his best form in the Preakness. His preliminary Beyer Figure of 97, the lowest of his career, is strong supporting evidence. But you didn’t have to know what Justify’s Beyer was to know that even though he won, his Preakness performance was short of what we have come to expect from him. For one, Justify had to dig deep to prevail despite getting a trip that was easier than the one he got in the Kentucky Derby, when he contested a scorching early pace and still bounded away from his field through the stretch.’

This decides it for me. Justify is a shoo-in for the Belmont.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

This decides it for me. Justify is a shoo-in for the Belmont.

I'm inclined to agree...

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Assume the following. You are Elliott Walden or one of the other racing operation managers of one of these big breeding stables.

1. The breeding value of winning a TC race can be astronomical.
2. If you race the horse a lot as a 2 year old, there is a significant chance that the horse may suffer some sort of injury and will never make it to the TC.
3. If you race the horse a lot as a 2 year old, while there is an upside of possibly building the horse's form up so he or she can run a big number, there is also a downside that the horse could get worn out or regress before the TC.
4. Most of the entries in the TC are controlled by big breeding operations with the same imperatives you have and thus you are unlikely to see a strong entry with a lot of racing experience.

Now, in that situation, is it more rational for a breeding operation to put a lot of starts into the horse, or just try to time the horse's form so he is good enough to win with a peak effort on the first Saturday in May?

At any rate, that's my hypothesis. Note when we still see a horse with a more traditional record, like California Chrome, and a lot of talent, that horse can beat the big breeding operations in the Derby.

While it's possible to build a case for waiting until 3yo (may not hold up to critical thinking and be a 'good' case, but I'm respecting the 'possibility' of building such a case...), it should be noted that horses like Justify and Magnum Moon were not strategically pointed for 3yo debuts.

They had problems that delayed their start until 3yo.

That's why Magnum Moon was a toss in the Derby, after his 2yo problems resurfaced and he tried to visit the rail-birds during the Arkansas
stretch run, and why the racing world stopped (or should have) when Justify's heel was questionable following the Preakness.

Curses are not real.

Winstar Farm and China Horse Club didn't actually call in Hank Goldberg to break out a Ouija board to exorcise Apollo's ghost.

They also didn't try to innovate and skip a 2yo season in hopes of a quick form cycle.

These are businessmen with a business model and money to buy the best horses, trainers, jockeys and meds. This isn't Billy Beane 'moneyball'. This is cream of the crop with touch of media and a group of investors.


Good, Stakes-level colts are targeted to start as two year olds.

That is where you look out from when you stand on the shoulders of the giants. You look out from a view where you start a good colt at 2yo.

Some, like Justify, Magnum Moon, Battle of Midway, Patch, Materiality, Verrazano, etc, etc... didn't start as 2yo...

This is not because the connections decided to innovate instead of standing on the shoulders of giants, - this is because there were problems that delayed the debut.

Will someone ever try to innovate and point to 3yo? Sure.

It's just not the case with Justify or Magnum Moon.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

While it's possible to build a case for waiting until 3yo (may not hold up to critical thinking and be a 'good' case, but I'm respecting the 'possibility' of building such a case...), it should be noted that horses like Justify and Magnum Moon were not strategically pointed for 3yo debuts.

They had problems that delayed their start until 3yo.

That's why Magnum Moon was a toss in the Derby, after his 2yo problems resurfaced and he tried to visit the rail-birds during the Arkansas
stretch run, and why the racing world stopped (or should have) when Justify's heel was questionable following the Preakness.

Curses are not real.

Winstar Farm and China Horse Club didn't actually call in Hank Goldberg to break out a Ouija board to exorcise Apollo's ghost.

They also didn't try to innovate and skip a 2yo season in hopes of a quick form cycle.

These are businessmen with a business model and money to buy the best horses, trainers, jockeys and meds. This isn't Billy Beane 'moneyball'. This is cream of the crop with touch of media and a group of investors.


Good, Stakes-level colts are targeted to start as two year olds.

That is where you look out from when you stand on the shoulders of the giants. You look out from a view where you start a good colt at 2yo.

Some, like Justify, Magnum Moon, Battle of Midway, Patch, Materiality, Verrazano, etc, etc... didn't start as 2yo...

This is not because the connections decided to innovate instead of standing on the shoulders of giants, - this is because there were problems that delayed the debut.

Will someone ever try to innovate and point to 3yo? Sure.

It's just not the case with Justify or Magnum Moon.

I think this is half true.

There ARE two innovations here:

1. That even if you may want to get to the racetrack earlier than Justify did, you are not trying to win a bunch of 2 year old stakes. You used to see horses go Sanford-Hopeful-Cowdin-Champagne-Laurel Futurity or Hollywood Juvenile-Del Mar Futurity-Norfolk-Hollywood Futurity. You never see that anymore. The big operations are trying to keep something in the tank so that they can peak on Derby day and want to race very lightly as a 2 year old.

2. In the old days, a horse with Justify's physical problems who didn't start until the winter would have never been pointed to the TC.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

2. In the old days, a horse with Justify's physical problems who didn't start until the winter would have never been pointed to the TC.

I think this unfortunately is the key as far future trends. No one's going to be shy about pushing a good colt even if he has an untimely setback. Should be good for a whole bunch of more wastage courtesy of the Triple Crown.

What's interesting is that Baffert showed patience with both Arrogate and West Coast in the preceding years--and had remarkable success with both as a result-- but chose to push Justify. That seems to say something about Justify's quality and ability.

Doesn't mean he can take all this pressure.

We'll also probably get a double whammy of light winter campaigns for the Derby in the future, 2yo races or not. And again, Baffert is at the forefront of this. In 2014, American Pharoah had what proved to be a "timely" injured that kept him out of the BC Juvenile and perhaps benefited from an early end to his 2yo season, which then allowed Baffert to tailor his early 3yo campaign perfectly with just 2 easy preps. I suppose the points system will keep this from getting too far out of hand.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

What's interesting is that Baffert showed patience with both Arrogate and West Coast in the preceding years--and had remarkable success with both as a result-- but chose to push Justify. That seems to say something about Justify's quality and ability.

or it says something about the owners......

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by clicknow

or it says something about the owners......

+1

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I think this is half true.

There ARE two innovations here:

1. That even if you may want to get to the racetrack earlier than Justify did, you are not trying to win a bunch of 2 year old stakes. You used to see horses go Sanford-Hopeful-Cowdin-Champagne-Laurel Futurity or Hollywood Juvenile-Del Mar Futurity-Norfolk-Hollywood Futurity. You never see that anymore. The big operations are trying to keep something in the tank so that they can peak on Derby day and want to race very lightly as a 2 year old.

2. In the old days, a horse with Justify's physical problems who didn't start until the winter would have never been pointed to the TC.

Fair enough

[LemonSoupKid]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

This decides it for me. Justify is a shoo-in for the Belmont.

Haha, Moss doesn't bother me so much as Watchmaker

I've never seen the guy really get a pick right, I swear even when he hits those multirace stabs he takes, he pays out so much less than he risked ...

He should just bet heavy on big favorites, that is a way to play both wagers, just need to pick your spots.

MW is the biggest mush I've seen in racing, for a major writer, no doubt

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by LemonSoupKid

Haha, Moss doesn't bother me so much as Watchmaker

I've never seen the guy really get a pick right, I swear even when he hits those multirace stabs he takes, he pays out so much less than he risked ...

He should just bet heavy on big favorites, that is a way to play both wagers, just need to pick your spots.

MW is the biggest mush I've seen in racing, for a major writer, no doubt

It's actually quite hard to be a public handicapper.

One of the big things is that you are basically expected to handicap the major races. I was rooting for Eddie O on NBC to come on the Preakness telecast and say he was passing the Preakness. He surely knew that this is the best thing to do with a race like that, but I am sure NBC also lets him know that he is expected to recommend a bet.

(And of course the people who handicap all the races on the card are not allowed to ever recommend passing any race.)

I think Watchmaker's analysis isn't particularly deep or anything, but it's reasonably intelligent. As are most public handicappers. But they are always going to get stuff wrong or be recommending some low paying bets-- because they are expected to "bet" every race they comment on.