Derby Beyer

[classhandicapper]

Something is different now than years ago that accounts for the lower Beyers. I've done a lot of research into the issue and have a long list of possible reasons. Any one of them or a combination of them is probably the villain.

[Tom]

Yeah. Like the numbers themselves.
I thought the Derby would get a 97. The 103 surprised me.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Something is different now than years ago that accounts for the lower Beyers. I've done a lot of research into the issue and have a long list of possible reasons. Any one of them or a combination of them is probably the villain.

Can you kindly give some examples? Or at least 1 specific cause? We won't hold you to it.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Can you kindly give some examples? Or at least 1 specific cause? We won't hold you to it.

The first 2 Beyer has addressed himself.

1. Breeding has changed to emphasize speed over stamina. So if the horses are not the same, they might have a tougher time earning big figures at longer routes like the Derby and Belmont than in sprints.

2. We no longer use steroids like we used to and testing for milkshakes has improved. The latter might also impact stamina.

3. The composition of the dirt racing surfaces are different now (deeper and more sand). Riders learn to adjust their level of aggressiveness to the surface. We've seen this on synthetic and definitely on turf. When paces are slower, it seems to compress the figures a little. The top of the scale isn't as fast and the bottom of the scale is a little faster (that's what I've seen happening on dirt in NY when you compare MSW vs. Grade 1 stakes pars. The range has tightened up). So maybe it's having a mild impact on dirt also.

4. In general it's extremely difficult to prevent speed figures from drifting faster or slower over time. In general you have to project some improvement for the winners and lightly raced horses but you also have to avoid overrating some of the beaten horses when you try to project what they did. I think the tendency for shrinkage is way higher than the other way around, but Thorograph (right or wrong) makes a good case that horses are getting faster like their figures suggest.

That's off the top of my head, but there are others.

[Burls]

A Ballparking Question:

How much higher than the previous highest BSF, does a horse's BSF have to be before it becomes 'surprising'?

I would have thought somewhere close to 10.
Especially with three-year olds that are still developing.

What do you folks think?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The first 2 Beyer has addressed himself.

1. Breeding has changed to emphasize speed over stamina. So if the horses are not the same, they might have a tougher time earning big figures at longer routes like the Derby and Belmont than in sprints.

2. We no longer use steroids like we used to and testing for milkshakes has improved. The latter might also impact stamina.

3. The composition of the dirt racing surfaces are different now (deeper and more sand). Riders learn to adjust their level of aggressiveness to the surface. We've seen this on synthetic and definitely on turf. When paces are slower, it seems to compress the figures a little. The top of the scale isn't as fast and the bottom of the scale is a little faster (that's what I've seen happening on dirt in NY when you compare MSW vs. Grade 1 stakes pars. The range has tightened up). So maybe it's having a mild impact on dirt also.

4. In general it's extremely difficult to prevent speed figures from drifting faster or slower over time. In general you have to project some improvement for the winners and lightly raced horses but you also have to avoid overrating some of the beaten horses when you try to project what they did. I think the tendency for shrinkage is way higher than the other way around, but Thorograph (right or wrong) makes a good case that horses are getting faster like their figures suggest.

That's off the top of my head, but there are others.

I should add one or two other small possibilities.

Years ago many of the top trainers used to bring out well bred first time starters well short of peak and slowly develop them. Now they often come out running fast. So the relationship between the very best horses and maidens/NW1 may be narrowing (as my data on NY Pars suggests). That could have some mild compressing impact because if the maidens are running faster than you expected, you may think the track is faster than it actually is. That drags the top horses won.

A similar thing could be happening with claimers and super trainers. If the claiming horses are faster these days than they used to be (and faster than you expected), you may think the track is faster than it actually is. That drags the top horses down.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Burls

A Ballparking Question:

How much higher than the previous highest BSF, does a horse's BSF have to be before it becomes 'surprising'?

I would have thought somewhere close to 10.
Especially with three-year olds that are still developing.

What do you folks think?

I was surprised by the 103 because of the 93 or 94 he got for the Florida race. I expected his number to be depressed by that. I thought the Florida number was too low to be believes, and I didn't. Other figures were much kinder to him.

For young horses moving ahead, I am not generally not surprised by moves of 15-30 Beyer points. I get surprised over a second big move, but not a second small one, 5-10-15 points. Once the horse are more established, I have a rule of "two and through" meaning don't look for three big numbers in a row. Ie, Point Given's Derby.

[depalma113]

Originally Posted by Tom

I was surprised by the 103 because of the 93 or 94 he got for the Florida race. I expected his number to be depressed by that. I thought the Florida number was too low to be believes, and I didn't. Other figures were much kinder to him.

For young horses moving ahead, I am not generally not surprised by moves of 15-30 Beyer points. I get surprised over a second big move, but not a second small one, 5-10-15 points. Once the horse are more established, I have a rule of "two and through" meaning don't look for three big numbers in a row. Ie, Point Given's Derby.

If Mohaymen ran back to his previous best 95, than the 103 is exactly where it should be.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The first 2 Beyer has addressed himself.

1. Breeding has changed to emphasize speed over stamina. So if the horses are not the same, they might have a tougher time earning big figures at longer routes like the Derby and Belmont than in sprints.

2. We no longer use steroids like we used to and testing for milkshakes has improved. The latter might also impact stamina.

3. The composition of the dirt racing surfaces are different now (deeper and more sand). Riders learn to adjust their level of aggressiveness to the surface. We've seen this on synthetic and definitely on turf. When paces are slower, it seems to compress the figures a little. The top of the scale isn't as fast and the bottom of the scale is a little faster (that's what I've seen happening on dirt in NY when you compare MSW vs. Grade 1 stakes pars. The range has tightened up). So maybe it's having a mild impact on dirt also.

4. In general it's extremely difficult to prevent speed figures from drifting faster or slower over time. In general you have to project some improvement for the winners and lightly raced horses but you also have to avoid overrating some of the beaten horses when you try to project what they did. I think the tendency for shrinkage is way higher than the other way around, but Thorograph (right or wrong) makes a good case that horses are getting faster like their figures suggest.

That's off the top of my head, but there are others.

1) Speed figures are supposed to give equal performances at different distances the same number. So IF the horses have changed, the speed figure charts should change to match.

2) Ditto one above. Gotta be versatile and adapt to changes, not use outdated data. Just because a 6f 1:10 was equal to a 2:00 10f in 1970 doesn't mean it holds true today. That said, it isn't like sprinters are running off the chart numbers either. They are shrinking as well, so I don't think the whole stamina explanations hold much water.

3) Any slowing of race tracks should be seen across all distances. And again, if it affects routes more than sprints, change your charts.

4) Figure drift is a problem but it can be controlled. Beyer mentioned it first that I read. He's been doing it what, more than 40 years now? If anyone has a handle on it he should.

[cj]

Sharp Azteca ran away from the field and destroyed a G3, $250,000 race and earned a 95. A 95. Chew on that for a while.

[Nitro]

Pre-Derby

Originally Posted by Nitro

More diplomacy might be of interest to some, but I would think more people would be interested in hard reality.

I’m sure you and many others must realize that these are “developing 3-year olds”.
All you have to is look at the fluctuation and inconsistency in their “numbers”. That’s why I call it “nonsense”.

It’s one thing to risk BIG money and use the numbers for well-established animals running in familiar race conditions and certainly another for betting on young horses with so many unknowns.

Your previous response to my comment.

Originally Posted by Tom

What you mean is your reality.
Look, just because YOU cannot interpret the figure doesn't make then nonsense to those of us who can and do. Your limitation is you will bet big money to make small money. I prefer to bet small money to make big money.
To each his own, you have to know your limits.

One man's fluctuation and inconsistency is another man's pattern of development.

Post-Derby

Originally Posted by Tom

Yeah. Like the numbers themselves.
I thought the Derby would get a 97. The 103 surprised me.

Surprised!! Now why would a numbers guy like you be surprised?
I was under the impression that you YOU (and others) could interpret these "numbers" and also understand the “pattern of development” of these 3-year olds as you put it.

Yes, I agree I wasn’t very tactful earlier, but I certainly wasn’t being pretentious when I stated the following about the realities of “numbers” concerning developing 3-year olds before the Derby.

Originally Posted by Nitro

Pre-Derby
Every year the same old nonsense: Numbers and figures on developing 3-year olds.
Nyquist hasn’t lost a race yet, he has multiple running styles and has won on 4 different race tracks.
So simply ask yourself, “Who has the best chance of winning this year’s Derby”?
Hey who knows, the best might be yet to come and he may run his best number in the Derby! Then what will everyone say?

[tucker6]

To me, the biggest difference over the last 40 years is training methodologies. But I don't think that has anything to do with Beyer numbers, which I believe are in decline independent of changes in the sport.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

1) Speed figures are supposed to give equal performances at different distances the same number. So IF the horses have changed, the speed figure charts should change to match.

2) Ditto one above. Gotta be versatile and adapt to changes, not use outdated data. Just because a 6f 1:10 was equal to a 2:00 10f in 1970 doesn't mean it holds true today. That said, it isn't like sprinters are running off the chart numbers either. They are shrinking as well, so I don't think the whole stamina explanations hold much water.

3) Any slowing of race tracks should be seen across all distances. And again, if it affects routes more than sprints, change your charts.

4) Figure drift is a problem but it can be controlled. Beyer mentioned it first that I read. He's been doing it what, more than 40 years now? If anyone has a handle on it he should.

I understand where you are coming from and 100% agree from a gambling perspective. But I can understand why someone might not want to tinker with their charts too much if they are trying to preserve some historical perspective (which I think Beyer is trying to do). If you change the 10F-12F charts to make the long route numbers higher, those horses are not really equal to horses from years ago even when they have the same number.

I don't know anything about the impact of steroids on horses or what percentage of them were actually given steroids regularly, but it seemed to me that right after the whole Big Brown fiasco and changes in the steroid rules we saw a quick decline at the top of the scale, especially among males.

I've pretty much stopped trying to tweak the numbers to get them more accurate. It's paralyzing to me. I'm focusing on field quality, trips, and replays and building tools and techniques to help me with that. But I still enjoy the debates over figures because I've spent so many years thinking about it.

[EMD4ME]

Thank you Class and CJ for your responses on an ever fascinating topic.

[luisbe]

Originally Posted by Burls

I like the MG+Nyquist combination that will do what it takes to win the race and not much more. MG is focused on winning the race; not pushing Nyquist to run as fast as he possibly can. We don't really know how fast Nyquist is yet. He always runs just fast enough to win the race he is in at the moment.

I said hat before the Derby so I agree 100% with it. The day a rival beyered 110 he will run a 112.