Correlating race-flow, winner's running style, and winner's odds with speed-figs

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

I would say no...a closer isn't part of the pace--so he either will benefit from--or lose due to what happens ahead of him.

The one-run deep closer is still going to run his race... as with the one-dimensional speedball, who's dependent on what happens behind him.

Interesting as it may be--where's the predictive value in knowing a horse with a clear lead @ 1st call will probably run to a faster final time?

Odds-on favorites run fast. And double-digit longshots run slower. The toteboard has already predicted that for us.

Given that a horserace is not run in a continuous straight path because of the racetrack turns, the problem for the closer is more complicated because as it accelerates toward the lead it might have to go around tiring horses causing the loss of ground.

Also, depending on the length of the race the closer could further be disadvantaged by the turns. For instance, at Belmont the turn length is about 52% of the 6F distance; at Churchill Downs for the same distance, the turn length is about 33%.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Based on your belief, wouldn't the final fraction of a closer be faster in races where the speed backed up?

In my opinion, not necessarily. It would depend on the closer's proximity to the faster-than-par pace and how early the closer began busting a move.

I take it you disagree?

Whatever the case, good discussion about the sort of arcane subtlety that numbers geeks consider their private domain, and that normally bores me to tears.

Would like to see your opinion on this. Not as debate fodder, but to soak in and consider.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Also, depending on the length of the race the closer could further be disadvantaged by the turns. For instance, at Belmont the turn length is about 52% of the 6F distance; at Churchill Downs for the same distance, the turn length is about 33%.

If this is true, more closers would win going 6 fur at CD than at Bel. I wonder if that's really the case.

[BCOURTNEY]

Originally Posted by mountainman

If this is true, more closers would win going 6 fur at CD than at Bel. I wonder if that's really the case.

Compare routine: (CDX) -> (BEL) : Impact - WinPct

CDX

Running Style
EP +
P +
PS ++
S -
SS ++
U -
ESP Race Shape
E-EP +
EP-P +
S +

BEL

Running Style
EP -
P -
PS --
S +
SS --
U +
ESP Race Shape
E-EP -
EP-P -

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by mountainman

If this is true, more closers would win going 6 fur at CD than at Bel. I wonder if that's really the case.

I posted a logical construct based on the geometry of two racetracks which are different in size and if I interpreted your extrapolation correctly of my post, you are implying if what I have construed in my post is true, closers should win more races at Churchill Downs than closers would win at Belmont.

You very well could be correct, but you will need more evidence than conjecture and my post wasn’t intended to provide a bona fide fact, but an inference based on math and science; and not validation from collected data.

However, I have attached scaled layouts to this post of both Churchill Downs and Belmont as a visual reference for you to see that the run to the turn for 6F (absent run-up) at Churchill Downs is 1,433.5 feet whereas at Belmont without run-up it is 843 feet which is nearly a furlong shorter; this was the essence of my argument.

I would appreciate your comments.

[classhandicapper]

There is another component to this that is unrelated to fractions.

When there are a lot of speed horses in a race, some of them will naturally not be able to get their preferred spot on or near the pace. Some of those horses will run sub par because of it and others will pick them up late without necessarily being as good as they look. Even more significant is that sometimes the fractions of those races aren't even all that fast. Sometimes one horse will outrun the others quickly and the rest more or less just settle in behind.

So knowing how many speeds were actually in the race can give you clues about the race development that are not always revealed by the fractions.

In addition, when you evaluate running styles going forward, if you see a horse coming out of race with a lot of speed (or vice versa) it gives you a clearer picture of their running style.

This kind of thing was one of the goals of race flow symbols in the DRF. It's automated, but it doesn't have to be if you are doing it on a personal level or using the symbols as a flag and doing a personal analysis after the fact.