So Jake finally posted their Preakness figures. Ex winning by going back two points, Nyquist going back 4 points, Strad going back 3. They do have one horse (Laoban) going forward a little, and one pairing (Lani). The rest they have going back, in a 3yo GI.
Also, they have Nyquist running almost a point worse than Ex. We had N running a little better, and I used by far the more conservative of the two ground calls we had for him.
I would love to see their ground. I would also love to hear them explain how they got to those figures-- they obviously tied it to something else (not the horses in that race), and given the two hours between races and rain I would love to know what it was.
Talk among yourselves.
Sounds like a job for 00 Dub. Maybe he should log on as Jerry Brown and see how long it takes him to get tossed?
I can sort of understand why these horses would show a decline compared to their Derby figs. If you take pace into account the Derby pace was fast but nowhere near as fast as it appeared because Churchill was lightening fast that day. The Preakness pace was insane given the super slow condition of the Pimlico track for the Preakness. N layed off a fast Derby pace but battled through the crazy Preakness pace. Ex also was closer to to the much faster Preakness pace then faced in the Derby, though not being as close early his figure declined less. Stradi pretty much mirrored Ex\'s early pace which was much faster than the powder-puff pace he set in his previous win.
Having said that I still think that the figs showed too large a decline which I believe was due to underestimating the variant for the Preakness where the track had turned into a bog.
Let\'s say for a moment, that\'s all true. But how do you get THERE, the way they did it (or the way you want to)? What\'s the methodology that gets you to that particular variant?
I refrained from any characterizations in my post. I\'m not interested in bashing them here (as opposed to certain other times)-- I\'m trying to get people thinking about methodology, and differences thereof.
The race, the way we did it, is still up. As it happened it fit with the surrounding races, but if it didn\'t I still would have done it that way, because that\'s the way it made the most sense, and with the time gaps (more than 2 hourse since the previous dirt race), unusual distance and weather, ASSUMING the variant stayed the same would be... illogical, to be nice about it. It happened to be the same as the next race, but it didn\'t have to be.
So, how did they get there? How would you? What would you base your decision on?
JB, Their exact methodology is known only to them. I can only speculate that while the figures relative to horse to horse make sense given the pace, they may have underestimated the variant which shows too great a decline in figures across the board. This could be due to a failure to break out the Preakness from previous races where the track was not as bad, though like I said, just speculation. That\'s all we can say.
The fastest first quarter in the history of the Preakness does not reconcile with the surface being very slow. When a surface is very slow/dull,even very fast horses are unable run fast splits/final time. The whole Preakness was slow on the clock and that\'s probably how RAGS got there, same with the slow Wood.They are probably using the clock adj by a variant they determine off the day.
Horses can run a fast quarter on even a slow track if they are urged to run like maniacs and expend all their energy early. The evidence that this took a super energy draining effort is that they crawl home in the stretch resulting in a very slow final time. That\'s what we saw in the Preakness.
Bob,
Respectfully,no,a surface which is genuinely slow will not produce a single extremely fast split much less a half in 46 change partially around a turn.
Had the early pace not been insane,the race would never have been run with the second half near 52 and last 3/16th in 20+
Where ya been?
Mike
With all due respect, you don\'t understand the question. Whatever the truth (or lack of it, I\'m not even going to break it down) of what you just said, it doesn\'t answer the question of how they got to THAT variant. THOSE figures. And as I pointed out, a) as it happened the way I did it DID tie to the only other dirt race in sight, and b) making the assumption that it HAD to would be nuts, even if you knew they DID do that (another assumption). The only other dirt race after the rain (and within 2 hours) was a rained off maiden grass race, the winner had never run on dirt. You really want to base the Preakness figures on that?
So again-- what was the basis of their Preakness figures?
Hi Mike, good to be back after a long illness, though not 100% yet.
While generally, slow surfaces tend to produce slow fractions, good horses can be forced to run fast early fractions on these tracks if the riders stupidly spend a horses energy reserves early. They will then come up empty in the stretch, as we saw. Nyquist and Uncle Leo got the double whammy of going fast on a slow track
early.
Note, the final time of the winner (EX) who stayed out of the early pace duel was also very poor, proving the track was slow in addition to the fast early pace.
There were several two turn races, that\'s probably how they got there,details of how unknown.If we ever see their figs for all the two turn races, an answer should be apparent, whether one agrees or not. The fig wasn\'t picked out of hat,presumably.
I completely disagree that the Preakness should be done any differently than a 10 claimer and the number of tops or lack thereof is irrelevant, horses run what they run, preconceived notions have no place in making speed/performance figures.
JB, without knowing what they did the only answer I can come up with is that they didn\'t break the Preakness variant out from the earlier races when the track was faster, or should I say less slow. I\'ve been away for awhile but If memory serves I remember they used to be more reluctant than you to break out races.
Glad your better! Very solid data, driven off up to date time charts, had sprints -51(3 lengths slow) Pimlico only has a 5 foot sprint run up, if you look at the sprints you will see the first split just 3lenghts slow on the day.
The crazy conditions can only lead to a pissing contest re track speed, the fig makers who agree obviously did the Preakness broken out,my guess is that Rags did not because you can\'t get to their figs by projecting/going off the horses previous figs.
For my money,Nyquist ran gigantic,when adjusted for the extreme pace,kinda dead heated speed fig wise with EX.With ground and pace adj,Nyquist ran \"faster\"
Mike
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I completely disagree that the Preakness should be
> done any differently than a 10 claimer and the
> number of tops or lack thereof is irrelevant,
> horses run what they run, preconceived notions
> have no place in making speed/performance figures.
Amen to that. I have already posted my dislike for \"race specific\" data for big races. The Preakness should be broken out because it was run on a changing surface not because it was the Preakness.
I agree that the race collapsed due to the crazy early pace and anyone near to it would show a decline in their figs. I would say the same if it were a 10K claimer.
You\'re making assumptions about how they got there. And the point is, if we had the whole day it might turn out to be apparent how they got there, but it will also be apparent that it\'s wrong. For example, if they used one track speed for the day, it would mean they were using an average of the track speeds during a seven hour card, where the track was first drying out, then took rain late in the card. And so on.
As for the second part, you use the same method with a claimer and a stake, which is to do it off the horses. That\'s the only way to make figures. There is no machine that measures track speed. Stake horses are better cared for and get more time between races, which results in less erratic patterns, and makes it easier to do figures using them. But the method is the same.
If that race was the only race on the card and he only had the Preakness horses to work with, Jake would have made it faster (at least I hope to God he would have, for his customers sake). So he did something else. And the question is, what is the logic behind whatever he did?
Agree that Nyquist ran huge. Interesting that TG who considers ground loss and Timeform US that incorporates pace in their final figures both have Nyuist and Exaggerator with about the same figs. Kinda shows that he was the victim of pace and ground loss, thanks to bonehead instructions from O\'Neill and a bonehead ride from Gutierrez.
Having them about equal certainly seems to reflect their whole performance, rather than solely looking at finishing positions.
Just to make clear I didn\'t invent this particular wheel:
In our Archives section you can find History Lesson II, which is about a book by Tony Betts called \"Across The Board\". It came out 60 years ago, in 1956, there\'s a good chance Miff knew Al (The Brain) Windeman), famous speed handicapper of the day, who was responsible for the following quote (page 303).
\"...you need a track variant, and that differs from race to race. The composition of the soil and the moisture it contains affects a track\'s speed. I check the sprinkler wagon all afternoon, because I know the speed varies with each drink. Tracks near the seashore may change speed with the tides\".
There\'s more, check out the Archives. The book was republished a few years ago, you should be able to find it.
I had assumed that the difference in your figures was due to the my understanding that you had broken out the Preakness and Jake had not. I just read an earlier post where you said that you hadn\'t broken out the race so, so much for that explanation. I\'ll have to withdraw that based on further evidence.
Like you said, unless we know what he gave to the other races compared to you we can\'t explain the difference and maybe not even then. All we know is there is obviously a difference in methodology and without knowing both we cannot explain the difference.
Not trying to throw gas on the fire,but I was under the impression that rag and tg were premised on speed, ground loss, track variant, wind etc so if they went a 100 miles an hour early and the race collapsed the figures should reflect such. Adjusting figures based upon the fields earlier performance seems counter to the speed figure concept
I remember so vividly the discussion about class vs speed figures. It seems the new figure making methodology incorporates class in the numbers?
Danny-- No.
Bob-- I wasn\'t looking for an answer. I was raising a question, actually two of them. Nobody but Jake can explain what they did and why. The question for everyone else is whether whatever they did is correct, whether it makes sense.
Jerry,
I see what you mean, though of course when one puts forward a question one expects at least attempts on an answer. Whether or not we get an answer, the discussion it generates is usually useful. I hope and think this one was.
I recall that being an excellent read, as I have a copy of the original and read it many moons ago.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just to make clear I didn\'t invent this particular
> wheel:
>
> In our Archives section you can find History
> Lesson II, which is about a book by Tony Betts
> called \"Across The Board\". It came out 60 years
> ago, in 1956, there\'s a good chance Miff knew Al
> (The Brain) Windeman), famous speed handicapper of
> the day, who was responsible for the following
> quote (page 303).
>
> \"...you need a track variant, and that differs
> from race to race. The composition of the soil and
> the moisture it contains affects a track\'s speed.
> I check the sprinkler wagon all afternoon, because
> I know the speed varies with each drink. Tracks
> near the seashore may change speed with the
> tides\".
>
> There\'s more, check out the Archives. The book was
> republished a few years ago, you should be able to
> find it.
The greatest book on racing (focusing on New York\'s Glory Days) in the history of racing. And it\'s not close.
University of Nebraska Press. They want $50. It\'s worth every cent.
Plenty of good handicapping/playing lessons, if you pay attention.
And my God, the man could write. The last chapter is downright lyrical.
Thank me later.