Last night Beyer said the speed figures for Smarty\'s Arkansas races were very ambiguous, but that based on his and Purge\'s subsequent performances the races were probably faster than he thought. \"Not exact science\". :-)
LOL....I asked him about this on the chat but he didn\'t respond to my question directly. I have a feeling a few people questioned his figures. At least he admitted he was \"probably\" wrong.
I didn\'t take a very detailed look at those races when they occurred, but I looked at them enough afterwards to also conclude they were somewhat ambiguous.
I think it\'s tough to assign a really fast number to a race when you are talking about a ungraded/grade II prep in Arkansas where the margins between the horses are not all that large.
It\'s easier to conclude that one horse that wins by a lot of lengths or even two that seperate themselves from the rest of the field by a lot are extremely fast.
It\'s easier to conclude that one of the more major preps is very fast etc...
Post Edited (06-03-04 10:01)
I talked about this a while back here-- a couple of days after the Rebel, Little Andy (not Beyer, the one who used to be on the NYRA show) called me to see what I had done, because he didn\'t believe Beyer\'s figure-- he said Beyer cut the race loose because he just didn\'t believe it.
Funny thing is, this exact question came up at the DRF Expo panel a month earlier. While I do not have a problem cutting races loose if it is called for, you don\'t make the decision based only on the winner-- I gave SJ the big jump because if you did the race with the rest of the day, the other horses in the race fit quite nicely, with Purge and Pro Prado pairing up exactly. This is also EXACTLY what happened with War Emblem\'s first really big figure, which was not the Ill Derby, but the race before it-- you either had to give him the jump, or everyone else an off race.
TGJB,
I read your prior notes on those Arkansas races. You made a very sensible case.
Do you agree with my point though that when you are talking about figures this fast it is sometimes tough to pull the trigger and give it to them because logically you wouldn\'t expect horses running in a minor stakes in Arkansas to be this good?
Whenever I see a figure that doesn\'t make any sense based on the quality of the race/par time and margins of victory etc.... it immediately raises red flags for me. I start looking at what other figure makers thought and what the race/figures looked like going in.
I agree it can be \"tough to pull the trigger\", although not because of the type of race, but because of how few horses run that fast (in fact none, in this case)-- but if the evidence is there you have to just cringe and do it. On a quasi-related note, remind me next week and we\'ll post all the sheets for last year\'s Pa Derby, which was a very similar situation to the Ark Derby-- I know you disagree, which is why I mention it, and want to show how the numbers have held up.
>On a quasi-related note, remind me next week and we\'ll post all the sheets for last year\'s Pa Derby, which was a very similar situation to the Ark Derby-- I know you disagree, which is why I mention it, and want to show how the numbers have held up.<
Are you sure you want to discuss that one? :-)
I completely trust you when you say the figs have held up in a sensible way on your sheets.
We would probably just disagree about some of the interpretations of subsequent performances and get nowhere. It\'s no big deal to me unless you feel compelled to convince everyone else. No one should really care what I have to say anyway.
I think I disagreed with 3 of your figures in the last 9 months. I disagree with 3 of Beyer\'s and Rag's regularly.
Just to refresh. These were the 3.
1. WV Derby (thought the sudden rain made it impossible to make an accurate figure but thought it might have been a tad faster than you thought)
2. The PA Derby (thought it was slightly slower than you thought and Dynever had actually run sub-par that day in the mud (it was a very sloppy track)
2. The Travers (thought that Ten Most Wanted benefited from the speed duel and ran his typical race instead of a super fast one. The two duelers ran slower than expected because of the duel and distance)
I will concede I could have been wrong on any or all three just so we don\'t go there again. :-)
Not sure of Beyer\'s thinking, but maybe he thought it made more sense that Smarty had run his usual race on March 20 and Purge ran slower in his first try at 1 1/16 than assuming than Smarty hit a new amazing peak and Purge ran his typical race. It was a bad assumption on his part.
Post Edited (06-03-04 15:42)
Okay, we don\'t have to, my point was to show the way we (meaning TG specifically and other figure makers if they are on top of it) do and check the figures, the reasoning that goes into it. Of those 3, the Travers figure has held up (I guess) in that a lot of those horses came back to run that well or better, but it was definitely a judgement call-- short field, unusual distance, and there was an alternative (slower) way to do the race with it collapsing (due to the pace?). The Pa Derby (in our terms) has held up as well as figures (plural, field as a whole) can hold up. I agree there is doubt about the WVA race in terms of what the horses have done since-- last time I looked I liked it slightly better the way we did it, but far from rock solid. I definitely think that under the circumstances (sudden rainstorm) you have to cut the race loose, and consider it as a stand alone-- but that doesn\'t mean where we put it was right.
TGJB,
You dont know me from form adam but I am friends with Little Andy and I called out the Beyer figure and asked Little Andy what T-G came up with (cause I think your figs are more reliable). He said he would call you, and he did, but you had not come up with a number as of yet.
I have been questioning Beyers figs for a year, and been going at it with Little Andy cause my contention is many times the person making them puts his own opinion into the race, and adjusts the figs accordingly (not always, but sometimes). The Rebel was a big argument cause I came up with a fig around 114 and was shocked at the 107.
I am glad Beyer addmitted in the chat that he probably guessed wrong.
If you have a DRF Simulcast Weekly dated March 28th go to Oaklawn Winner's Book
March 20. Horse by the name of FIGHT FOR LIFE ran a 1&1/16 race 6 in 145.78 & was given
a Beyer rating of 79. The two turn speed chart right out of his books shows a raw time
of 145.78 assigned a Beyer rating of 81.2. Since FFL's fig was 79 the variant would be
minus 2.2, SMARTY ran same distance 3 races later in 142.07. The rating for a raw
time of 142.07 is 116.3, again right off his table. Subtract that 2.2 variant from 116.3 & SJ would indeed have had a rating of 114 had he not 1)cut the race loose 2) decided the track had quickened appreciably since race6 & changed his variant
thomas,
the way they explain it is a \"split varient\", in other words the track must have gotten faster to explain an off the charts effort. Its way to convientent.
Saddlecloth, I\'ve been making my own numbers at a couple tracks for a number of years and find myself somewhere in the middle of this Ragozin /TG debate. Aside from weather/track condition changes Beyer & JB are right, there are days when the variant will change. An extreme example of this usually happens at Suffolk Downs on the day they run the MassCap and Mosely Sprint. There is always a turf race preceding both these races, I'm there and I can tell you their track maintenance people use the extra time frantically working that track over to try and produce impressive times if the track appears to be playing slow. On the other side of the coin I do think there are days when you can tie sprint & route races together.
There is absolutely no doubt that the speed of the track changes during the day from time to time. There are also issues of extreme paces effecting final time.
The real problem is when you have a somewhat ambiguous result or figure that can be interpreted in two ways.
The question is do you change the variant (cut the race loose) and the give the race a figure that seems more logical or do you leave it as is and risk wildly overrating/underrating the race.
Beyer obviously concluded that giving Smarty a 114 (gigantic for this time of year for a 3yo) and Purge (a lighty raced limited winner running two turns for the first time) a 109 made less sense than cutting the race loose.
He was wrong, but I bet he does this many times during the year and is usually right.
If he didn\'t, people would be complaining some of his figures make no sense.
Post Edited (06-04-04 10:18)
class,
I am not disagreeing with the methodolgy, and understand the speed varient changes, but it seems a little to convienent.
Hey its great for me when I see they made a mistake on a number, either high or low. Helps me make money ( :
I know that in the past, DRF has adjusted the Beyer figures given to certain races after the fact. Last year I remember seeing the \"Best Beyers\" list change fairly substantially because of a few ex post facto changes they had made in sprint figures given on a day in January at Santa Anita. The changes affected some of the big \"Best Beyers\" figures because that day had featured a major sprint stakes (the Palos Verdes or the Sunshine Millions or something like that). That change was only a few points, but it does show that there is precedent for Beyer adjusting figures after the fact. My question is simply whether, if Smarty Jones wins the Belmont in another impressive time, all of a sudden the \"Best Beyers\" list will all of a sudden feature not only the 117 or whatever Smarty earns in the Belmont, but a new \"114 - Smarty Jones - OP Mar 20\" line. I don\'t think it\'s all that unlikely.
Saddle,
I spend a lot of time looking for figure errors too. :-)
Personally, I think Beyer should go back and change the figure if he believes he has made an error. I know it wouldn\'t be good for his/DRF reputation to change such an important one, but on the flip side, Smarty deserves to have his past performances represented accurately in the DRF. If he wins big tomorrow, we are talking about one of the all time greats and I\'d like to see correct numbers in the PPs. I think he should also revisit Smarty\'s subsequent figures because his subsequent projections had to have been influenced by his prior error.