Getting back to things that can be quantified...
Friedman was asked on his site what figures High Fly and Noble Causeway ran in the Florida Derby, and responded (\"Pace Numbers\") that they both ran 4 1/2, which equates to ours for the winner. Problem is, they gave both horses the same number, which is wrong.
The weight both horses carried was equal. HF was 2/2 on the turns, NC was 1/2-3-4 (there was discussion of this after we saw what Len said, and we checked it. Look at the replay yourself). This means that they netted out the same on the turns-- HF\'s paths totalled 4, so did NC (2-3-4 averages 3, 3 +1 = 4). So since HF won the race by 1 1/2 lengths, he has to get 3/4 of a point the better figure.
But evidently not on 11th street-- and keep in mind the only way you could give them the same figure is to have NC 1 1/2 paths wider, meaning 4.5 all the way around the second turn. Look-- as I said recently, I\'m going to try not to spend a tremendous amount of time on Ragozin anymore, since they appear to have very few on-line customers. But this is a BIG race (AGAIN, as with last year\'s Derby, and BC sprint, and Touch Of The Blues a couple of years ago in the BC), and this is the SECOND FINISHER, a major Derby hopeful. That number could matter a lot, even more than usual. You really have to wonder about the level of their work day-to-day-- and I\'m not even talking about the variant decisions.
jerry,
you really can\'t tell on the tiny youbet screen - i know NC was inside, but was he definitely 1w in all three spots on the first turn?
Michael D and JB.
I just watched the race again 5 times in super slo mo on the wide screen in HD focusing on NC. Before I comment I want to qualify myself to some extent. I worked with a friend of mine ( A Guy named Mark Brodie)in the early eighties doing charts for both Equibase and Sports Eye predominatly at Garden State,Philly Park (Old Keystone with Larry Ledderman for DRF) and on occasion a fill in at the Meadowlands, so I have had some experience doing this, so hers is what I saw without the benefit of a head-on:
On turn one no doubt rail in all 3 positions. On Turn 2, he started to move off rail to path 2 in position 1 (you could argue path 1) however at the 3/4 pole he was clearly in path 5 outside of BB, HF, MM, and Vicarage and maintained that path to top of the stretch. (Vicarage started to fade after the 3/4 but after NC Made his move to the outside with an open inside lane to work with. WSS was coming on the indide of him at position one as he gave it up then. In fact you could argue in last third of turn he was in path 6 as BB drifted into path 2 and moved back to rail by mile mark.
Thats how I saw it. You might want to re look at the race. Hope it helps.
Michael D let me know where to meet you this weekend at Keeneland.
NC Tony
I was at Gulfstream on Saturday. No Car Tony is right on....I saw exactly the same thing.
PS: NOBLE cost me the exacta and the tri. Did not think he would run better than BB who has now run out of excuses.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
NoCar-- I don\'t see NC moving out past the 4 path until the \"fan\" (after the turn), but if you want to call it 1-2-3-4-5, it comes out the same as 2-3-4. And even 2-3-4-5 would still have him running only 1/2 point worse than HF-- the difference between that and 2-3-4 would only be 1/4 point. To get to where Ragozin did you have to make a gross error.
By the way, both our local trackman and Bill Spillane, who supervises our guys, made it LESS than 2-3-4. I used that because after reviewing the tape myself it looked right. A lot of this comes down to noting carefully where the turn starts and ends and they start to fan, but one had it 2-3, the other 1-1-2-2-3-4.
TGJB,
Thanks for the feedback. It\'s hard to tell from regular TV view what actual path NC was on without the headon. There was the one point he was 5 wide, just past the 3/4 pole, on the turn outside Vicarage, right at that point Vicarage started to drop back.
With hindsight had Prado kept NC on the rail (which he could have done) he would have avoided the ground loss and would have been closer to HF at he finish. Wonder if he was on orders to stay wide this race?
NC Tony
From Friedman\'s post on the Ragozin board:
\"It may boggle your mind that numbers can be made with 1/2 point accuracy, but that is an argument that has been made ever since the 60s when I first started using the Sheets. Saying that they are not that accurate doesn\'t make it so\".
1-- Correct. And saying that they ARE that accurate does not make it so either (\"Our speakers go to eleven\"). Especially when the one testifying has a vested interest in people believing it.
Your position is, they are really accurate, trust me, I\'ve used them for a long time. And if they weren\'t I would tell you. Problem is, when obvious errors are pointed out (more on that in a moment), you DON\'T acknowledge them. So how is someone supposed to take that line of reasoning seriously?
2-- Let\'s return to planet earth. The reason that figures can\'t always be accurate to the 1/2 point is that the underlying data we use is not accurate to the 1/2 point. Are all your trackmen giving you ground in 1/2 paths? (That\'s rhetorical, I\'ve used some of your trackmen and seen the work of others, and not only do they not, some use the fan and some don\'t). Trackmen give you a 2 path call-- is it always exactly 2, not 2 1/2? Not 1 3/4? They give you 2-3, and it\'s never 2-3-3? When horses run in the slop, and the jockeys come back covered with mud, do you account for the weight of the mud? Do you get the weights of the horses, so you know how much to adjust for 119 on a 950 pound horse and a 1200 pound horse in the same race? Do you use two trackmen, so one can do ground, while the other looks at the wind DURING the race, as opposed to before and/or after? In fact, are all your trackmen actually at the track, as opposed to watching on TV? (We both know the answer to that one).
3-- Ahem. In the last three years alone, I have pointed out SIGNIFICANT internal errors (meaning in the relationships between horses in one race) due to errors in ground loss, beaten lengths, and \"off poorly\", in very big races-- BC Mile, BC Sprint, Wood Memorial, Kentucky Derby. These have come only on big races, because THOSE WERE THE ONLY ONES YOU POSTED with the figures they ran, and it\'s a very high percentage, because you only post a few races a year-- 15, maybe? Just a couple of days ago, you posted the figures for the first two finishers in the Florida Derby-- and you had the relationship wrong by 3/4 point, due presumably to screwing up the ground for Noble Causway. You want to talk about 1/2 point condition moves with him?
These are the biggest races of the year, Len. You seem to live in an insulated world where reality does not intrude. In the real one, anybody with a brain would conclude that the very high percentage of outright errors in big races would lead to at LEAST as high a percentage of errors in the day to day races.
And the dirty little secret, which anyone who makes figures knows, is that you make the figures off the past figures-- when we get past ridiculous claims of measuring \"resiliency\", we know it\'s the only way to do it. So past errors are compounded as you make later figures. Especially if you don\'t want to admit an error, and therefore don\'t fix them. Right?
And all the above doesn\'t even address the illogic of your variant decisions, which I\'ve discussed at great length before, or the circuit-to-circuit problems. I\'m just talking about demonstrable outright screwups, and innaccuracy of the underlying data.
I know-- your speakers go to eleven.