After watching a lot of California races this winter, I can't understand how Victor Espinoza keeps getting top mounts from top stables. Apart from some other failures, Victor doesn't make much of an attempt to save ground and this costs his mounts a number of races. The Snow Chief Stakes, the 9th yesterday at Hollywood, is a good example. Victor is riding Lucky J.H., who at 7-1 is as fast as anyone in the field after adjusting for weight. Going into the first turn, Lucky J.H. finds himself in a perfect position -- a group of horses contesting the lead 2 lengths ahead and a group of closers about 4 lengths behind him. But Victor doesn't drop over to the rail to save ground, or even ease over to the two-path. For no reason whatsoever, he decides to stay in the three-path all the way around the first turn.
You can guess the rest. Lucky makes a four-wide bid around the final turn, opens up in midstretch but gets nailed on the wire by a bomb. Had he saved even a half-path of ground on the first turn, Lucky J.H. wins the race.
I thought maybe I was being a little hard on Victor, so I reviewed TG's jockey information to see how Victor's "average path" compares to some of his competitors. Here's the result:
Valenzuela 2.0
Valdivia 2.0
Gomez 2.1
Pedroza 2.1
Solis 2.1
Court 2.1
Stevens 2.2
Nakatani 2.2
Baze 2.2
Douglas 2.3
Espinoza 2.4
So, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean in the average 9f stakes race, you expect P.Val to save about ¾ of a length in ground compared to Victor? If so, that translates into a lot of races that Victor loses just by not being very smart.
Just curious if you did research on Mike Smith in terms of avg. path. I would have bet he was higher than victor.
Caradoc-- good to see someone is using that jockey stuff. Before someone brings up the size of the field question, let me point out that we are adjusting for field size, normalizing to (I think) an 8 horse field. In other words, 3 wide in a 5 horse field counts as wider than in a 12 horse field.
Marvelous Mike comes in at 2.3. Both he and Victor are in Eddie Maple territory, literally and figuratively.
Mike was brutal in those Keeneland turf races this weekend
And dougless took down the money title and tied for second in wins, so what does that tell you about wide paths? It has to be put into context, each trip is a unique event. Sometimes 3 wide clear is better then 1 path in trouble or dirt in the face.
Caradoc wrote:
> After watching a lot of California races this winter, I can't
> understand how Victor Espinoza keeps getting top mounts from
> top stables. Apart from some other failures, Victor doesn't
> make much of an attempt to save ground and this costs his
> mounts a number of races. The Snow Chief Stakes, the 9th
> yesterday at Hollywood, is a good example. Victor is riding
> Lucky J.H., who at 7-1 is as fast as anyone in the field after
> adjusting for weight. Going into the first turn, Lucky J.H.
> finds himself in a perfect position -- a group of horses
> contesting the lead 2 lengths ahead and a group of closers
> about 4 lengths behind him. But Victor doesn't drop over to
> the rail to save ground, or even ease over to the two-path.
> For no reason whatsoever, he decides to stay in the three-path
> all the way around the first turn.
>
> You can guess the rest. Lucky makes a four-wide bid around the
> final turn, opens up in midstretch but gets nailed on the wire
> by a bomb. Had he saved even a half-path of ground on the
> first turn, Lucky J.H. wins the race.
>
> I thought maybe I was being a little hard on Victor, so I
> reviewed TG's jockey information to see how Victor's "average
> path" compares to some of his competitors. Here's the result:
>
> Valenzuela 2.0
> Valdivia 2.0
> Gomez 2.1
> Pedroza 2.1
> Solis 2.1
> Court 2.1
> Stevens 2.2
> Nakatani 2.2
> Baze 2.2
> Douglas 2.3
> Espinoza 2.4
>
> So, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean in
> the average 9f stakes race, you expect P.Val to save about ¾ of
> a length in ground compared to Victor? If so, that translates
> into a lot of races that Victor loses just by not being very
> smart.
>
>
And therefore what? The TG stats don't measure only the past few months at SA so I have no idea how Douglas rode (in terms of paths) during that period. It may sometimes be better to be clear while three-wide than stopped on the fence, but I'll guarantee you this much: it's better to be in the clear on the rail than it is to be in the clear in the three-path. The TG stats reveal that, over a large sampling, some jockeys just refuse to save ground relative to other riders, regardless of what is happening in a race.
I guess the stats say that about relations to other riders, what they dont say is if that has any affect on anything (why is valdivia 10% meet after meet, or is he really 5% and gets it up to 10% cause of the ground saving trips with bad horses?).
I would agree being clear on the rail is better then being clear 3 wide, especially going two turns, but do that stats break that out? That was my point. Each event needs to be evaluated to make the determination.
Ground loss is a very overrated factor, a factor, but not a be all end all, especially at the highest levels, IMHO.
Caradoc wrote:
> And therefore what? The TG stats don't measure only the past
> few months at SA so I have no idea how Douglas rode (in terms
> of paths) during that period. It may sometimes be better to be
> clear while three-wide than stopped on the fence, but I'll
> guarantee you this much: it's better to be in the clear on the
> rail than it is to be in the clear in the three-path. The TG
> stats reveal that, over a large sampling, some jockeys just
> refuse to save ground relative to other riders, regardless of
> what is happening in a race.
Post Edited (04-25-05 18:07)