it infuriates me that the two services available come up with 2 totally different numbers on borrego. there should be a \"board of standards\" where both brown & ragazon would be called to appear and state their case.
just like any other scientific endeavor.
A board of standards huh? It is pretty strange that they would be so different on a big number, but it also gives us users a chance to compare the two products, using our eyes/analysis to determine who is right. You watched the race, I guess. You know who was in the race and what some of their previous figures were and you saw how Borrego won the race. I know \"visual interpretation can be deceiving, I still remember thinking after the Florida Derby a few years back that Harlan\'s Holidy was a derby lock, but in that case does it seem remotely possible that Borrego ran as slow as Rags said he did? It doesn\'t to me. It shouldn\'t to the Rags users either, at least those that are not blind disciples. I know a couple who are ignoring the number completely or adjusting it.
Although, I am SURE that Rags is wrong, I have to admit I do struggle with the negative 3 3/4 as well, especially since I have seen Jerry say it was possible it was actually faster. The reason I struggle with it is because I truely believe the horse could have gone significantly faster. Significantly to me meaning a second. I could be wrong about that, but he was really geared down towards the end and almost pulled up. So if the negative 3 3/4 is right, if we take a second off the time, what figure would that give Borrego? Well, the fastest ever for sure and probably ridiculously too fast.
Like I said in an earlier post, in this case I am not so sure it actually matters in the Breeders Cup as to who is right, TG or Rags (although I am as sure as I can be that Rags is wrong). The reason is that if you are a Rags user you think Borrego is too slow to win. If you are a Tgraph user you have Borrego coming in off a 4 point new top and very likely to bounce, thus also not usable at a somewhat short price.
But if you do form a \"board of standars\", I vote for Class as Chairman of the Board, with Chuckles as CEO.
Mr Roller,
Maybe it\'s time for you to decide for yourself which one is most correct or in fact better and then only use that one service. Too much data or worse yet bad data is bad for your business and or wallet. Quite frankly this type of difference should have helped you make your decision.
NC Tony
Hey Jimbo,
Now that was a \"priceless\" response.
NC Tony
it\'s usually tough to judge the accuracy of 10f #\'s, since there are no 10f preps and few big 10f races these days. in this case though, we will have ample opportunity to judge a series of 10f #\'s. a bunch of horses that ran in the travers, sar BC, hawthorne GC, super derby, dmr Hcp, and JCGC will be running in the BC classic. they will all be coming in on decent rest, and no bounce excuses will be accepted. even after the BC, it will not be possible to say that one # was definitely right or wrong, but we sure will know which figure makers did things better.
The thing with Borego number for TG is you could go either way, I might look at it and say well he looks to pair that -3.3 in the BC and then bounce off of it the 2nd time he runs it, or some could say he might bounce coming into the BC. I only have Borrego sheet for Rag\'s coming up to AUG 21 race at DMR.....before that he had a 2+ I don\'t know what they gave him in that race....and forgot what Jerry said the number was in the JGC race. Will a 2+ get it done on rag\'s number for this year I don\'t know, like to see what the last two were to read the whole line. I have no problem him running a -3.3
Jimbo-- the Gold Cup can only have been slightly faster (less than a point), and obviously I decided it was not-- that was just the range of the decision. Borrego was under a hard drive for about half a mile, and it looked to me like he could have won by maybe another 3 or 4 tops-- if he had won the Gold Cup by ten, would you really have trouble thinking it was one of the greatest performances ever? And if so, would it be because of the performance itself, or because it was Borrego?
With GZ and all the killers, it is really, really tough to give them that first big one-- I have to gulp and just do it. If GZ had not been in last year\'s Woodward, who the hell would have believed St. Liam\'s figure?
Michael-- the test of the figures from those races comes in lots of races. If you remind me a couple of weeks after the BC we\'ll put up the sheets from those past races you feel are in question, with the figures they have run since.
Possible replies to that \"board of standards\"--
1-- \"I would rather lose my license\".
2-- \"You would have to gag me and put me in a straight jacket\".
3-- Real answer-- the real review board is the marketplace, IF THEY HAVE THE INFORMATION WITH WHICH TO MAKE A DECISION-- the customers should demand that both of us \"make our case\". The key point is that Friedman will not put his stuff out there for critical analysis, or engage in any real debate about figure making or specific numbers. That\'s why I subjected myself to that torturous Expo-- it was my only shot to get him out in the open, and then 10 minutes before it the moderator decided that it would not be a debate (as it was billed), but a Q and A, with him supplying the Qs.
Ragozin has virtually no internet presence, and that\'s how they like it-- those that come on line come here, and are exposed to all kinds of ideas that the fundamentalists want to keep them away from (that\'s why Iranians are not allowed to have sattelite dishes, by the way, which doesn\'t keep a lot of them from having them anyway). Friedman\'s extremely cynical position is that the hardcopy customers, meaning virtually all of them, don\'t know about any of this, so who cares? It\'s not working-- but it definitely is working better than their customers seeing an open discussion of the JGC figures would. And I\'m not just talking about Borrego-- think about the other horses in that race.
High -
You should be thrilled, not furious. When opinions differ, there\'s money to be made.
Jerry,
I don\'t necessarily feel the races I mentioned are in question. IMO, the test of those figures will come in this one race. We have more than enough 10f figures to go on. There will be a few excuses in the classic, maybe a few bad patterns, but taken as a whole, past 10f figures need to hold up in the BC classic.
Jerry,
I just watched the race again. Respectfully disagree with your assertion that Borrego was under a \"hard drive for about half a mile\". Looks less than that to me.
So, I guess I believe he could have won by more than 3 or 4 more lengths. Maybe double that (IMO). I don\'t have trouble with believing it was \"one of the greatest performances\", but I struggle a little with it being the fastest race ever, by several points on your scale. (maybe part of that is it IS Borrego and not Saint Liam or Ghostzapper, but rather a former suck up plodder)
Granted, there is lots of supposition there and the more supposition, the more likely I am wrong. But it is my opinion, which probably only matters to me. But I am the one betting my money, so I am going with it......
Jimbo-- if Borrego had run 5 lengths better, his figure would have been almost exactly the same as GZ\'s.
Jerry,
I get that. Maybe my grammar stinks.
I don\'t think he would have won by 4-5 more, if I did, I would be very comfortable with the figure.
I think he could have won by double that more. (more bad english). Which means about negative 8 or so.
I don\'t know, like I said, I can\'t bet the horse no matter what he ran. Too big of a jump up.
Guessing how much faster a horse that was geared down could have run is a slippery slope and I won\'t make bets off of it. Too hard to guess.
Jimbo,
I am of the opinion that Suave got held up some before he made his final run. His final run seemed to be all out but late. You can also say that borrego made his move at the right time when Suave got caught up on the turn. The matter was settled early, but Suave was gaining late. We all agree Borrego was wrapped up to some extent, but how do you measure all of the above? You can only measure what you got in the end.
NC Tony
I use ragozin\'s numbers and have made my share of $$ using them.
Borrego\'s line according to The SHEETS since the 2+ at Hollywood was 8, 5-, 2+ (pacific classic win). His # in the JCGC of 5, I think, is more accurate than the -3 of TG.
The final time was 2:02.80 - not fast. Flower Alley figured to bounce big in the race because he ran a 0\" and 0 (Rag #\'s) in his previous two efforts.
Lava Man tapped out with his big win (-0+). His last race before the JC was a 5 and he figured to react further. Imperialism ran a 2+ point top in his return race sprint (a 1) and reacted stretching out.
Borrego figures to run another 2 in the Classic, which won\'t get him the Win, but may get him on the board.
I still find it interesting that no one seems to notice the pace at all.
It was 23.2 46.3. That\'s darn quick for a 10F race at Belmont relative to a 202.4 final time. It\'s also fairly obvious that Lava Man, the Rabbit, and Flower Alley are all pretty quick horses. They were out there battling. Flower Alley even seemed rank. They all collapsed to various degrees (Lava Man and the rabbit for various reasons besides just the pace).
Suave was approximately 1 3/4 lengths off that pace and Sun King was approximately 2 1/4 lengths off it.
Well, 47 is still a fast pace relative to 202.4. It\'s certainly fast relative to the final times of \"approximately\" 203.3 and 204.4 they recorded. Few would argue that those 2 are solid Grade 1 horses. So it makes some sense that sitting \"just off\" a fast Grade 1 pace might mean they are running pretty fast \"for them\".
A final quarter of 26.1 is not particluarly fast under any circumstances.
Just look at the final quarter times recorded by Imperialism, Grand Reward, and Sun King (and of course all the pace setters that crawled home). It seems pretty apparent that the race was falling apart.
Only Borrego was well suited to 10F, a Grade 1 horse, \"and\" well off that pace.
How is this relevant? I think everybody noticed the pace of the race. It\'s absolutely meaningless in this debate.
The one thing Jerry and Friedman would probably agree on is that they could care less about the pace viz-a-viz the figures they respectively assigned Borrego. In fact, Class, I think Jerry has posted 15,000 TIMES that he does not factor in pace.
HP
HP,
\"The one thing Jerry and Friedman would probably agree on is that they could care less about the pace viz-a-viz the figures they respectively assigned Borrego. In fact, Class, I think Jerry has posted 15,000 TIMES that he does not factor in pace.\"
And that sums up exactly why it might be very relevent. It could explain why two very competent figure makers with different philosphies about breaking races out but equal philosphies about pace might come to extremely different conclusions about how fast a race was. Neither of them considered the possible impact of the pace on a few of the horses when assigning the speed figure. I\'ll leave the complexities of the issue and which type of figure is preferable for those with experience making figures to toss around in their own heads. Since I have no strong opinion on the figures other than I don\'t think Borrego is a budding superstar (just another solid contender that likes 10F, a fast pace and weakening opponenets), that\'s all I have to say.
Pace just has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Neither side considers it. It may be relevant to YOU, but it is not relevant to the debate regarding this figure. You\'re just blowing your own proverbial horn again. HP
Just because he got a -3.3 no one said he was a superstar, now if he does it 3 or 4 more times, then me might just be the next great thing of his time. Unless the pace of a race is crazy fast, I don\'t think it really matters. I say if a horse is going to run it\'s top that day he\'ll run it. How many times have we all seen horses run crazy fast early times and still hold on, or horses coming off the pace in very slow times.
Yeah Class,
You nailed it. The reason that Rags and Tgrah disagree on a figure is because they didn\'t factor in the pace. Unfortunately your idiotic post doesn\'t factor that both sides have put figures on hundreds of thousands of races, without ever factoring pace.
But in this particular race, the fact that they both ignored the pace, led them to be off so far, relative to each other.
You just keep posting about pace on this board, like stubborn idiotic mule. Enough is enough. Borrego\'s figure matters. We are two weeks away from the Breeders Cup. People on this board are trying to discuss real issues. You are not in that group. You believe what you believe, others here don\'t agree with you and don\'t care for you to consider posting the same opinion again and again.
pace is the solution for everything.
Pace is why we have world hunger. Pace is the reason there is trouble in the middle east. etc.etc.etc
You can call me all the names you want and criticize my views as much as you want. You would do better to actually look at a set of pace figures and learn something about the topic before spouting off. Then you might actually understand what I am talking about for once, why I am making a reasonable case for what happened, and why there\'s such a huge difference between the two figures. I am doing this because I DO think it\'s important to understand how well those horses ran. This is simply my view for you to reject or accept.
The very rough estimates I use are:
A -3 1/3 TG translates into about a 117 Beyer.
A 5 Ragozin (roughly a 2 on TG scale) translates into about 100 Beyer.
Funny how Beyer (and every other figure maker whose figures I have seen) has the the final time figure somewhere between those two and every pace handicapper has the pace fast.
If everyone else is right, that translates into Borrego earning a figure entirely consistent with his recent past performances. It also translates into several of the other contenders being impacted somewhat negatively by the fast pace (which would account for Borrego\'s large margin and easy win since he was well off it early and they weren\'t).
IMO, the problem stems partly from not appreciating that Sun King, Suave, Flower Alley and others ran too fast early and did not pair up or even come close (though they ran OK when pace is considered). Without that appreciation, you have to give Borrego a very fast number because he beat them by so much!
On the other side, the lack of much willingness to break out a figure - even when it\'s the only 2 turn race of the day, the moisture changed, the pace was a factor, etc.. means an occasional figure that doesn\'t make sense given the horse\'s PPs.
Given the fact that the pace was DEFINITELY FAST and it was the only two turn race, I don\'t think it\'s possible to know exactly what figure Borrego ran, exactly how fast that pace was, and exactly what impact it had on several of the contenders that raced close to it.
Those that think they can measure all this exactly are living in a deep delusion. It would be nice to think that everything about a horse\'s performance translated into a neat number or formula that\'s almost always right. The game is more complicated than that. It\'s an even bigger delusion to think that the only two possibilities are a -3 1/3 or a 5 and one of those is right and the other is wrong.
IMO, based on the evidence (including pace) the most likely reality is that Borrego ran somewhere in between the TG figure and the RAG figure (his typical performance), Flower Alley ran OK when pace is considered (though not near up to his best) and Sun King/Suave also ran reasonably well when the pace is considered.
If you eliminate the portion of the difference between the two figures that is accounted for by pace, there would still be a difference, but not so large that everyone would be making a major issue of it. It would be within the range we see from time to time between competent figure makers.
Beyer gave him a 110, again this is where you didn\'t factor in weight and the ground loss in the 2nd turn, add that in and you might have a 114 beyer something like that......right?? Beyer is on the line of rag\'s number, like a 110 is about a 6 for beyer and a 120 beyer is around a 2
Kev,
You are correct that Beyer doesn\'t put the ground loss and weight into his figures and that would move them around a little. The numbers I used to equate the TGs and Rags with Beyer don\'t either. They are very rough.
Borrego typically loses some ground and that ground loss is never in the Beyer. I wasn\'t trying to do a perfect 1 to 1 comparison between all the figures. Just make the point that everyone else is somewhere in between the two.
Here are 3 other sources on the Beyer Scale.
106, 107, 109
It\'s not worth a long debate. It\'s just my opinion.
Class,
You just don\'t read what anybody writes, do you? Your points about the pace and performances in the race may or may not have merit. But they are NOT the reason for the disparity between Rags and Tgraph? Don\'t you get know that? Besides the selfish, annoying posts, I know you are not a dumb guy and you post on both boards, you must know that NEITHER guy factored pace into their figure. The very likely reason the figs are different is because Rags uses one track variant for the whole day unless a major change like a rain storm. For your argument to make sense, Jerry would have had to bump Borrego\'s figure because of the hot pace. Do you really believe he did that?
Saying that Flower Alley ran a decent race, albeit not his best, is a gross over analysis of the pace. He ran poorly.
Class, I have no interest in the pace of the Belmont race, but go back and look at the last 10 runnings of the JC Gold Cup and see the half mile fractions. Or use the Suburban as well. The 2nd quarter mile is a straight away, the half mile fraction is very often 46 and change. The pace was quick, but not some suicidal pace that would excuse the performance of Flower Alley.
That said, if you give FA a \"bounce\" in the race, he still has a shot at overlaid odds in the BC with his negative 2 and change races. Especially if Saint Liam draws outside.
that\'s enough,
jerry brown you are hereby ordered to appear before the, \"board of standards\"
special counsel ken starr will question you.........................
It\'s like this Borrego will be coming into the BC with a 3pt new top, I would have to say he backs up 2pt\'s to a -1.3 I don\'t think he\'ll be a key, but no toss, maybe he\'ll go off at 8-1 or so. I think Jerry said SUAVE got back to his -0.1, wow wacth out for this one then. Can\'t wait till Wed when the pre-BC sheets come out.
Borrego is 7-2 in the future books right now. He isn\'t going to go off at 8-1, at least it doesn\'t seem possible.
jimbo,
>Your points about the pace and performances in the race may or may not have merit. But they are NOT the reason for the disparity between Rags and Tgraph?<
I think you would find me less annoying if you would make an effort to understand what I am saying regardless of whether you agree or not. If I am not clear, I have no problem with trying to explain it better. This stuff is tough to communicate (especially for me).
As you say, the reason for the disparity is that each figure maker assigned a different variant. *HOWEVER*, IMO, pace may be part of the reason they assigned a \"much different\" variant even though neither looked at pace at all.
There is a very subtle difference between the two methods.
One figure is the result of an average variant (RAGs) and the other is the result of the race being viewed as a stand alone event (TG).
If the average variant is dragging the race in question down to a slower figure (RAGS) and the other is analyzed in a way that makes it too fast you get a huge difference in figures.
>For your argument to make sense, Jerry would have had to bump Borrego\'s figure because of the hot pace. Do you really believe he did that? <
He didn\'t consider the pace, but perhaps he should have.
If you would temporarily give me the benefit of the doubt I can explain what I believe may have happened.
IMO Borrego was not impacted by the pace. He was well off it. However, I believe that Suave, Sun King, and Flower Alley were impacted to varying degrees (not huge, but enough to matter to the race analysis).
If you start with the assumption that Suave and Sun King (and a few others) ran races similar to their recent past and pace wasn\'t a a factor, you must give Borrego a very fast figure. He buried them all by a huge margin. A very fast race is the only way to explain that result. So you create a variant and figure that expresses the point of view that Borrego ran very fast and the others ran races similar to the past. That\'s what TG did.
If you start with the assumption that Suave and Sun King were negatively impacted by the pace but Borrego wasn\'t, you can give Borrego a figure that \"approximates\" his recent performances (much slower than a -3 1/3) and the big margins still make sense. Suave and Sun King (and others) get figures slower than their recent performances. However, it would still be logical because in this case you are assuming that the pace caused them to run slower and get beaten by so many lengths.
Toss that around awhile and it will make sense. It\'s a matter of interpreting the result when you create a stand alone number.
This does not explain the entire difference between the two figures. However, if you give Borrego a 0 or -1 instead of -3 1/3 then the two figures aren\'t nearly as far apart. A RAGs 5 (2 on TG scale) vs. a 0 or -1.
IMHO, the rags figure is probably slow by a couple of points because he averaged it in with the rest of the day.
>Saying that Flower Alley ran a decent race, albeit not his best, is a gross over analysis of the pace. He ran poorly.<
I believe it is impossible to accurately measure FA\'s performance because he was impacted by the pace and was also rank. I do not believe he ran as well as he did in the Travers etc... but I think he ran better than it looks based on how badly he was beaten. Had the pace been neutral and he rated kindly, he probably would have lost, but by a lot less than he actually did in the race. I\'ve seen plenty of rank horses that chased a fast pace run like crap without it being a indication of poor form.
The pace figures I have seen for the race rated it 118-106. That\'s a fast pace, but not outrageously fast. However, the pace call number of 118 is for the 6F point. IMO, the 2F-4F calls were faster than that. 46.3 is quite fast (even if not suicidal) AT BELMONT when the final time is 202.4. If you looked at all the other 10F races at Belmont in recent years I think you\'d agree.
Again, I\'m not smart enough to put an exact formula on all this and that\'s why I speak of FA in grey terms. I\'m viewing him as not so far off form that he can\'t recover his best effort in the classic. If he gets an honest pace without being rank he *could* run well at a good price.
So I\'m back and catching up on the board, and the first thing I get is my blood pressure raised by CH\'s nonsense. So much for the benefits of taking a few days off.
At TG of of neg 3 3/4 would be the equivalent of a Beyer of 115 or 116, BEFORE weight and ground. Borrego carried 126 (at least 5 pounds more than the weight carried by the average winner, and around that much more than the winners of the other races on the Gold Cup card), which would be worth around a TG point, or about 3 Beyer points. Additionally, Borrego was wide. Point being, if you made the adjustments to the Beyer figure, it gets much higher. Not that it matters to anyone but CH-- but his figure ends up at least as good as ours.
Directly to your absolutely ridiculous, repeated ad nauseum, point-- I posted the sheets for the horses in the Gold Cup with the numbers they ran. As you could see, I did not do the figures to the horses who made your \"hot\" pace-- I did it mostly to Suave, Imperialism, and the Lukas horse. It was a no-brainer, within a very tight range. If you want to excuse the horses that did not run well because of the pace, be my guest-- but I don\'t do figures off horses who run \"X\"s, just as I don\'t do it to those that run on a dead rail-- it would result in giving out figures too good to those that are wide (which any figure makers who don\'t watch the rail will do. (See \"Ragozin, 2001 BC at Belmont\").
The pace may or may not have affected the race, but it had no effect on the figures assigned.
CH, do not respond to this unless you have something new. It will be deleted.
TGJB,
\"At TG of of neg 3 3/4 would be the equivalent of a Beyer of 115 or 116, BEFORE weight and ground. Borrego carried 126 (at least 5 pounds more than the weight carried by the average winner, and around that much more than the winners of the other races on the Gold Cup card), which would be worth around a TG point, or about 3 Beyer points. Additionally, Borrego was wide. Point being, if you made the adjustments to the Beyer figure, it gets much higher. Not that it matters to anyone but CH-- but his figure ends up at least as good as ours.\"
I\'ve looked at numerous stakes figures to get an estimate of your scale vs. his. It was a difficult task because your figures are getting faster and his are not. However, as a point of reference most of your fastest races each year get Beyer figures in the 120 range (+ or minus a little) without ground loss considered. If you added in the average ground loss it would be well into the 120s. Beyer gave Borrego a 110. He and everyone else makes the race slower. (most people have it slower than Beyer) That\'s not a statement of who is correct. It\'s just an observation.
IMO Suave was IMPACTED by the pace. So it doesn\'t matter whether you considered the Xs in the race or not when assigning the Borrego figure based on his performance. Even if you want to assume I am wrong, Suave had hardly established himself as a model of consistency at 10F based on one slow paced wire to wire win where his major competitor threw in a clinker. As far as I am concerned, no one has a strong case for what the JCGC figure is.