when a Slow Pace notation is indicated are those figs adjusted or are they \'hard\' numbers and it\'s up to us to interpret if the pace might have caused a lower then expected #?
It means the pace was so slow that the final time was compromised. I treat those races as if I didn\'t have final time, just using the horses. Interpretation may be called for in some cases, such as when a horse is restrained far behind a slow pace, and gets a bad figure.
It\'s just one man\'s opinion of course, but it seems that in turf races over 9 furlongs, there is often a slow pace designation when the fractions do not seem particularly slow for a marathon( 48 3/4, 49, 49 1/4,etc). How do you decide & what are the criteria for the slow pace designation? On a related subject, many seem to assume that a faster pace will necessarily favor closers, while it seems to moi that there are quite a few turf horses which only exhibit a closing kick in races where the pace is \"slow.\"
When the final time for a race (almost always on the grass) comes up abnormally slow, I look to see how the fractions came up versus the other races. It is highly unlikely I have (or would) give out a pace designation to a fraction faster than 49 on a race longer than 1-1/8M.
Jerry, you may be saying this implicitly when you say that you \'look to see how the fractions came up versus the other races\' but I would think that you should look to how fast the field came home relative to the early fractions in the race. For example, if the fractions of a race are:
24.3 49.3 114.0 137.2 149.0 it would seem more reasonable to consider a pace adjustment than if the race went:
24.3 49.3 114.0 138.2 149.4
The second race is slower but seems more likely due to a slow surface as opposed to a slow early pace.
Thoughts?
Maybe you need a specific example to answer this but I\'ll give it a whirl anyway. If your final calculation for a race is within \"range\" whatever that might be of your projected # do you still adjust it even if the pace of the race in question is out of whack with the rest of the card?
If so, it would reflect in the final times of the other grass races.
The answer is no, but I also want to address what seems to be a common misconception. We don\'t have a projected # for a race. We look at ALL the horses who ran in the race, comparing what they have been running with the figures they would be assigned now. An everyday occurance has one horse exploding, most running about what they run, and the rest running X\'s. If we used a projected figure for the RACE, the winner would get that, and the rest would recieve bad numbers.
So I use all the horses\' histories to make figures. Fortunately, most extreme slow paces come on turf, making it easy to know when to subtract for pace. I would add that Time-Form does this far more often due to the frequent slow paces in Europe. They create two figures for each race--time figures (based purely on time), and the ones you see in DRF, which are equivalent to what we do.
JB wrote: \"Fortunately, most extreme slow paces come on turf, making it easy to know when to subtract for pace.\"
Subtract what? You aren\'t subtracting here, are you? This discussion is very misleading.
Cranky as ever. Welcome back. Yes, I am subtracting. If raw time (or the variant of other grass races) would give the winner a 10 and I want to give him a 5, I have to subtract 5 points.
Thank you. If your hangover \"remedy\" worked, I wouldn\'t be cranky. No. You\'re not subtracting. If the pace is slow, you detach the race from the other turf races run that day. Then you make the figures based on the previous numbers of the horses in the slow-pace race. Subtraction doesn\'t enter into it. In your example, the horses would get a number five points faster than raw time would dictate. But you haven\'t gotten there by subtracting. You have gotten there by detaching. By talking about subtraction, you are giving people the impression that you knock, say, two points off the figures if the pace is a second slow. You don\'t do this.
One more thing:
You wrote: \"It means the pace was so slow that the final time was compromised. I treat those races as if I didn\'t have final time, just using the horses.\"
In these cases, you don\'t use the final time. Again, subtract from what?
David wrote: \"24.3 49.3 114.0 137.2 149.0 it would seem more reasonable to consider a pace adjustment than if the race went:
24.3 49.3 114.0 138.2 149.4
The second race is slower but seems more likely due to a slow surface as opposed to a slow early pace.\"
Why did you muddy the waters by making the final eighth faster in your second example? Were these races won wire to wire? How far behind were the closers at each call?
Alydar,
The final time for race two should have been typed as 150.4, not 149.4.
My point was that final time of the race is perhaps less important than the relative speed of the final fractions, particularly if we have a situation with only 1 or 2 turf races that day. I would be much more confident that slow pace was the cause of a slow figure if the internal fractions look out of whack than if the final time appears slow. I\'m still awaiting Jerry\'s take on that.
David wrote: \"The final time for race two should have been typed as 150.4, not 149.4.\"
A second here, a second there, and pretty soon we\'re talking about serious time.
\"My point was that final time of the race is perhaps less important than the relative speed of the final fractions, particularly if we have a situation with only 1 or 2 turf races that day. I would be much more confident that slow pace was the cause of a slow figure if the internal fractions look out of whack than if the final time appears slow. I\'m still awaiting Jerry\'s take on that.\"
Asked and answered. If there is only one turf race that day, the issue is moot.
I need to clarify my last sentence. The issue is moot in regard to cutting the race loose. There is still a decision to be made about giving a \"pace\" symbol. One of the problems here is that horses in the same race will run different fractions. A slow pace will probably help a frontrunner and hurt a closer. Thus, if a frontrunner wins a race that had a slow pace, it might be a good idea to be skeptical about his fast figure.
Alydar in California wrote:
>
> One more thing:
>
> You wrote: \"It means the pace was so slow that the final time
> was compromised. I treat those races as if I didn\'t have
> final time, just using the horses.\"
>
> In these cases, you don\'t use the final time. Again,
> subtract from what?
This is an important semantic distinction to you? No-one seemed confused. The hangover remedy works--stop putting rum in the Gatorade. Now that you\'ve taken a vacation, you need a vacation. Agree with you about the jockey ROI being more useful than other jockey stats, but I still don\'t think it\'s that useful.
OK, I will be the guinea pig and post a few picks tomorrow using jockey angles as a factor.
It is important, yes. When a race has a slow pace, you don\'t adjust the figures for the slow pace. You adjust by cutting the race loose, making the figures in the same manner you would if there was only one dirt route all day and its pace was normal. Your explanation was misleading, and this is no less of a sin because I happen to agree with the way you handle a slow pace.
I\'m tempted to stop putting Gatorade in the rum.
JB wrote: \"Agree with you about the jockey ROI being more useful than other jockey stats, but I still don\'t think it\'s that useful.\"
The best way to judge a jockey is to watch him ride. They are like relief pitchers in this regard: There isn\'t a great way to judge them statistically. But HP makes the perfect the enemy of the decent when he calls jockey stats worthless.
The pace designation only appears if I cut the race loose (to use your term).
The stat I like for all pitchers is baserunners (hits plus walks) per inning. it ain\'t perfect, but it\'s pretty damn good. For hitters,the one the Village Voice used to run --on base percentage plus slugging percentage.
For those of us in Roto leagues, predicting player performance has taken on an air of horse handicapping with all the the \'juice\' out there. It would be nice to have a notation by each player -- \'S\' for steroids, \'C\' for creatine, \'A\' for andro, etc.
BTW, what is Scott Lake\'s record at the current Saratoga meet now that his stable is under lock and key?
This may have as much to do with the increased level of competition as it does with Lake\'s medicine cabinet. HP
Aly,
You are eager to say I am an \'enemy of the decent.\' That may be a crown I would wear with great joy, but again, I would have to clarify before my coronation.
I never said \"jockey stats were worthless\". I said jockey/ROI stats were worthless. I can see other stats bearing on jockeys that I think would have more value. Do they have a pronounced edge in results in sprints vs. routes, on turf, on a particular course, with certain trainers? - this kind of thing. As with trainers, I think it\'s valuable (as a side dish) to know what a jockey does best. Jockey/ROI is something anybody with a racing form or a daily newspaper with jockey standings for a meet can estimate for comparative purposes. How can you emphasize an angle based on what everybody else knows? This is why I started using sheets in the first place. I heard enough of that \'Cordero is on the six\' crap to last me a lifetime.
How much weight you put on jockeys in your handicapping? For me it\'s less than 10%. I\'m more interested in the trainer angles and of course, my crazy preoccupation, the actual horse itself. Reading Michael\'s posts, I guess there\'s a world where Rudy Rodriguez would have turned Secretariat into a high-priced claimer. Conversely, Bailey can actually speed horses up, and bring Jacques Who in first for a change.
If you tell me you lean on jock/ROI, tell me how you make money on it. If you don\'t lean on it, why are you arguing this point (asides from your obvious joy in casting me as some kind of villian)?
Finally, if you think this stat is so valuable, let me know what you\'re willing to pay for it. My guess? Not much. It\'s probably not even the fifth or sixth thing you look at in the TG data. I also find it hard to believe that this will inspire as much passion as the ever-popular \'most important length\' debate. Heh. HP
JB wrote: \"The stat I like for all pitchers is baserunners (hits plus walks) per inning. it ain\'t perfect, but it\'s pretty damn good.\"
Oh yeah. That\'s great. Let\'s add up how many times they have sex. Who cares if they get pregnant?
\"For hitters,the one the Village Voice used to run --on base percentage plus slugging percentage.\"
The VV has sucked since Cockburn left. I couldn\'t agree more on judging hitters, but I want you to learn the difference between a percentage and an average.
JB wrote: \"The pace designation only appears if I cut the race loose (to use your term).\"
The term comes from Ragozin. If you don\'t like it, take it up with him.
I\'m beginning to think you\'re doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Why not tell us every time you cut a race loose?
On the pitching stats I\'d agree with Alydar. Stats for relief pitchers - specifically closers - can be awfully misleading. Perhaps the most important quality in a closer is resiliancy. How many days in a row can you pitch before you need a day off? However dominant a flamethrower may be, if he can only pitch 3 or 4 times a week, is he as valuable as a rubber-armed sinker-slider type (think Sparky Lyle) who can pitch almost every day?
For starting pitchers, no stat is more important than ERA. Any other stat can be misleading, but over the course of a season, ERA is as meaningful as statistics come.
For hitters, on-base average and slugging percentage combined is good, but isn\'t that mixing qualities that are rarely found in the same package? Yes, that stat will tell you how great The Kid and George Brett and their ilk were. But most players will fall into either the table-setter category (where OB% is everything) or the power hitter category (where slugging pct rules). Only the rarest birds will excel at both. I\'d rather look at the two components individually, according to the type of player being evaluated.
HP: Unless you\'re quoting inside a quote, leave the single quotation marks in Britain--where they belong.
Arguing this with you will be as frustrating as trying to convince you that a length is more important at shorter distances. This type of thing is not your bag. Suffice it to say that you are misusing what Cramer calls wager value.
Thanks for the go round in the grammar rodeo. Makes your point. This is one thing I\'ll be happy to leave as your \'bag\'. You\'ve answered nothing. HP
Check out McGwire, Bonds, Ricky, Strawberry.
The combination of speed and power is rare but is also the stamp of greatness. Bonds is the best today and there were others in the past such as Mays, Mantle, etc. all had the ability to get on base as well as hit for power. (By the way, I agree that those two stats are best indicators of great hitters).
Very similar to speed and stamina in horses. There are a lot of very speedy horses and a lot of horses that can run all day but very few that can carry brilliant speed over a distance of ground. Those that can are truly gifted. Horses like Secretariat, Spectacular Bid, Seattle Slew, etc.
In my view, the fact that few can excel at both enhances rather than diminishes the value of the measure.
Chris
For those who like to waste time debating about sports stats and topics such as \"who was better, Mantle or Mays,\" I recommend the new book by Allen Barra (the baseball stat guy from the Village Voice).
Chapters include among others:
\"Getting Tough with Babe Ruth\"
\"Mickey Mantle vs. Willie Mays\"
\"Juan Marichal and Bob Gibson\"
\"Wilt vs. Russell\"
I don\'t want to give anything away but HP may not agree with a lot of what is written in the chapter on Ruth.
Unfortunately, the following chapters were not included in the book:
\"Secretariat vs Man o War\"
\"Arcaro vs Cordero\"
\"Ruffian vs Personal Ensign\"
I am sure you can add to the list. Looks to me like there is still room for a \"numbers\" book looking back at racing greats (running, riding, training, breeding). I wonder who could write that book? It would have to be somebody with good performance figures and good statistical data...
Chris
Chris;
It wasn\'t speed and power, but on-base-average and power that I find to be very rare.
While I agree that ob-avg & slugging % combined can be a good way of comparing hall-of-famers; when applied to mere mortals it makes for mushy comparisons (a slap hitter who walks a lot could have a similar number to a good power guy who hits .240 and doesn\'t get many BB\'s - how is this a meaningful comparison?).
JB:
I assume that foursome was directed at me?
McGwire - Frankenstein with some huge holes in his strike zone. I don\'t think his career oba is anything to write home about. There are loads of HR hitters I would take ahead of this guy.
Bonds - A jerk and the best player over the past 15 years.
Rickey - Another jerk and the greatest leadoff hitter of all time. The power is nice, but it was just the cherry on a hot fudge sundae.
Strawberry - Is his inclusion an attempted non-sequiter? Did he ever hit 300? How many times did he get 100 walks?
Outside of Bonds, tell me someone from the last 50 years who could provide both power and average (ba and/or oba) - over the course of their career - in the manner of Ted Williams or George Brett.
bb
ps - did not check out the BB encyclopedia over the weekend (the library is upstate, not in my nyc hovel), but now my interest is piqued. I\'ll see what I can dig up on this subject later this week or on the weekend.
I think you will find that McGwire and Strawberry had higher oba\'s than you think.
Derby 1592:
I tried to get you interested in Bill James a year ago. Then, nothing. Now, this. Something really wrong is going on here.
I don\'t want to read \"In my view.\" That is Bob Dole, pal.
Bob Barry: Please dig up a ballpark adjustment, too.
Alydar;
Hey, I never claimed to be a Jamesian. Don\'t you have that in one of the Baseball Abstracts?
Seriously, I\'ll see what I can find, but the Baseball Encyclopedia is my only baseball reference book, and I don\'t think they have anything like that in there. I\'ll see what I can do.
I think for this statistical question (where slugging percentage will count for more than half the total) the era in which one played will have more influence than the home ballpark of the player in question. The post-\'94 era is on a par with the 30\'s in terms of power stats. Even playing in little old Fenway, Ted Williams is at a disadvantage against current sluggers. And George Brett playing in Royals Stadium? He should get ten to twenty pounds from Bonds and McGwire.
TGJB;
I\'ll check out your four against my two, as well as the ones who (I\'m guessing) will be right there towards the top. Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Robinson, Jackson (Shoeless Joe, not Reggie), Foxx, Greenberg, McCovey.
I\'m guessing the following will not be as high up the list as others might suspect. DiMaggio (oba not that great), Cobb (no power), Killebrew & Schmidt (relatively low ba\'s).
Who am I leaving out>
bb
Bob: Hornsby?
The other stuff late tonight.
Bob,
Again, I don\'t want to give anything away in the book but Schmidt is much better than you think if you look at OBA as opposed to batting average and he also led the lead in home runs 8 times.
You should read the book (Clearing the Bases by Allen Barra). Short essay-like chapters. You may not agree with his thesis but he makes some interesting points. He definitely raised my opinion of Schmidt.
Chris
Alydar;
Yes. Thanks. He\'s the only player ever traded after a triple crown season, yes?
I\'ll enjoy the rest in the later AM.
Bob
Chris;
I may have underrated Schmidt a bit. I think the shorthand I used this afternoon was penalizing guys without great ba\'s backing up their power, especially if they were prone to striking out (figuring they would frequently get challenged rather than walked - having no idea of their actual oba\'s). Now that I think about Schmidt a little more I remember a guy with a hole up and in ... but with a pretty good eye who could lay off the junk low and away. His oba is probably better than I thought - his lifetime ba is what? @ 285?
On Barra, thanks for the tip. I always liked his stuff in the Voice when I saw it. Now I see a freelance thing once in a while. I\'ll pick it up.
Belated thanks for your modeling this spring. You added a lot to the Triple Crown reading here!
Bob
Bob wrote:
\"Yes. Thanks. He\'s the only player ever traded after a triple crown season, yes?\"
No. He was traded a couple of years later, I think. I believe Chuck Klein was traded right after he won it. Hornsby will do well with this method, better than McGwire and Schmidt, and much better than Darryl Strawberry, for God\'s sake, but my experience is that Babe Ruth usually dominates these things.
\"I\'ll enjoy the rest in the later AM.\"
I\'m sorry. It will have to be Tuesday night. You wrote many interesting things, and I\'m too tired to do them justice now.
Bob,
If you do read the book, let me know if it changes your view of Schmidt.
Out of curiosity, give me your \"holes in his swing\" analysis of Barry Bonds. Statistically, he has been off the charts in recent years and he is the modern poster child for why OBA and slugging are much more meaningful stats than average, home runs and RBI. He gets pitched around almost anytime there is somebody on base or in the late innings.
Chris
P.S. Schmidt\'s lifetime batting average was a lowly .267 but his OBA was a sparkling .384 as compared to say, Pete Rose who had a lifetime OBA of only .377. That little tidbit blew me away.
Bob: Double sorry. I need another day or two. I\'m trying to find some stuff, but this place ain\'t cooperating.
Chris;
I will find the book and let you know what I think. I didn\'t really have a negative view on Schmidt (consistent, sturdy, great glove, great power) - I just didn\'t think his OBA was as strong as it is.
Does Bonds have a hole in his swing these days? I\'d like to line up his stance from 1990 with his stance of today. My guess is that he has moved closer to the plate (the partial body armor helps), which allows him to put a good swing on almost anything over the plate. By crowding the plate he does not have to (defensively) slap the pitches on the outer part of the plate to left. The stuff that veers inside can be yanked foul because his swing is so quick.
This stance, plus his compact swing (as opposed to the longer, loopier swings of Schmidt and McGwire) goes a long way towards filling the high-and-tight & low-and-away holes that are common to most hitters. I\'d guess that Schmidt\'s oba got better over time as he improved on laying off the low-and-away stuff. The high-and-tight stuff will always be a problem for the Schmidts and McGwires who need to extend their arms to generate the bulk of their power.
That said, all hitters have holes in their swings. But in the expanded baseball universe of today, the percentage of pitchers who are able to direct pitches to these holes with pace and movement has never been lower. In other words, a hitter\'s hole is not constant - it is related to who is throwing pitches towards that hole. And Barry Bonds will face Johnson and Schilling only about half as often as Willie Mays had to face Spahn and Sain.
If opposing managers and pitchers were not so careful in pitching to Bonds, he would win the Triple Crown in a gallop.
Regarding your ps, that is a huge split between ba and oba for Schmidt ... wow. As for Rose, the oba does not surprise. He got pitched to because he was not a power threat and he had all those monsters hitting behind him. But Rose beings me to another subject (sorry, this is dragging on I know).
I think this discussion on baseball stats is an interesting companion piece to the Jockey ROI discussion that is ongoing - is there value in these stats?
While Rose\'s lifetime oba is not that great for a leadoff hitter (I\'d guess Rickey\'s is 40 or 50 points higher), and though he was an average fielder in any of the positions he played, he is still one of the great winners in the history of the game. Yes, he was on good and great teams, but he also had incredible intangibles - competitiveness, desire, smarts - and mostly (for lack of a better word) \"heart\".
The reason I don\'t really subscribe fully to the Bill James view on things is that he wants to be able to measure everything. But certain things defy measurement. Ted Williams and Bill James don\'t think swinging at balls is a good idea, yet Yogi Berra and Roberto Clemente are two bad ball hitters that went all the way to Cooperstown.
But I digress. What made Rose a Rose are his intangibles. Two moments that define Pete Rose for me both happened - not coincidentially - in the 1980 World Series. The Royals were the better team. But Rose willed that Phillies team to their only WS crown.
Moment \"A\". Foul pop along the dugout. Phillies catcher (Boone?) and first baseman Rose converge of the play. The catcher gets there first, closes his mitt prematurely, and the ball continues earthward. Rose, who never once stopped playing, crouches down and snatches the ball a few inches off the ground. The most amazing 2-3 play I have ever seen.
Moment \"B\". The Phillies are trailing in the Series and are in a tight game with Dennis Leonard (one of the top hard-throwing righthanders of the day). Leonard comes down and in, way in, with a fastball. Rose does not move an inch. The pitch smacks into his shin. Rose stares out at Leonard and sneers ... as if saying \"Is that all you got?\".
I hated the guy. He did not have a lot of talent. And, despite all of his great statistics, his greatest attributes were unmeasureable. What player today is capable of producing either \"A\" or \"B\"? Much less both. Statistics can be great. But sometimes greatness can only be seen or felt - not measured.
Bob
JB/Alydar;
From tonight through Monday I\'ll be upstate, where I have email but not internet access.
I\'m dying to break out the Baseball Encyclopedia and see how all the greats stack up on the slugging/on-base combo.
JB, if I email you can you post for me? And can you send me Alydar\'s post via email so I don\'t have to wait until monday night?
Thanks,
Bob
Bob,
I figured you or someone else would bring up the \"intangibles\" when I mentioned Rose. I will always prefer the fast horse to the horse with \"heart\" but I can appreciate the intangibles a little more when it comes to people. I coach youth sports and I definitely value those intangibles in a ballplayer.
Actually, Allen Barra has a great line in his book that fits nicely with this very topic.
\"Some men inspire awe while others inspire confidence.\"
I think that sums it up pretty well.
Bonds inspires awe.
Rose inspired confidence.
Chris
Frank Thomas put up numbers the first 7 years of his career that had him streaking to the Hall of Fame: BA over .320, 100+ walks, runs scored, RBI, 30+ HR, didn\'t strike out much, 2 MVP awards. Only 4 or 5 others have EVER had comparable numbers.
Unfortunately he has become \"The Big Skirt\", the torn triceps muscle injury last year has him completely out of whack.
Bob: Half of this will be off topic, a big no no on this board. Do you mind if we do it through email? LindsayD88@yahoo.com
Thanks.