I know this is off topic but there seems to be enough interest on this board to warrant sharing this interesting link.
It looks like Bonds is having the best season ever if you put any stock into this method for evaluating offensive productivity.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/schwarz_alan/1436689.html
Chris
I\'m a sucker for fundamentals, so I certainly enjoyed watching Bonds during his stint in Pgh. However, in terms of charisma, excitement, character,etc, IMHO Bonds has never been in the same league as Clemente.
Which is beside the point we need to be looking at today, as I don\'t give the Giants, despite the way they\'ve been playing lately, much of a chance against the Braves. The only opening round dog which I think makes sense for a lot of reasons is the Cards, but the best I could come up with after almost 2 hrs of shopping odds in cyberspace was +170. If anyone knows a better price & could post the site before game time, it would be very much appreciated.
On topic, if a horse is 1w around both turns in a route race, & goes 6w in the stretch, I\'m estimating that he travels an extra 12-15\'. What would that translate to in TG pts?
Mall,
I think the Giants can win this 5 furlong (whoops! I meant game) sprint over the Braves. The Giants have overcome some early injuries and are in good condition and peaking at the right time and they have been tested for class against top competition in the west. The Braves have been mediocre of late and have spent most the season beating up on weak east and mid-west competition (71-40 against them while only 15-16 against the west).
The Giants have enough power to jump out of the gate early and never look back (check their PPs over the last month and during their current win streak). The Braves are very tough to pass in the stretch with Smoltz in the irons but that will do them no good if they are looking at the Giants tail end turning for home.
The key will be who can get the early lead. It should be a good race but I like the Giants chances.
Chris
12-15 feet is worth about 3/4 point at 1 1/8 miles, but a gradual swinging out on a sraightaway wouldn\'t cost a horse anywhere near that much, according to Pythagorus, one of our junior staffers.
Assuming that the east to west distance, the bottom of the triangle so to speak, is 15\'. Assume also that the gradual swinging out takes place on a linear basis over 10\'. Ask your young asst if the distance to 6w, the other side of the triangle, isn\'t 18\' according to the theorum developed by his celebrated ancester. Of course, the 10\' the horse has gone forward over that 18\' needs to be subtracted out, so the horse goes about 8 extra feet, or about .37 of a TG pt. Not much perhaps, but I\'ve lost & won a lot of races by lesser margins, which is not surprising. What\'s surprising is that we were able to figure this out w/o any help from an alleged genius who has somehow reached the dubious conclusion that a hot power hitting team with poor defense is going to prevail over a team with a vastly superior rotation.
By the way, the same math would apply equally to swingin IN as swinging OUT in the stretch (or backstretch for that matter).
Chris wrote: \"It looks like Bonds is having the best season ever if you put any stock into this method for evaluating offensive productivity.\"
Interesting article. Do you? How much? It seems to me that this man has built a good timer. Now he needs to figure out how fast the tracks were and are.
Who was that European horse ridden by Dettori in the \'98 Classic who tried to buy a mint julep on his way to the finish line?
How much ground did he lose?
While I\'m asking questions, how many times did Strawberry hit .390?
OK, how many times did Darryl hit even .290? (Answer: Once. In his last year. 49 ABs).
Love the site.
Best Wishes,
George Brett
Bob wrote: \"OK, how many times did Darryl hit even .290? (Answer: Once. In his last year. 49 ABs).\"
Always knew Darryl was the type of guy who would walk away while he was at his peak.
Bob,
I will have the info on Swain by tomorrow...... the response will also take a look at the last ten runnings of the Classic, and see why the winners prevailed, and what path they took to get to the winners circle.
Mall wrote: \"Ask your young asst if the distance to 6w, the other side of the triangle, isn\'t 18\' according to the theorum developed by his celebrated ancester. Of course, the 10\' the horse has gone forward over that 18\' needs to be subtracted out, so the horse goes about 8 extra feet, or about .37 of a TG pt.\"
Mall: You asked about a horse that leaves the rail and goes 6w IN the stretch, which costs next to nothing unless it\'s done in a ludicrous manner. If it didn\'t, we would have to adjust the numbers for horses who break from the 12-hole and make the rail by the turn.
I guess it depends on what one considers next to nothing. An off the pace horse breaking from an outside post may have to perform the maneuver twice, & if anything I think the example I used is conservative, as not every horse is capable of going 15\' east to west in a mere 10\'.
One stride of a racehorse is more than 10 feet-- if he bolts he probably goes about 15 feet laterally while moving 100 feet forward, in a couple of seconds. To perform the maneuver you describe he would have to be standing still.
An extreme move at racehorse speed would be coming out 5 paths in a hundred yards or so, which costs virtually nothing, in measureable terms. But sure, it could be enough to cost you a photo.
Take a look at an overhead shot of a racetrack some time, and see how long the straights are compared to the width.
Meanwhile, I have acess to seats in the main building. Is there a difference between those and nominator tickets?
We all understand that ground loss is a significant factor in making your sheet figures. There are multiple ways for ground loss to occur. Racing wide on a turn is clearly one of them. And the one most often discussed. But making the rail from a 12 hole start is also clearly one of ways to lose ground as well. Bearing out, or lugging in, in the stretch is also clearly one way. Swinging out, or swinging in, in the stretch (or backstretch) to get by other horses is clearly one way as well. I believe you\'re saying that racing one path wide on a turn is a SIGNIFICANT loss of ground but that swinging out a couple of paths in the stretch is NOT SIGNIFICANT loss of ground. Have I understood your point correctly? Note, I haven\'t done the math. If you have, I\'ll take your word it.
Mall: I remember this getting some attention when Gato Del Sol won the Derby from the 18 hole. It was decided that his post cost him about 18 inches, I think.
Very good. I was kicking around trying to find out the length of a stride when I came across a site that not only had that but went through the math of ground loss on both straights and turns. They use different width for a path so some of it comes out different, but the principle is the same. Anyway, they worked out that on a mile track going 7 furlongs the 12 would have to travel a foot more than the rail horse to get to the rail by the turn.
http://www.horse-science.com/Distances.htm
The math is simple enough & my only excuse for not doing it myself, ala the Cajun twins of Bonapaw fame, is that I was up very late watching the Cards rough up the Big Unit, whose nickname, I am told, has nothing to do with his height. Forgetting about the horse in my original example, which was being steered like an F1 car, and using 300\' instead to tranverse the 15\' wide, the ground loss using the well know formula would be a little less than 4.5\". The one thing I was right about is that a lot of photos seem to involve less than that.
So Jerry, what is your opinion on the ground loss v. momentum issue? Some posters seem to think that if a jockey can maintain a horse\'s momentum it may be worth the ground lost doing so. Just looking at the chart, it looks to me like the ground loss, assuming say, two paths (and up) lost on the turn, is going to be too much to overcome most of the time even if you\'re riding a freight train. HP
Ernie Dahlman, who is a primarily a trip and information handicapper (and also believes in class, or used to), once told me he thinks ground loss is overrated. He\'s been winning a long time, although I don\'t think that\'s why.
My own view is that, like drafting, there may be something to it, but it\'s hard to see how you could measure it or do something with it in the figures. I don\'t think it can be a significant factor (in terms of lengths/points) because the figures wouldn\'t come out as tight as they do-- but for all I know they would come out even tighter. The two sides of the house I can see are white.
Upon further review:
The example cited was not that of a horse starting from the 12, but starting 75 feet off the rail, which would probably be post 18-20. So the ground loss from post 12 would be even less.
HP,
\"ground loss (two paths and up) lost on the turn is going to be to be too much to overcome most of the time even if you\'re riding a freight train.\" ........ I am a bit confused here. If a jockey is riding Secretariat (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here, substituting Secretariat for a much faster freight train), he is better off tucked in behind average horses than he is running two wide? Are you saying that a complete sacrifice of momentum for a speed/stalker type is better than running two wide? Do you realize how many races are won by horses running two, three, or four wide? Would you be more willing to bet MD\'o in the win spot if you think he will be saving ground by tucking in behind other horses with average speed, or would you like his chances better if he is stretching his legs in stride as he pleases, even if it means running two wide? (I know what Frankel and every other informed handicapper would say) Seriously, I must have misunderstood your post (in which case I apologize). Could you please elaborate.
HP WROTE:
\"So Jerry, what is your opinion on the ground loss v. momentum issue? Some posters seem to think that if a jockey can maintain a horse\'s momentum it may be worth the ground lost doing so. Just looking at the chart, it looks to me like the ground loss, assuming say, two paths (and up) lost on the turn, is going to be too much to overcome most of the time even if you\'re riding a freight train. HP\"
HP,
So Bill James, for years you have been leaving stolen bases out of your model. Do you think you are stupid, or do you think you have been doing the right thing? On your rock of an answer I will build my church.
Seriously, JB\'s reply, part of which he stole from me after I stole it from him after he stole it from Heinlen, was exemplary. This can\'t be quantified, and he\'s right not to try. And trip handicapping is NOT incompatible with TG. They get along beautifully.
When a rider moves his horse away from the rail, as almost every rider does in almost every race, he is expressing this opinion: \"At this point, something else is a higher priority than saving ground.\" Almost any rider can get almost any horse to the rail before the turn. The rider may have to use his stick out of the gate, or strangle the horse and drop back to last, but it can be done. Yet races are not run single-file to the stretch. Smart riders like Cordero, Pincay, and Bailey choose to lose ground over strangling their horses early. Why?
In his second book, William Quirin studied 1705 two-horse speed duels. He found that the horse on the outside won more races than the horse on the inside.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I would say that there are situations where keeping the momentum going is more valuable than saving ground.
To answer the question, no, Secretariat is not better off behind average horses and would not be significantly affected by going two wide. He\'s still going to win. Most horses, however, are not Secretariat. If MD\'Oro goes 3 wide on the turn and some other horse on the rail runs his race, MD\'Oro (according to the chart link Jerry posted) is going to lose about 30 feet on the turn (10 yards), and full stride or not, this may be the difference in the race. Frankel and every other informed handicapper would probably tell you the same thing.
If you\'re telling me that the momentum gained is ALWAYS going to overcome the ground loss, I would respectfully disagree. HP
\"Would you be more willing to bet MD\'o in the win spot if you think he will be saving ground by tucking in behind other horses with average speed, or would you like his chances better if he is stretching his legs in stride as he pleases, even if it means running two wide? (I know what Frankel and every other informed handicapper would say).\"
This is a good question if I use the upcoming Classic to frame an answer. In the Classic, M\'Do will probably not be behind horses with \'average speed\'. I don\'t have every horse\'s sheet in my head, but at least a few of them will be just as fast if not faster. If he runs his race two or three wide on both turns stretching his legs as he pleases and someone runs big on the rail he\'s going to be well stretched, run a 0, and lose by a length to a horse that\'s going to run about a 2. It\'s not to say you (and Aly) don\'t have a point, but I think ground loss is ground loss no matter how Horatio slices it.
I probably don\'t qualify as an informed handicapper. HP
Handicapping a horse race involves incorporating a variety of factors (including ground loss and momentum). I think we all agree here.
HP wrote: \"If MD\'Oro goes 3 wide on the turn and some other horse on the rail runs his race, MD\'Oro (according to the chart link Jerry posted) is going to lose about 30 feet on the turn (10 yards),\"
This adjustment is wrong (unless these are harness horses). How long have you been using it?
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the article uses different path widths than we do. It\'s basically a length for every horse you are outside per turn.
On the momentum issue-- my feeling is that while there may be a negligible difference, a horse will run his race if given a clear run for the last quarter mile, maybe even less. I base this in part on how fast they come home in paceless races (check out how fast With Anticipation came home to beat Balto Star a few weeks ago, and that was in a marathon). The theory is that energy saved can be used later, as long as you get a chance to use it. And yes, I\'m sure there are exceptions.
I\'m not using it. I got it from the chart from the link Jerry posted yesterday. I don\'t really figure it out in feet or lengths. I just close my eyes and imagine how much ground I think the horse is going to lose and I pretty much go with that. HP
JB wrote:
\"On the momentum issue-- my feeling is that while there may be a negligible difference, a horse will run his race if given a clear run for the last quarter mile, maybe even less. I base this in part on how fast they come home in paceless races (check out how fast With Anticipation came home to beat Balto Star a few weeks ago, and that was in a marathon). The theory is that energy saved can be used later, as long as you get a chance to use it.\"
1: Why do you cut loose slow-paced races? If the horses are not locked in late, they get to use their energy, don\'t they?
2: Since you like to add up the baserunners when judging pitchers, wouldn\'t it follow that the best way to judge hitters is to add up the times they get on base? Geese and ganders and all that. (What the hell is a gander? Seinfeld joke.) You prefer other stats when judging hitters, don\'t you? Why?
1- Good question. I guess the difference is that the whole field is \"locked in\", and the horse gets to use his energy relative to the rest of the field. One interesting thing about those pace races is that the horses almost always fit in with each other. If a horse is locked in and has to make up 20 lengths in the stretch that would qualify as an exception.
2- Because they show you hits, walks, and innings when they bring a pitcher in, and it\'s better than ERA. I\'m sure there\'s a better stat, but I don\'t want to work that hard, and that stat correlates well with effectiveness. Maybe Bob Barry will run a few guys for us.
JB,
Tell you what: If it\'s OK with you, let\'s leave it at that. Call it two for the price of one because we enjoyed it so much.
Now I have to get to work on Lindsay\'s appeal. Seeing her in that jail outfit was devastating.
Mall wrote: \"What\'s surprising is that we were able to figure this out w/o any help from an alleged genius who has somehow reached the dubious conclusion that a hot power hitting team with poor defense is going to prevail over a team with a vastly superior rotation.\"
Mall: Care to elaborate on this? Name names?
JB wrote: \"Because they show you hits, walks, and innings when they bring a pitcher in, and it\'s better than ERA. I\'m sure there\'s a better stat, but I don\'t want to work that hard, and that stat correlates well with effectiveness. Maybe Bob Barry will run a few guys for us.\"
How do YOU judge effectiveness? To know that runners per inning correlates with effectiveness, you have to have a way of judging effectiveness, and if you do have a way of judging effectiveness, of what use is runners per inning?
There are 3 major sports going on right now, none of which is called baseball. You need a hobby. Lay off the coffee.
JB wrote: \"There are 3 major sports going on right now, none of which is called baseball. You need a hobby. Lay off the coffee.\"
Fine, pal. You have until April to find in that stat something that is useful. You will fail.
I know the names of the first two. What\'s the third?
Against my better judgement, but while I wait for them to run off a set of hollywood so I can go downstairs and play a couple of races:
Batting average measures batting average, not effectiveness, and the same can be said of all stats. I understand (and Yogi would too) that my statement was somewhat circular (what\'s effective is effective), but really...
Bob Barry wrote: \"I know the names of the first two. What\'s the third?\"
It\'s a pleasure to hear from you, Bob. I\'ll give you all the clues that are fit to print. It ain\'t horse racing. As Malkovich said in \"In the Line of Fire,\" too many people are thinking about the next quarter instead of the next quarter of a century.
JB wrote: \"Against my better judgement, but while I wait for them to run off a set of hollywood so I can go downstairs and play a couple of races:\"
Great example, pal. Like you, I have always believed that the decision to bet a race should precede the handicapping of it.
\"Batting average measures batting average, not effectiveness, and the same can be said of all stats. I understand (and Yogi would too) that my statement was somewhat circular (what\'s effective is effective), but really...\"
This collapses from the weight of its contradictions. But you will have nothing better in April.
I know it\'s not racing judging by the way the national media (The New York Times excepted, of course) has followed the fix-six story. If you listen closely, Arnold Rothstein can be heard turning in his grave.
JB simply provided the opportunity to yank the chain of my favorite Avalanch fan and I could not resist the temptation.
Bob Barry wrote: \"JB simply provided the opportunity to yank the chain of my favorite Avalanch fan and I could not resist the temptation.\"
If I\'m your favorite, you\'ve never seen Joe Sakic\'s wife.
No, I have not. I need to get out more. Or, at least watch an Avalanch home game and hope for a crowd shot.
Bob,
I\'ll ask Joe to bring Debby to New York. Meanwhile: http://www.8ung.at/sakic/stats01.html
This picture doesn\'t come close to doing her justice, but it will have to do for now.
Speaking of the 98 Belmont, Bob Barry wrote a terrific piece for the Observer before that race, but I don\'t think there\'s anywhere to find it on-line.
none of those stats hold up in isolation --- you\'ve got to normalize for the year.
if some guy hits a hundred homers, and the league average is 150, he\'s not such a great player. (or, homerun hitter, anyway)