If a horse is NOT in the top 6 at the Stretch call, he will not hit the board. The Derby is a race thats decided by each horse\'s positional call within the race.
Let me illustrate:
I chose the last 6 Kentucky Derbies to point out some rather subtle happenings during the race. Among those last 6 races, there were 4 fast tracks, 2 sloppy tracks. There was a strong favorite in Big Brown, 3 solid favorites in Street Sense, Barbaro and Smarty Jones. These last 6 races were won by stalkers and closers.
I took all 120 horses and just used the 4 finishers in each race to come up with the following:
IF.....your horse is not his race placement position or passing horses from the 3/4 mile point to the 1 Mile pole, they will not hit the board. Why? 100% of the 25 horses that have hit the board in the last 6 Derbies say so. (I had to include both Brother Derek and Jazil due to their dead-head for 4th in 2006).
Examples from the 3/4 call to the 1 mile call in the last 6 races:
MTB 19 to 12, Pioneer 3 to 2, Musket 8 to 7, Papa 6 to 4;
Big Brown 6 to 1, Eight Belles 5 to 3, Denis 20 to 13, Tale 7 to 5;
Street Sense 17 to 3, Hard Spun 1 to 1, Curlin 14 to 8, Imawildguy 20 to 16;
Barbaro 4 to 1, Bluegrass 6 to 3, Steppen 11 to 6, Bro. Derek 14 to 10, Jazil 19 to 17;
Giacoma 18 to 11, Clo. Argument 6 to 4, Afleet 9 to 6, Don\'t Get Mad 19 to 10;
Smarty 2 to 2, Lion 1 to 1, Imperialism 13 to 10, Limehouse 6 to 6.
25 horses that made the supers and all 25 either maintained their running position in the race or were passing horses between the 3/4 and mile mark.
This stat is even more revealing: At the head of the STRETCH, with the exception of Wildandcrazy guy, all runners were in the top 7 at that Stretch call.
In addition, from the 3/4 call to the 1 mile call, 21 horses moved up and 4 stayed in the same numerical running positions.
Lastly. In the run from the 1 mile marker to the finish, 19 of the 25 horses were passing others, 4 horses maintained their numerical running position, and only 2 horses lost their numerical running positions (Hard Spun from 1st to 2nd, and Lion Heart from 1st to 2nd position).
The last horse to take the lead from the gate and still have the lead at stretch call was NOBODY. Not one of these really good 3 year olds could maintain the lead to the STRETCH call.
I know Miff will like this, but the only horse that did not have the lead at the Stretch call was Giacomo. All the others, MTB, Brown, Street Sense, Barbaro, and Smarty all won.
We all think we know \"how\" we envision the race might be ran. These last 6 Derbies represent a decent cross-section of how they might be run. We\'re likely to see a 2010 version that mirrors at least one of these type Derbies.
FWIW, at the 1/2 mile call, only 56% of those horses in the top half of the field eventually hit the board. Same thing at the 3/4 mark, only 56%. The race doesn\'t even start until between the 3/4 and mile point in the race.
Smalltimer,
Great post and a big kudos for your research about the extreme importance of getting within striking distance of the leaders during the running of the Derby by the top of the strech. This is to be so true during the runnings of the Santa Anita Big Cap when they were run on traditional dirt. Big question is how to capitalize on this very important criteria.....
Smalltimer:
Which pole are you calling the top of the stretch?
Interesting stuff indeed ST. Just last night with all the pace talk I decided to look at the the top 4 finishers in the last 20 KD and find out how many were in the top 5 after the first quarter.
I chose the first quarter of the race because while the position of the horses at the top of the stretch would be more helpful and relevant, it\'s significantly more difficult to predict what horses will be there as opposed to the first quarter.
Average Field Size -17-18 runners
100 Horses were in the Top 5 after the first quarter.. Of these 100 horses 24 finished in the Super. There were six winners, 7 seconds, 7 thirds, and obviously 4 4ths.
Average Field Size -17-18 runners
100 Horses were in the Top 5 after the first quarter.. Of these 100 horses 24 finished in the Super. There were six winners, 7 seconds, 7 thirds, and obviously 4 4ths.
Jack,
I think the data would have to be filtered to include how fast each adjusted derby pace was.Would think the obvious would show, in that horses in the top 5 in slower paced derbies fared much better than the top 5 in faster paced derbies.Also there could be horses that were 5th and 5 lenghts off the lead or 5th and much more than 5 lenghths off the lead.
I have found unfilterd racing statistics/figures, which ignore race dynamics, are misleading a fair amount of the time.
Mike
Indeed Miff. I did highlight the fractions and will post \"deeper\" findings later.
In the last 5, a horse in 19th or 20th at the 3/4 pole hit the super. And this coincides with 20 horse fields.
Somebody\'s gonna come from way back.
I took only the last 6 Derbies for the reasons I already mentioned, in addition, they were all 20 horse fields unlike some of the older Derbies. My rationale was to avoid making comparisons based on difference in size of the fields. Some were very fast paced early and the faster the more chaotic at the end.
2009: 22.4 47.1 1:12 1:37.2 2:02.3 (sloppy) POTN (3rd) P. Clem (5th)
2008: 23.1 47.0 1:11 1:36.2 2:01.4 (fast) Brown (4th) 8 Belles(5th)
2007: 22.4 46.1 1:11 1:37 2:02 (fast) H. Spun (1st)
2006: 22.3 46.0 1:10.4 1:37 2:01.1 (fast) Barbaro (5th)
2005: 22.1 45.1 1:09.2 1:35.4 2:02.3 (fast) Cl. Argument (5th)
2004: 22.2 46.3 1:11.4 1:37.1 2:04 (sloppy) Smarty (4th) Lion Heart (2nd)
The horses to the right were all in the top 5 at the 1/4 mark. I.E. POTN was running 3rd, P. Clem 5th, etc. Those horses actually made the superfecta.
Since slightly more than a quarter of those fields (5/17-18 horses) attending the pace (leaving aside just how hot those individual paces were, for the moment) were responsible for slightly more than a quarter of horses in the super (24/80), then the conclusion is...?
The corollary being the other (slightly less than three-quarters of the field) horses were responsible for slightly less than three-quarters of the supers.
So pick one of five upfront, three of 14-15 behind, and you\'re golden.
Add that to smalltimer\'s observation that the front half of the field at the pace call resulted in slightly more than half the super, you end up kind of where you started, no?
Jerry already mentioned the greater than predicted win % for \"frontrunners\" (defined variably) in this race, contrary to popular perception. Raw (pre-handicapping) probability of a win in a 20 horse field is 5%; in a six horse field it\'s over three times greater (16.6%). Numerators shrink, denominators swell. Apples become oranges.
Front end horses have their pace/trip issues; so do horses coming from behind. There are no-hopers on the front end, in the middle, and in the back. And lots of them. They all can cause problems for the stronger contenders.
Just because the % front end winners in this race is less than typical dirt races doesn\'t imply that front end horses cannot do well in this race, for lots of reasons: form cycle, twenty horses, distance aptitude, twenty horses, mental disposition, twenty horses, innate ability, twenty horses, gate issues, twenty horses. Did I mention twenty horses?
Don\'t underestimate how a twenty horse DIRT RACING field changes this game. Especially with how unDerby-like conditions on the road to get there has become. The trouble factor doesn\'t grow arithmetically - it\'s more geometric/exponential. Miff - that is the risk factor issue in this race, it\'s more significant than in other races, and it doesn\'t align with pre-race assessment of abilities.
Germane to this thread, it increases the likelihood of pressure on the front end for horses that tyically earned their way to the Derby by running up front successfully without such pressure. How they deal with it determines their fate. Everyone understands that.
Everyone behind has to deal with the biggest sandstorm on the racing calendar, bumping, jostling, losing ground, getting stopped. Jockeys lose their nerve. Only a few get a relatively clean, ground-saving trip. Most everybody understands that, too.
I see more horses screwed at the start of this race than any other. If two out of the twenty break in or out significantly, 6-8 horses can be affected. Add in a couple more breaking slow.
In Thorospeak, it means about half of the field will underperform their potential best number that day. Those destined to run a top will produce a pair or off. Those that should pair, will off or bounce. Those that should bounce, X out. Handicapping who will suffer is difficult-to-practically impossible, but to me it is a significant issue to factor in for this race. Of the remaining that get the opportunity to run to their potential, some will lose ground to avoid stopping or because that\'s their post draw and running style and thus risk placing (again, difficult to predict for some), some aren\'t good enough at the distance (sorry nyc, but it\'s not a non-factor).
So the end result is, on average, a roughly equal percentage of relatively qualified survivors from the front end and from behind paying off bettors in this race. Of course, we don\'t bet 20 derbies at a time, we bet just one, so the unique cast of characters and conditions in this version will yield a result that may or may not support the historical trend.
For every Fusaichi, there\'s a Holy Bull. For every Street Sense, there\'s a Point Given. For every Barbaro there an Afleet Alex. Is Eskendereya destined for the first part of the sentence, or the second? When an overly wound up, inexperienced no-hoper makes a right turn out the gate, or gets out on the first turn, it doesn\'t matter if the victim next door is 3-1 or 30-1. The outcome is the same. It can happen in any race, it just happens more often in this one.
Rich,
I use the Chart call from the official results which is just inside the 1/8th pole at Churchill.
This is the fun part: Why doesn\'t everyone just forget about the 10 furlong distance and handicap this race as a 9 furlong race? Dumb question, right?
With the exception of the meltdown race of 2005 and Giacomo, EVERY single horse that ran 1st AND 2nd had the calls at the 1/8th pole. In other words, whichever horses won the 9f race, won the Derby. How \'bout that?
First 2 places at the Stretch call at Churchill:
\'09 Mine That Bird and POTN
\'08 Big Brown and Eight Belles
\'07 Street Sense and Hard Spun
\'06 Barbaro and Bluegrass Cat
\'05 Giacomo (6th at stretch call, 1st call was Clos. Argument who ran 2nd, and Afleet Alex who ran 3rd
\'04 Smarty Jones and Lion Heart
In other words, at the 9 furlong mark the winners were decided. Any horses within the first 6 places all ran 1-2-3. That\'s why I play the super as
1-1-1/ALL.
It doesn\'t make \"sense\", but it works out. That\'s a probable reason the pedigree distance limited horses such as those from Boundary/Yonaguska manage to sometimes outrun their pedigree. They really only have to be in a strong position at 9f to have a real shot at hitting the board.
Fast pace, slow pace, fast track, sloppy track it doesn\'t seem to make that much difference in THIS horse race. In the older horses going 10 furlongs it won\'t work because they are older, more experienced, smaller than 20 horse fields, they\'re used to being roughed up or having trouble in the race, plus the majority of them are carrying a weight which they previously carried, they\'re not stuck out in post 15-20, etc, etc. These 3 year olds offer us all kinds of surprises and make it a total guessing game. I just play percentages. And history.
Slewzapper,
Nice post.
No one will argue the Derby is a unique horse race to figure out.
I can shoot holes in any theory, but isn\'t it more of a challenge to actually offer a different point of view? If you\'ve had success mastering the Derby I highly encourage you to continue. There are lots of ways of getting to the final decision prior to post on May 1st. I like to build spreadsheets based on what has happened, see what the similarities are and then play percentages. I\'ll continue to do so.
With respect to those on the board who are offering very good insights into what they think can or will happen, I merely illustrate what did happen, and could it happen again, and if so, why?
I am suggesting that the race is primarily decided at the 9 furlong mark. It may play out the same way this year, or it could be completely different. Most of us will be wrong when the final results are posted. And I\'ll have more data to look at next year to see where I may have went wrong. I\'m interested in the process of getting a horse or horses 10 furlongs in a position to make some noise.
Peace out.
\'Miff - that is the risk factor issue in this race, it\'s more significant than in other races, and it doesn\'t align with pre-race assessment of abilities\'
Slew,
Respectfully, no factor, including field size trumps/mitigates superior talent,all else equal.Escy holds the same superiority edge if only 10 lined up or 20.
The negativity factor of the 20 horse field is actually far worse for the slower, less talented horses than it is for the fast ones.
Mike
small-
I\'m not poking holes - I think it\'s pretty well known that this race historically doesn\'t change much beyond the eighth pole. A lot of that I think has to do with trouble through the turn for quality off-the-pace horses and the inability of unhappily-pressured speed horses to persist at that pace level beyond 6-8 furlongs. Given that history, how do you use that info to predict at 2 MTP who will be there?
My point was that the stats presented show that no particular running style has a clear advantage over another (unless you wish to posit a category of extremely late strong closer) when you include the denominator of the number of horses you\'re comparing. When people discount \"speed\" horses in the Derby, they are often talking about a smaller group compared to a larger group when in fact lots of horses from all categories fail.
Historically the Derby is won on/nearly on the front end every 6-8 years. We\'re getting due.
Slew,
Just as everyone else on here, I\'ll do what has worked for me in the past.
With the exception of War Emblem, any horse moving from the inferior Illinois Derby that likes the front end gets their brains beat out in the Derby, Cowtown Cat, Sweetnorthern, etc. The horses from Haw that came from way out of it have done very well. Musket Man, Denis of Cork are the latest examples. Doesn\'t mean any horses from that race this year will factor in the Derby, but if they like the front end, I\'ll toss \'em, if they come from way out of it, I\'ll use \'em, could be a coincidence, but they\'re typically bombs so I\'ll include them in the exotics underneath. Nothing scientific, but it\'s worked for me.
For 6 straight years the horse with the lead at the quarter mark kept the lead for the first mile. Lesser quality speed types chasing or the need to have the lead types will have to be tossed. You always hope you\'re not tossing the wrong one, but it can happen to any of us. Maybe this year that changes. Maybe it stays the same. Sometimes its not that hard to find the speed of the speed, given the difficulty of post position, getting out clean, etc. We all know the race changes at the start on an annual basis. We\'ve all played that speed horse that got crushed coming out and you knew you were cooked in the first 10 seconds.
Long before 2 MTP I\'ll know who I\'m playing and why. That\'s why we gamble and hope to get a fair trip. I\'ll take some good racing luck, but I\'m more concerned with avoiding bad luck. You encourage bad luck if you\'re playing against too strong of percentages.
Have a good one.
On paper, Eskendereya is the fastest horse coming into this race. By several lengths. His morning line will reflect that.
In reality, this race is sometimes not won by the best horse.
You queried about in another thread about value and risk. Favorites, especially strong favorites, should be able to demonstrate their athletic superiority, show their stuff. Control their world.
Trouble doesn\'t care whether you\'re a favorite or not, and his presumed running position may put him at risk for trip events. To avoid that, and having a perceived clear margin on the field by several lengths, I would expect he will be ridden clear/outside, if his post allows (the Big Brown trip). He can recover from trouble (a la Looking at Lucky in the Rebel), he can win wide, but his advantage going in would be diminished if that occurs, and if another horse is poised to move up and has a clean trip, the advantage may be gone.
An unlikely scenario, but not impossible, not unreasonable. The tote rewards the risk, no? At this point I have no strong feelings on who looks poised to move up.
Slew,
I\'m in agreement with this post. I feel all the pre-race exchange of thoughts and ideas is what makes the race so much fun to try to decipher. I tend not to spend as much time on the negative things that can happen to horses when the gate opens, it makes a guy be fearful of things that may not even happen. We\'re all gonna play our horse(s) in the race and hope we get out clean, have a clean trip and have the right horse. Most of us won\'t avoid trouble in the race. Some of us will get lucky and things will fall in place. I know I\'ll approach the race mindful of all the pitfalls, but I\'ll play it as though I\'m gonna get a fair trip. If I find trouble in the race it won\'t be a complete surprise.
Have a good one.
\"On paper, Eskendereya is the fastest horse coming into this race. By several lengths\"
Slew,
Esky\'s superiority \"on paper\" is incongruous with his superiority on the racetrack. His internals are off the charts faster than all in this field.His edge over these extends to app an 8 length advantage at the 1 1/4 mile distance.
Esky can regress, of course, but in his last two efforts he did not get roughed up or lay his body down like others who were forced to get into the derby.The derby is Esky\'s to lose, no horse has shown near the ability needed to outrun Esky\'s best. The added distance seems to favor his galloping running style.
Esky must answer the resiliency question, thats all.
Mike