Anyone care to explain why they finished so close together despite the wide difference in figures on the sheets?
Personally, I believe:
1. The difference was not as large as the figs made them. Ten most Wanted had benefitted from the fast past in the Travers and simply brushed by tired duelers instead of working hard to get to the lead.
2. The pace was very slow and Soto got the jump. When the pace is very slow, the full difference between two or more horses is not always exposed because they are only running reasonably hard for the last 2-3 furlongs.
Classhandicapper---
Your second point is backed up in the majority of grass races, especially the marathons. Although the gap for an average turf stakes race maybe quite narrow, the consistent 1 or 2 point differences between one contender and another can be huge.
PS: Anyone know of Mott\'s BC plans with STROLL?? He\'s starting to remind me of LURE.
Good Luck at the Windows,
Joe B.
As I said in my ROTW comments for Soto, if TMW bounced badly off the huge effort or if Soto went forward, Soto could win.
Look, no matter which figures you look at, you must have noticed that they don\'t run the same figure every time-- that\'s why we put them on a graph. TMW isn\'t a negative 3, he\'s a horse who ran that figure once, and since that is a huge effort for a 3yo, I would guess there is not one TG player who looked at that sheet and predicted he would pair it up. He figured both to bounce and win, and he did both-- my guess is he ran abround the 1 level (as he did 2 races back), and Soto ran another around a 2.
TGJB---
Now the interesting question is can TMW bounce back in the BC to the level of his Travers performance, which he will probably need to get the job done. My feeling is #1) the Travers was too strong an effort and TMW will not recover in time to duplicate and #2) Santa Anita will not be as kind to his tendency to close wide (especially if 14 go in the gate)
Joe B.
PS: Hank F. sends his regards.
I thought you would think that. :-)
I guess where we differ is in that you believe he really ran an effort worthy of -3 in the Travers and I believe he was only able to run that fast because he had an easy trip.
He never had to work hard to get to the lead in the Travers. He was the only horse running at the end. The other contenders killed themselves off in the duel.
What I am more or less saying is that a -3 with a perfect pace and trip scenario is pretty close to a 1 or 2 trying to chase down a fresh and capable horse that got the jump on you in a very slow paced race when you are only running hard the last couple of furlongs.
>Your second point is backed up in the majority of grass races, especially the marathons. Although the gap for an average turf stakes race maybe quite narrow, the consistent 1 or 2 point differences between one contender and another can be huge.<
Absolutely agree.
You are of course entitled to any opinion you want, and those of us who use performance figures in conjunction with pattern analysis hope that as many as possible who think otherwise put their money in the pools. But your original question shows a basic lack of understanding of what we do here-- we take variable levels of performance as a matter of course, and this one was right about what would have been expected.
>But your original question shows a basic lack of understanding of what we do here-- we take variable levels of performance as a matter of course, and this one was right about what would have been expected.<
I must have worded it poorly because it was not intended to be critical of you or your work. I do understand what you guys are doing and often agree. In this case I suspected that I already knew your answer but wanted to offer an alternative possibility for discussion. THere are often times I wholeheartedly agree with the interpretation that a horse \"bounced\" etc.. But there are others times when I am very suspicious of the initial figure because it was earned under optimum conditions (like for TMW in the Travers). In those cases I do not believe a horse \"bounces\". I believe the variation in figures is related to conditions like pace and the competitive nature of the race rather than a change in form.
In some case I believe it is even possible that the initial figure is wrong. As skilled as you are at making figures (and I would be willing to say that I know no one that is better), even you would have to agree that once in awhile the complexities cause errors in the interpretation of results/variants.
1-- Anyone can blow a figure. Even moi. There is a lot of judgement involved, claims of science from certain quarters notwithstanding.
2-- As it happens, we put a \"hot pace\" designation next to the Travers figure, which you can see if you look at TMW in ROTW, and the handicapper is free to make what judgements he will.
3-- BUT-- while there is a certain logic to discounting bad efforts from horses who contested a hot pace, explain to me how it makes other horses, who raced further back, run faster. There were other horses who raced behind that pace in the Travers, and they did not run jump-up figures because of the \"optimum conditions.\" The second and third finishers contested the pace, in fact.
>3-- BUT-- while there is a certain logic to discounting bad efforts from horses who contested a hot pace, explain to me how it makes other horses, who raced further back, run faster.<
I believe there is evidence that in the typical/average race, when the closers make their move into contention they eventually are forced to battle reasonably fresh horses that are in front of them to either advance their position into contention and/or take the lead. That is often enough to take a little startch out of them. When the horses in front of them are all tired from their own contentious early efforts, that task is much easier. An easy way to think about is to break the race up into early, middle, and late. If the middle is easy, that helps closers just as much as soft \"early\" helps the front runners and vice versa.
>There were other horses who raced behind that pace in the Travers, and they did not run jump-up figures because of the \"optimum conditions.\" The second and third finishers contested the pace, in fact.<
Well as far as I am concerned both 2nd and 3rd place horses were impacted negatively from their early efforts.
The others I would have to take a closer look at, but I would least make this point. The impact of the pace is a somewhat individual thing related to individual ability. What is a perfect pace for a very good horse, may still be fast for a mediocre one.
I\'m taking off, but you are missing my point. We\'re not discussing whether a fast pace helps a closer win the race by weakening other horses-- we are discussing how it helps him run a faster final time. In other words, how does being 10 lengths behind one set of fractions get him to run a faster final time than being only 5 lengths behind slower fractions, when he is running the same fractions in both?
No, what you\'re really saying is he didn\'t run a -3 at all. You\'re suggesting that the race collapsed, with just about everyone bouncing except TMW.
I tried to explain that, but I guess I wasn\'t clear.
In general, front runners \"use\" themselves during the first 1/3 of a race (sometimes longer). If they are able to run a little slower than average early and relax (getting loose is even better) they will run a somewhat faster final time than usual. By \"USE\" I mean the fractions and the competiveness of the situation (dueling, loose etc..) For most horses I am talking a couple of 1/5s, but for some it can be more.
If they run much faster than usual and are used harder in a duel then they run a slower final time. Duels like that are fairly clear in their impact when they are extreme.
Closers and mid pack horses experience the same phenomenon - EXCEPT - it occurs during the middle portion of the race when they are trying to get into contention on the late backstretch into the turn.
If the first 1/3 or more of the race is unusually fast and competitive, then the middle is often slow and lacks competitiveness because the front runners are all dead or weakened. The closers make their move into contention running on their own courage (without being used hard) and meet very little resistence as they are trying to pass horses that battled early. That more relaxed and less competitive situation allows a closer to finish in a faster final time - just like a front runner that gets loose and runs relaxed on the lead gains a similar advantage.
It\'s not purely a matter of how fast or slow the pace was. It\'s a matter of how much energy the horse used to get and/or maintain position in order be in a position to win into the stretch. Being used hard can occur at any time, but there are typical race developments as described above.
TMW, sat off the contested pace. When he was ready to make his move there were no other fresh high caliber closers he had to loop to get position, no pace strong pressers that were making their runs etc... He had two horses in front of him. One was totally exhausted and the other was very tired. So he blew by them. He was never stressed at any point in the race and that allowed him to run a little faster than usual (as well as win of course).
>No, what you\'re really saying is he didn\'t run a -3 at all. You\'re suggesting that the race collapsed, with just about everyone bouncing except TMW.<
Well certainly Strong Hope collapsed because of the pace duel (and maybe the 10 furlongs contributed to that too).
I did not see Peace Rules\'s figures into the Travers, but IMO the duel hurt him also relative to the Haskell where he was loose on the lead and going easy.
My guess would have been that TMW did not really run a -3 and \"ALSO\" that whatever the figure should have been, I would have expected him to run a little slower in a race where he actually act to work to win.
In fact, that\'s what I did expect in the Super Derby and that\'s more or less what happened. IMHO, that is not a bounce. Doesn\'t mean my interpretation is right though. (I\'m not that arrogant - most of the time (laugh).
Just tossing it out there because I do have a lot of confidence in the general issues I am bringing up.
Was the -3 for TMW in the Travers legit? Perhaps the Travers pace was not really that fast, and is not responsible for a moderate pace collapse. While Peace Rules ran his first 4f in 46.36, Great Notion ran 4f in 43.79, in the King\'s Bishop, the previous race, after a relatively poor start, albeit at 7f, while only missing a neck to Valid Video. Note the pace effect, as Pretty Wild ran his 7f in the 6th race, in 1:21.50 after a half in 44.83, while Great Notion\'s final time was a neck behind 1:22.14. TMW ran his final 2f in 26.68, not breakneck speed, for a final raw time of 2:02.14. TMW ran in the 2-3 path throughout. I appreciate that TMW carried 9lbs. more than Great Notion. I dont\' know the speed figure for Candy Ride or Mineshaft in their last races, but it would still seem hard to make a case for TMW against either of them, if they were to race together this year (which they won\'t this year with CR\'s declaration). Notwithstanding the above, your analysis of TMW vs. Soto was well done. With the award of a fast number at -3, perhaps you are correct to readjust the curve by subtracting the anticipated 5 points. Or is it the medication?
Ok i have had enough,i\'m going crazy. Let\'s drop it, your not going to change sheet player\'s mind and their not going to change yours. That\'s one thing we all can agree with. If anything you all could combine the two style\'s and work something out. Next topic...............
Sorry Kev, I have to make one more point.
Classhandicapper---I understand your thoughts and opinions. That\'s the beauty of this game. Everyone takes a different look at things. If you feel that TMW achieved his outstanding figure under optimum circumstances, then perhaps you can conclude that his number in the Travers is not a true reflection of him. I agree with you on how TMW may have achieved his Travers #, however it is still the number he achieved regardles of the circumstances. An example would be my thoughts on ALDEBAREN\'S performance in the Forego which came against a loose on the lead NAJRAN who was not tiring when ALDEBAREN collared him at the top of the stretch. My feelings is that the # he achieved was more reflective of what kind of sprinter he is.
>An example would be my thoughts on ALDEBAREN\'S performance in the Forego which came against a loose on the lead NAJRAN who was not tiring when ALDEBAREN collared him at the top of the stretch. My feelings is that the # he achieved was more reflective of what kind of sprinter he is.<
I also believe that ALDEBAREN ran a legitimate figure.
IMHO, jockeys appear to have a profound impact on how a horse races against the early pace set by the leader(s). A closer who runs 5 lengths off the an \"average\" early pace does not necessarily run closer to the leader(s) in a slow early paced race or farther back against a fast early pace. I presume this is because the jockey determines to a great extent where the horse is positioned during the race and frequently misjudges the pace in doing so.
If a horse always ran proportionately closer or farther way from the leaders depending on early fractions, then handicapping the races would be greatly simplified as most horses would then run the same final time in each of their races assuming they were in shape and avoided trouble.
I guess what i am trying to say is that i agree with classhandicapper to the extent that something(pace or whatever) not yet reflected in the figs is impacting the final times of many(but not all) races.
As I have said, I don\'t buy the logic of the pace one horse runs at affecting the final time of a different horse running at a slower pace, and I certainly don\'t think horses would put in the same performance every time if they ran the same fractions. In terms of helping a horse WIN (as opposed to earn a better figure) a fast pace helps closers because it strings out the field, helping closers avoid major ground loss (\"looping the field\"), which could result in a 2-3 length difference at the wire. But remember, ground loss is factored into the figure, so the TG number will be the same either way.
It would be more constructive if these discussions took place before the fact-- if a situation comes up where pace considerations lead you to conclusions contrary to those expressed in ROTW or elsewhere here, speak up, guys. Red- boarding \"this was caused by this not that\" has limited productivity.
>As I have said, I don\'t buy the logic of the pace one horse runs at affecting the final time of a different horse running at a slower pace<
I never said that. That\'s the confusion.
Let\'s forget horses and think humans. It might make it easier for me to tranlate into English.
Assume we are racing and you have the lead. You run average/slow early and I am behind you. I make a middle move trying to catch up. I will have to use myself real hard to catch up because you will still be fresh as a result of not exerting yourself too much early. At some point after using myself to catch up, we will engage in a ferocious battle for awhile before one of us wins.
In this sceanrio, there was obviously a point in the race where I as running at close to my limit trying to catch up and battle you for the lead. That taxed me and used up energy not available very late.
Now let\'s assume another race where I run the same style, but there\'s a third runner that duels you early and really hard. I will again make my same style middle move, but this time when I engage you, you will already be tired and slowing down as a result of your extreme efforts early. So my personal effort in trying to catch up and pass you will NOT be as taxing on me.
In the second scenario you will run slower because you used yourself harder early and I will run faster because I used myself less in the middle to catch up and pass you.
>I certainly don\'t think horses would put in the same performance every time if they ran the same fractions. <
No doubt about that.
>In terms of helping a horse WIN (as opposed to earn a better figure) a fast pace helps closers because it strings out the field, helping closers avoid major ground loss (\"looping the field\"), which could result in a 2-3 length difference at the wire. But remember, ground loss is factored into the figure, so the TG number will be the same either way.<
Agreed.
>It would be more constructive if these discussions took place before the fact-- if a situation comes up where pace considerations lead you to conclusions contrary to those expressed in ROTW or elsewhere here, speak up, guys. Red- boarding \"this was caused by this not that\" has limited productivity.<
I would be happy to from time to time. One problem we could have with a discussion like that is that I generally look at multiple sets of figures - Beyer, Logic Dictates and your figures (all mostly for stakes). So
there\'s lots of other subjective things that could come up that would cloud the pace issue. So it might be best to talk about the really extreme pace scenarios.
>IMHO, jockeys appear to have a profound impact on how a horse races against the early pace set by the leader(s).<
I agree with you on that.
Classhandicapper--
My last post on this, I promise. There is also the school of thought that class horses, especially the GR I or II types overcome any pace scenario. In most cases, not all, I agree with that. In my experience I have found that looking at pace figures for GR I or GR II types is mostly a waste of time. The final number for this class usually tells the story. Where I agree with you is that the final number may end up to be be more impressive under the more favorable circumstances. With a slower pace in the TRAVERS, TMW may still have been an impressive winner while perhaps running a zero or negative 1.
PS: Just got news that EMPIRE MAKER is out of the JCGC and perhaps the BC.....hmmmm...
JOE B.
I agree with everything you said. I think some very high quality horses have reserves of stamina etc... Last post for me in this too. :-)