About right.
http://www.drf.com/news/dick-jerardi-preakness-tough-one-figure
Boy, it took Jerardi a lot of column inches to say that if IMLD hadn\'t fired,
Beyer would not have known what to do with the race.
This all seems quite ironic. I don\'t have Beyer\'s books right here (but I\'ll look later for the exact quotes when I have them) but at one time he made some very let\'s say candid remarks about the guys (JB) that make the thorograph (and the other guy\'s) figures. Now JB says he is on good terms with Beyer\'s boys so I\'m not trying to start any rift.
Beyer needs to write a new book quite honestly. His tenets about his \"figures\" have slowly, but certainly adopted many of TGJB\'s thoughts on figures including an apparent adjustment for wind and a more pronounced effort to \"adjust\" their figures through projection even when one race is slower than another (Jerardi\'s Fairgrounds article/example involving 3yo and older horses on a big day).
My point is essentially this: TGJB is having a profound effect on the way the most known \"figures\" (Beyer\'s) are made. If you don\'t think this is true, ask Randy Moss and see what he says.
Think there are two really important components to this discussion
1) Absolute speed of the race - How fast was the fastest figure? And how does that compare with the other figures given that horse for other recent performances?
2) Relative speed of the race - Speaks to the difference in figures given to horses relative to each other in the same race. As a for instance, a horse might be beaten 5 lengths and receive a Beyer or BRIS figure 7 Beyer/BRIS pts (which are much smaller than full TG points) worse. But on TG, the winner went really wide, carried more weight, and the beaten horse had an inside trip, and the winner might get a figure 5 or 6 full TG points better. Don\'t have Miffs scale handy, but this should be something more like 12-15 Beyer/BRIS points I think?
So it\'s one thing to make a seemingly proper adjustment to the absolute speed of the race to the winner, but if the relative horses finishing behind aren\'t given the proper beaten distance/effort difference, there can still be some real problems with the Beyer/BRIS figures for the race. But when BRIS has Orb\'s Preakness as faster than both his FOY and Fla Derby, you have to wonder if the absolute figures they are giving are well placed either.
A question that may not be relevant to this discussion but - Since Thorograph uses ground loss do you use Trakus data in the figure making at all meaning do you use their ground covered at tracks where they have it? Wouldn\'t that take some of the \"guesswork\" about paths and ground out of the equation?
Michael
If you do search in this forum you\'ll see its no, and why.
Most of Andy\'s negative comments have been directed at the other guys, and probably have mostly to do with those guys\' attitude towards everyone else. About 15 (?) years ago the DRF had one of their first Expos, and supposedly tapes of three different panels Ragozin was on could not be used (sold) because of Len\'s insulting and condescending behavior towards everyone else, Andy especially. For those of you who never had the pleasure of meeting Ragozin, think Howard Cosell, except less socialized.
I\'ve never had a problem with Andy, or he with me, though he has often taken on bounce theory and pattern reading in general in his writing. When I took the position on I Want Revenge, saying the big Gotham number would kill him, he called me the day after the Derby (and the scratch) to congratulate me for being right. And unlike Len, Andy has never falsely claimed to be the \"father of speed figures\". (See \"History Lesson\" in the Archives).
Anyway-- the key moment in understanding what happened to change the Beyer guys approach may have come at the 2004 DRF Expo. They had a panel with me, Friedman and Andy. It was originally billed as a debate (the only reason I went), I came loaded for bear, Len and I got into it, and Andy stayed above the fray. They made a DVD of the panel, you may still be able to find one somewhere.
At the end of the panel I went into a prepared presentation about how tracks change speed, something Ragozin said unequivocally in his book he KNOWS does not happen except when there\'s precipitation, a freeze or a thaw. I had contacted some scientists who had done actual studies of racing surfaces, and explained why Len was wrong, definitively.
For the most part, the presentation went over the head of the audience, and they ended up not using it on the DVD. (You can find it in the Archives section of this site). But in the weeks that followed I noticed the Beyer guys started taking more liberties, doing what Jerardi talks about in that column-- leaning heavily on the past figure histories of the horses, and less on assumptions about the track staying the same speed. What he calls \"Art\" as opposed to science. I would call it skill, judgement and experience, and it is based on science-- knowing the science says you can\'t rely on simplistic assumptions.
JB, you posted the article, but with this qualifiation, "seems about right". That opens more doors than it closes.
What exactly is it 'about right' about? That Beyer acknowledges wind as a factor in final times? But the article states there was a stronghead wind into the stretch during the warmup to the Preakness and that perhaps it also affected the final time of the fifth race. Then the article leaps to the conclusion that wind had to be a factor. What I have read so far doesn't go any further than mere rationalization. Ok, an educated rationalization, but still just a rationalization. Having been there the latter half of that day, I am not convinced of the significant headwind theory as the reason for the slow times. That would have to have been a very very significant headwind indeed, would it not? And if it is blowing into the stretch, does it not blow as a backwind on the backstretch? I need to be shown there really was a "significant headwind into the stretch" for the Preakness that day that accounted for the slow times enough to justify the final speed figures.There was one point were there was a distinct wind blowing the opoisite directions of into the stretch shortly a race or two before the Preakness. All in all,my recollection is that it was not a windy day. From what I can find on the internet about the local weather that day, . Certainly not that windy. Being a native Marylander, I know very well of the fickle weather hereabouts. But a gust is a gust, and while their may have been a few windgusts about that day, saying a significant headwind into the stretch accounted for the slow times, is a stretch itself. I'm having a really hard time accepting that. Can I get a witness?
I do not yet accept the significant headwind theory. Do you?
I think there is another, more plausible, factor. Namely, the soil composition of the track itself in conjunction with the weather conditions at the time. (near 100% humidity but no falling precipitation. air pressuress.) Specifically, I think that there was a relatively high percentage of clay in the composition. Note the orange-ish color to the track. If that is so, the higher clay content in conjunction with the weather conditions of high humidty but no precipitation, could make for a dead slow track that favored front-runners. Which is not the same as 'speed-favoring'. If, for all intents and purposes, you don't distinguish between front-running bias and speed bias when constructing figs, I can readily accept that and move on and still use TG figs just as much. But in the greater picture, do you recognize a distinction between those two biases, and if so, do you think soil composition (taken in conjunction with weather conditions) can be fundamental to distinguishing one from the other, considering final times and fractions, at least in routes? And maybe they usually add more sand on Preakness Day, but did not do so this year?
I can draw my own conclusions and make my own notes from there. As a handicappers, that's what we do, we make notes of such things lest they come back and bite us instead of feeding us. But I think it is very significant distinction, front-running bias vs speed-bias, for everyone, whether a figure maker, a racing manager of a private stable, an informed owner, or a $2 bettor.
I am not disputing final TG figures. I accept them because I accept your methodology even though I am not privy to its details. I don't have to be, I trust your reasoning ability, your forensic instincts, and your knowledge of this sport and the business of it. My question and point is that I think there is a good chance that soil composition of the track is a more plausible theory than a significant headwind as described. I am pretty certain any headwind that day was not so significant by itself.
JB, do you have, or can you get, soil composition percentages from various tracks for comparison? Is it worth the effort? Do the compositions change significantly through a meet, or day to day even? I have read the material about this subject on your website, so I know you know I am not coming from left field on this. I did see something from 2011 where Pimilico's soil composition was listed as 85% sand, and 15% silt and clay, but that was two years ago. Other than that, I have only seen it described as a loam soil. And of course, depth of cushion would factor in too. I understand it is pretty much impossible to get a clear read on such changebility, but reaching for rationalizations is not a substitute even for uncertainty. Please, be specific as possible on your exact take on the wind and track that day.
This is large and complex topic always in flux, I know. But so is bet structure, which is also something I need to learn more about - and the recent threads on that subject have been very helpful.
So, in the Jerardi article (not sure if these are Dick\'s words or he\'s quoting Andy) he says that IMLD \'hated the slop\' and essentially used that race as a throwout/non effort. Also, the idea that Because Itsmyluckyday finished 2nd, that, by definition, means he \'fired\' an equivalent figure to his Gulfstream races is something i want to ask about.
What about the idea that IMLD\'s flop wasnt slop related it was \'prerace security\' related?
There are quite a few horses who fire HUGE shots in florida and when they race in different circuits, they can\'t come close to duplicating those same numbers (for whatever reason).
Its possible (maybe?) that IMLD fired his best \'non florida\' shot at Pimlico and not a performance that was equivalent numberwise to what he did at Gulfstream.
A link to Dick Jerardi\'s article was posted here. He wrote: \"... with art, you have some doubt.\"
I don\'t doubt Jerry\'s figures. [If indeed that\'s a point in this thread.] I think you\'d be pretty dumb to purchase figures you don\'t trust! [Long story deleted about that.]
The doubt - that is, the real question to ask here, is: Why did OXBOW suddenly run the race of his life last Saturday? A negative ThoroGraph!? Was it just that he got an unexpectedly uncontested lead, coupled with the sun and stars aligning that day? Maybe so. Just one of those mysteries and the serendipity of horse racing? Maybe. Or else...
Prior to the Preakness, take Jerry and the best ThoroGraph handicappers around, and ask them what they projected OXBOW would run. Would any one of them, in their right mind, project a -1 here? No! None of them would! Jerry, with his essential sanity intact, said in his pre-race analysis what most would say: That a quick turnaround for OXBOW would make for an effort not in his favor. So when a horse runs an incongruently fast number nobody in their right mind could predict before the race, I see it as an \"anti-theory\" performance. Before the Kentucky Derby, a most respected clocker gave me a totally blah assessment of OXBOW\'s training that week, and the animal pretty much ran to his assessment. Unfortunately for me, after the Derby, that clocker went back to California. Would he have assessed OXBOW\'s training before the Preakness in a very different light? I\'ll never know. In any case, I think jockey Gary Stevens said OXBOW had displayed more vigor in his pre-race Preakness workout, which I find interesting. After being in constant training for a year, what could possibly invigorate this animal off his \"not a good sign\" last two efforts? A long invigorating layoff? Nope. Did he go to the movies and see THE GREAT GATSBY, which inspired him? Not sure. But I suspect he was injected with [allowable] pharmaceuticals before he went to Maryland, one of those wild west mid-Atlantic states with liberal medication restrictions. His injections - not any kind of horsemanship - is what provoked his huge performance. No doubt about that.
Chance
Given how slow-paced the race was and the total lack of humor, I\'m voting for The Hangover Part III.
\"About right\" referred to the overall appoach to both figure making and the day. Beyond that I\'m not going to get caught up in the minutiae (sp?) or the effects of wind that day, but as Jerardi pointed out at 1 3/16th at Pim they wouldn\'t be running equal distances into and with a stretch wind.
That's nice. I read the article several times and it says a whole lot of nothing. Did you really read my post? I know it's a lot of words but it is really a simple thought. I am just trying to be clear. If the basis for my questions appear to you as mere minutiae questioning an assumption that you failed to address as anything more than rationalization, forgive me for missing the greater point. If you want to dismiss the questions, fine, but you haven't answered them.
Your own website addresses with great ethusiasm the issue of soil composition and its effect on race times. So I can only conclude that you are either holding back or don't want to be bothered with thinking any more deeply than you have to maintain status quo. I am not calling anyone\'s methodology into question, only the presence of a such a head wind as the article describes and you apparently accept as fact. Were you there?
I stand by this, there was no significant headwind that day to account for the slow times., twice through the stretch or not. I am not taking yours, or any journalist's, or Beyers word on this. I was there. You all have a vested interested in 'believing' that at this point. I don't buy it. And now I will question every 'significant headwind' explanation from here on out.
As I said, I take my own notes.
1-- Our trackman saw the same thing Beyer did. He had a ten o\'clock wind (looking down at the track from above) at 16 mph early and late (including the Preakness), nine o\'clock at 12mph in between. Don\'t know where you were, or where they were, and can\'t see flags on the broadcast (I just watched, taking time out of a very busy day). But my people do this every day and know where the flags are where wind is not blocked by the grandstand.
2-- We do not get soil composition info. As I went into in Changing Track Speed it matters (especially moisture content), but there is no formula. I can\'t take soil data and turn it into \"the variant is plus 4\". The only way to know track speed is to look at how fast the horses ran.
3-- Nobody said the wind accounts for slow times for the whole day. The point is that for races where there is more distance run into the wind than with it the time will come up slow RELATIVE TO THE OTHER RACES ON THE CARD.
Thank you JB. I appreciate the sincere answers. It is all I was looking for. I can go from there. I will take your word now.
Regardless, it will take more than one race for me to stop using TG. You do all the work. I get a very fair price from you and my results are better because it.
Thank you for taking me seriously.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1lrfF6r9Xo
17 seconds in you\'ll see a flag.
If you asked the best \' cappers around here what integer Oxbow would run... and then added the info that he would get an uncontested, easy lead... all of those \'cappers would have a negative number.
Personally I do not think of Wayne when I think of top horseman, but he has a good eye and when you buy the most expensive yearlings sale after sale... you are going to win some races.
Lastly, what gets lost in the handicapping shuffle for most, is not the figure itself... but HOW that figure was earned. bbb
How many cappers would have predicted career best efforts for Sky Ring AND Oxbow in their 20th and 11th career starts respectively?
John T.\'s theory has some merit when you look at the TG figs for both of those horses.