I would highlight that I think Smarty actually proves the point about pedigree instead of contradicting it
Smarty ran his top going a 1 1/16. He ran 3.75 negative two races before the Derby
both his final prep at 1 1/8 and his Derby at 1 1/4 were \"off\" races at 1.75 negative
As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, it\'s ok if you might have distance limitations if you are so much faster than the others to begin with but that\'s not the case for any of them this year
And before anyone says \"what about Funny Cide\" he a) didn\'t run a new top in the Derby which this years winner will almost certainly have to do given how tightly grouped the numbers are, and b) he didn\'t run the fastest race in the Derby. Empire Maker ran a full point faster
I think both Smarty and Funny Cide contribute to the body of evidence that it\'s tough to assume that a horse that doesn\'t have the pedigree will move forward in the Derby
Jim,
Out of respect I waited a day on this to respond. (was hoping somebody else would comment instead).
I can see why you would make this point. So it is a hard debate for you/I to have. It is almost like a religious debate. Who is right about religion?
You are looking at the TG figure WAY MORE definitively than I am, although we both use the product. There is no way on God\'s green earth that I could conceive of declaring Smarty Jones\' facile Derby win an \"off race\" and therefore tie it into this argument.
To begin with, it was \"in line\" from a performance perspective with both his Rebel and Arkansas Derby, so I would consider it at or near his top. But, even if I did concede it was an \"off\" race, considering they ran in a 20 horse field, in 4 inches of rain, declaring the distance as the factor that kept him from running his best figure would WAY TOO FAR a leap for me. It wasn\'t the soup he ran in?
The bigger reason we would disagree is why I consider his Rebel \"in line\" as opposed to such a top. He got \"phony wide\" ground loss factored into that figure. Yes, the geometry was correct, but it was one of those comfortable, off the cheap speed, in an outer path, waiting to pounce, trips.
There was a guy on this board years back, perhaps ClassHandicapper, but maybe not, that used to talk about the need for \"performance figures\" as opposed to \"speed figures\". By all counts, all of us on this board know this is a multi-dimensional game, with so many layers to it, such a hard puzzle to figure out. Any attempt to \"limit\" the dimensions and simplify the puzzle is wrong, IMO. At the simplest level, a BEYER figure is sort of a one dimensional assessment of a performance. I don\'t understate the math involved and the variables, but it is missing some aspects. Hence, the creation of Thorograph figures and its competitors. they felt that ground loss and weight carried were too big of a miss in the puzzle and TGJB and others took the Beyer work to the next level. And we all on this board, appreciate that and use the figures. But guess what, it isn\'t just about geometry as ground loss isn\'t the \"end all\" to what is missing. It really is a physics problem in my mind, that includes some geometry. it is about energy spent by the horse. Each horse has only so much of it, and \"yes\" ground loss spends some of that energy, hence it affects the figure. But energy spent can just as if not more affected by running against a strong bias. Running on the lead on a dead speed track will destroy a performance, regardless of ground loss. Or trying to make up ground on a track where speed carries takes up energy and affects performance.
so, when I say \"phony ground loss\", TGJB has sometimes replied with cracks about geometry rules or Euclid and it isn\'t that I am disagreeing with his math, but when a horse is sitting off a nice target, in the 2 path, unencumbered, and comfortable, there are few better trips in racing, and the \"ground loss\" in a figure like that, is \"phony\", to a degree. Whereas a horse that is trying to accelerate on the far turn, getting spun into the 4 path, is using a ton of energy to do that and that ground loss can even be more of an impact to his performance than the geometry involved.
I guess the bottom line is that while us sheet players scoff to a degree at people that think Beyer figures are the \"end all\" to a performance assessment, I think u are missing it almost as badly when u look at the TG through one lens, without assessing the other factors. Jim, I could almost envision the kool aid dripping onto your shirt, as you typed this post about Smarty Jones\' \"off race\" in the DErby... :)
Good luck,
Jim
hah,
awesome post, absolutely love it
totally hear where you are coming from on alot of this and I agree with alot of it
that\'s why you and I (whether we are right or wrong) aren\'t as bullish on Arod as the numbers say we should be. he got that perfect trip you describe and couldn\'t do anything with it
Jimbo-- I don\'t agree with all that (obviously), but that\'s a hell of a post. I will also say I\'ve never said a figure tells you everything, or that trip handicapping is useless.
Further on your initial point-- as I have pointed out to Covello, Orb ran some poorer races after the Derby at 1 1/4 and longer. Does that mean he couldn\'t get the distance?
funny only time JB admits to the figures not telling us the whole story are when they don\'t prove his point that pedigree doesn\'t matter :)
I am kidding just to be clear!!!!!!
I would hope so...
What I would like to see is someone go into the archives, and use some kind of subjective criteria-- Dosage even, or dividing pedigrees into A (plus distance), B (neutral), C (neg distance). Then see what they all ran in the Derby relative to their previous tops in routes.
If you use Dosage it has to be what it was before they ran, they change that stuff retroactively.
I could make a lot of figures look good doing that...
How do you go about determining if a horse\'s pedigree is distance limiting?
Dosage Index? Center of Distribution??
Maybe it\'s because I\'m younger and I can\'t rattle off all facts about Dams and Sires and their history...
KMart
that would be a great exercise but the pedigree part is very arbitrary
people look at pedigrees very differently and we are even seeing that in the recent great discussions on the board here
some focus on sire, some on dam sire and others much better into the dam pedigree
my firend who by far has the best track record of anyone I have seen (including the so called experts in the media) of predicting who can get the derby distance is very focused on pedigree deep into the dam\'s side as well as a number of other factors including dirt vs turf pedigree
he was the one guy I knew who said Big Brown was perfectly bred for the distance while many (including me) argued otherwise
Point of all that is that if my buddy was doing that A, B, C breakdown, he would have a very different looking list than many others so it\'s hard to see how this analysis could be conclusive
KMart,
please see my response to JB in this thread
I have a friend who is brilliant at this and so I generally just follow his lead.
Used to doubt him but his track record is too good now
he sent me his list yesterday of the top 30 contenders. If people knew his track record of being differentiated and right on those who can get the derby distance, they would pay alot of money for his analysis
He must have loved Orb in the Belmont. And maybe hated the Midnight Lute who ran a top last year in the Derby.
See if he\'ll give you some guidelines, and have someone do the study I described.
Listen, I don\'t doubt your friend has a good general opinion on distance ability. But your discussion is based on winners, which tremendously reduces the sample size. Since we deal with figures here, why don\'t you just use his list for the last few years, and break down how ALL the horses ran accordingly, relative to their previous route tops.
I have been pretty clear on the board the last few years in my view that the Belmont is a totally different animal
As a matter of fact, my buddy was one of the main reasons I played Palice Malice so heavy in the Belmont last year
We both had Orb in the Derby and we both tossed Ord in the Belmont and played Palice Malice (both picks posted here ahead of time, no redboarding)
need grinder style to win Belmont, ok to be one paced in that race
very different for derby, need some kind of turn of foot in a 20 horse field
the turn of foot is something that can be determined by either pedigree or previous race performance
General Arod doesn\'t have it, at least while running up close to the pace like he has been in the last few races
Boy, good thing for me Constitution is out then.
huh?
My horse v horse bet with Jimbo...
Do you have your friend\'s lists from past Derbies?
I do have my friend\'s list from past derbies but that\'s his list to share though, not mine
he\'s on the board,
he\'s like a slient assasin though, reads but doesn\'t post!
Well, why not ask him if you can run the study? He would probably like to know how it comes out himself.
Too many horses outrun their breeding or underperform against it for me.What they do in the 1 1/8th preps far more relevant imo
YEAR WINNER DI CD - PreviousTop - Derby Fig - Diff
1982 GATO DEL SOL 1.77 0.50 6.00 4.75 (1.25)
1983 SUNNY\'S HALO 1.82 0.46 6.50 5.00 (1.50)
1984 SWALE 1.93 0.68 5.50 4.50 (1.00)
1985 SPEND A BUCK 1.40 0.25 3.25 3.25 -
1986 FERDINAND 1.50 0.55 10.00 7.00 (3.00)
1987 ALYSHEBA 3.80 1.08 9.00 6.00 (3.00)
1988 WINNING COLORS 3.50 0.72 6.75 6.50 (0.25)
1989 SUNDAY SILENCE 2.56 0.69 4.25 6.25 2.00
1990 UNBRIDLED 1.12 0.03 8.50 4.00 (4.50)
1991 STRIKE THE GOLD 9.00 1.30 7.00 6.00 (1.00)
1992 LIL E. TEE 3.00 0.88 6.50 5.50 (1.00)
1993 SEA HERO 1.12 0.08 7.00 5.50 (1.50)
1994 GO FOR GIN 1.00 0.05 4.00 4.00 -
1995 THUNDER GULCH 4.00 1.10 3.50 3.50 -
1996 GRINDSTONE 1.44 0.18 5.50 5.00 (0.50)
1997 SILVER CHARM 1.22 0.20 5.25 2.75 (2.50)
1998 REAL QUIET 5.29 1.27 3.75 3.75 -
1999 CHARISMATIC 5.22 1.00 3.50 3.50 -
2000 FUSAICHI PEGASUS 3.67 0.96 2.25 2.75 0.50
2001 MONARCHOS 1.40 0.28 0.25 (0.75) (1.00)
2002 WAR EMBLEM 3.40 0.95 1.00 (0.50) (1.50)
2003 FUNNY CIDE 1.53 0.46 1.50 1.50 -
2004 SMARTY JONES 3.40 1.00 (3.75) (1.75) 2.00
2005 GIACOMO 4.33 0.94 4.50 0.50 (4.00)
2006 BARBARO 1.81 0.53 1.50 (2.50) (4.00)
2007 STREET SENSE 2.14 0.68 (2.00) (2.00) -
2008 BIG BROWN 1.67 0.36 (3.50) (4.75) (1.25)
2009 MINE THAT BIRD 5.40 1.19 5.50 (0.75) (6.25)
2010 SUPER SAVER 3.00 0.75 2.25 1.25 (1.00)
2011 ANIMAL KINGDOM 1.67 0.50 3.50 (0.25) (3.75)
2012 I\'LL HAVE ANOTHER 2.11 0.50 1.25 1.25 -
2013 ORB 3.21 0.75 (2.00) (2.00) -
Looked great before posting.... But that looks bad.
KMart
And it\'s just the winners. But it\'s a start of a fact based conversation, at least.
I\'ve done similar to this, typically inconclusive because half are above and the other half below any set standard. I\'ve had better success \"dividing\" the winners into 4 areas of their race. I.E. first flight of horses, second flight of horses, third flight of horses, and fourth flight. Separating where the winners were DURING the race to draw a correlation as to their ability to finish while near the front end, from well of the pace, etc. Seems dosage has become less relevant over the years, but the ability to finish in the first flight, or the trailing flight has shown some promise. War Emblem and the front running types fare differently than others not having a lot of speed. Its still a work in progress. Sorry for so much confusion in the post.
Steve Roman has an archived data base of Derby runners since 1998 here. http://www.chef-de-race.com/archives.htm
Could be combined with the ThoroGraph data in Jerry's archives to start a study.