If Mattress Mac is the good guy, maybe it\'s also possible that Trump isn\'t a mysoginist, racist, narcissist, xenophobe?

On a more serious note, amazing allegations.   I hate to admit I was full of vitriol for the connections for dumping Borell.   Seemed like a classic \"small guy/gal gets crushed by big guy\" situation

I guess not so much.....

Rob

TGJB,

Yes, I don\'t get it.  Nyquists derby was 2 points better than his 2 year old top.   No big jump up.   And comparisons to Barbaro are way off base.  Barbaro effectively died in the Preakness or as a result of the Preakness.   Nyquist paired his derby according to you,   So you weren\'t right, you were wrong (if we are counting figures and not racetrack results, which is what you often say).  Because he spikes a fever after the pair up, we point and say \"told you so?\"

Moving on.  Your board,   You can declare victory off the elevated white blood cell count.

Rob

TGJB,

Don\'t understand your point at all with regards to Nyquist.   Eight belles, u had a point, lots of very fast figures, tight spacing, squeezing the lemon dry.   Unfortunately it resulted in a death, not a bounce.  Nyquist was not too fast too soon, if anything, his problem going into the derby was he was flatlining and was slow on figures.  His spacing before the derby was fine, under raced, if anything.  And it looks like u have his preakness about as fast as has derby and when u factor the suicidal pace of the preakness, it might even be a tad better (I know u don\'t factor pace).  So the horse fired in the derby and fired in the preakness.  Now his blood count is a little high and you (and others on this board) are \"ha, told you so\".  

U had AP as 50/50 to even get to the derby last year, if I recall, then predicted problems throughout the triple crown for him.  

Identifying betting opportunities off of predicted bounces is one thing, but the \"I told you so\" when a fragile animal gets a cold and skips a race he should maybe never have been pointed to (after the Preakness) is another.

Rob

P-Dub,

I read the O\'Neil comments and I guess that means they must be true.  But after the horse settled beautifully off a 45 and change half in the Derby, why would he instruct Mario to quarter horse this horse to the lead.

As for being pushed or not, we will have to agree to disagree.  Yes, he isn\'t whipping and slashing, for sure.  But after the 4 momentarily backed off, he is moving his hands shaking the horse a bit, which I think looks like asking him to go.  (otherwise why do it).

Now, while I think it was a bad ride by Mario, it is nowhere near the rise the absolute neanderthal gave the ride on the 4.  J.Toledo, who shouldn\'t be allowed in races of this magnitude, was trying to do exactly what with Awesome Speed?  he leaves hard, gets outsprinted, Ok.  But then not realizing they are going 45 and change setting apparently the fast variant adjusted preakness splits every, decides to whip and slash approaching the far turn to keep pressing the pace.  If he was a rabbit for Exaggerator, good ride.  Otherwise, ?

I think Exaggerator was the best horse on the day, on that surface and was going to win.  Don\'t want to take anything away from him.  But got a feeling the margin was going to be quite a bit different with anything close to a more normal/patient ride.  

Rob

MJ,

Respect your opinion, but think you are WAY offbase.

Tell me why Mario has to attack down the backstretch.  The 4 had backed off, the 2 was on the lead, Mario was on the outside in a nice stalking position, why go attack Uncle Lino.  No way that was to avoid taking dirt.  Just stupid race riding.

Sure, the horse doesn\'t want to take dirt, but that had nothing to do with the over aggressive move down the backstretch.  He and Uncle Lino ding donging down the backside only makes sense if the biggest concern Mario had was Uncle Lino getting away from him, which was silly, relative to the quality horse behind him.

Don\'t get me wrong, I am thrilled with the decision, as I bet Exaggerator in both legs of this triple crown (a bit on Danzig Candy in the Derby), but a strange ride IMO.  When i watch the replay, I see him pushing on the horse, not a Palace Malice Derby ride, where Smith lost control of the horse and he was run off.

Rob

TGJB,

A \"grinder\" to me would be one of the horses that drops back to last or thereabouts and makes a steady close, maybe better than \"steady\" when the pace is hot enough.  How many horses this year in the Derby had the same running style of dropping back to last and coming late.  (13 or so of them - Suddenbreakingnews, MyManSam, NoTom, Lani, Creator, Trojan Nation, OScar Nominated, Whitmore, etc.etc

A \"galloper\" would be a horse with a high cruising speed that can run closer to the lead and click off 24 and change quarters.  Palace Malice was that kind.  First Dude didn\'t hang on, but was that kind.  Union Rags and Rags to Riches both had that kind of tactical speed.  As did Tonalist.

Sure, Victory Gallop was an exception and I don\'t need to watch the replay.  That nose cost me a relative fortune and nightmares.  But that kind of stirring finish from well off the pace is sort of the exception in the Belmont, isn\'t it?  

Rob

If that becomes the field, a pretty ugly race from a handicapping perspective.

1.  Nyquist would have a huge edge from a pace perspective.

2.  Offsetting point 1 for some of us is that if you believe that TGJB posted about 10 days ago, a big X is coming for Nyquist.  He can always change his mind, but TGJB and others have been saying they expect a regression then an X for Nyquist.  The Preakness was a bit of a regression and a rough race for him.  He could bounce big in the Belmont, but if he does, he will do so with a huge tactical edge.

3.  Not a fan of any of the grinders - Suddenbreakingnews, cherry wine, brody\'s cause.  

4.  Exaggerator a tough call.  The horse has a turn of foot. A very nice one in fact (on wet or dry).  Unfortunately, the \"turn of foot\" capability has the smallest impact in the Belmont IMO.  The race is usually won by gallopers who can sustain that high cruising speed for a long period of time.  Not by a dynamic quarter mile burst that Exaggerator has shown.

5.  Destin would be interesting if he wasn\'t trained by the worst big name trainer in the last 30 years or so.  (at least as far as these triple crown races go) and Yes that is an opinion, not a fact, but the guy has gone a long way in proving that with results on the track

Aren\'t there any other sneaky horses laying out there that want to take their shot?

Rob

Silver,

I don\'t think the paces in the derby and preakness were comparable, at all.

My first view on the derby pace was that it was way above par and I gave Nyquist credit for attending it and still having plenty left in the tank.  Saw figures from 3 pace figure makers and it was just above average.   Not super fast, which I found surprising.  But then I saw the mike smith interview after the derby and he said that it wasn\'t the pace that best Danzig candy, he just didn\'t run well.   Smith said 45 and change on that track was really 46 and change. Then andy Beyer said that the track variant for derby day was easily the fastest in the last 20 years for a derby and he also concluded the pace was just above average.

Yesterday though, the pace was brutal, contested and draining.  It wasn\'t just s fast first quarter like AP ran in the slop last year, it was fast and more importantly keenly contested through 3 quarters with jockeys pushing their horses throughout (almos foolishly IMO)

If both these horses run back, it would SEEM that Nyquist had more of a gut wrenched yesterda.   But we will see.

I normally hate trainer speak.   But I found it interesting that Keith desormeaux gave his horse little chance to beat Nyquist the last 3 times they met, multiple times saying that Nyquist would have to stub his toe.  But before yesterday he was extremely confident, based on the fact that his horse recovers quickly from big efforts in his opinion and he felt that was an equalizer.  Now, who knows if he is right, and I don\'t think it is why he won yesterday, but it could come into play in 3 weeks, if he is right.   (Or it could be useless trainer speak - my favorite is Kiaran McLaughlin, as nothing is a worse kiss of death thsn. Kiarsn feeling good about his horse. I know people that speak to him regularly and for years I lost a small fortune on horses he \"felt good about\".  And watched many of his horses that he never talked about win at bigger odds.....   Trainer speak...  Sort of like political promises...

 

Rob

11 pm after exaggerator hangs the first L on Nyquist and not a lot on the board regarding the race.   Perhaps all of us are \"decompressing\" after a few days of heavy gambling.

One persons thoughts on the race:

1.  Considering track condition and the amount of speed that seemed to be in the race, far from a surprising result.  

2.  As a guy who bet  exaggerator in both the derby and preakness and has been anti-Nyquist for a long time, I have to say Nyquist ran pretty well, considering the pace of the race.  

3.   Speaking of pace, a pretty dumb ride by Mario Gutierrez.   Jockey critiquing happens every single race, every single day, but it see,s deserved here.   Nyquist left hard, so as not to get trapped down inside, a good move, but once the 4 backed off out of the first turn, did Mario really have to go after uncle Lino at the 22 quarter?  He was more afraid of uncle Lino getting away than he was of confirmed quality closer, top challenger and possible mud lover, exaggerator.   Yikes.   Awful ride IMO.   Hard to say what happens if he rates a bit, but Nyquist wasn\'t packing it in until late.certainly would have been closer.

4.  Kent D. Gave the winner a helluva ride.   He won by 3 and was never in doubt late, but if it had been closer, the ground he saved and the inside out move would have been crucial

5.  I still don\'t have a handle on exaggerator.   Hard to say that about a horse I bet in both legs of the triple crown so far, but in the derby I had to use him what appeared to me to be the \"perfect\" derby sheet, and in the preakness he figured to benefit from the pace and surface, while running very well in defeat in the derby.   I say tough to have a handle because the detractors will point to another wet track and fast pace, like the santa Anita derby.   But this horse fires hard every time.

6.  Stradivari ran ok with a wide trip.   Suspect his TG figure may overstate his performance, but he ran at least ok.   Could/should be heard from later in the year.

7.  Haven\'t ready any comments from the connections yet, but am guessing we may not see either Nyquist or exaggerator In the belmont.  But we will see.

Rob

Gerard,

This is beating a dead horse, but taking the figures that TGJB assigned to the race and then using the number of horses that ran tops to determine how \"hard of a derby\" either horse had just doesn\'t make sense.  

We define \"hard\" by how many competitors ran tops?  We don\'t measure trip, pace, track bias, etc.etc.

Not that it matters, but other figure makers had the derby slower based on variant alone.  If TGJB was wrong and you use the other figure makers, less horses ran tops last year, more this year and now we say Nyquist\'s derby was \"harder\"?

Truth be told, who had the \"harder\" derby is mostly irrelevant going forward. The question is whether Nyquist can do what AP AFTER the Derby and if you think not, when is the right time to take advantage of that in the betting pools.

Rob

Time to make the host happy and talk figures.  Plus, for those that still want to take a shot at Nyquist in the Preakness, there is the Black Eyed Susans / Preakness double.

Quick question for handicappers out there regarding Go Maggie vs Land Over Sea.  

Which filly do you prefer in the Preakness.  

1.  Go Maggie, only having 3 starts, having paired her 5 with a troubled trip in the Oaks.  A horse that likes to run near the lead got shut off at the start and didn\'t sulk, instead came with a late run, not threatening the winner, but pretty close with the next group.

2.  Land Over Sea, now having paired her 3 in the Oaks, could be set for a forward move.  Already has number power in her favor.

I realize there are others in the race and have to look at their sheets when the data comes out, but the top two choices are the ones above and it appears to me to be an interesting handicapping choice with two fillies likely to go off at roughly the same odds.  The former has raced less, in theory has more upside and earned her pair up under adverse conditions last time.  That said, coming back on 2 weeks for a filly with less experience is not a good thing.  The latter is less likely to have significant short term upside but has number power in her favor going into the race.  

Thoughts?

Rob

Chas,

Extremely unlikely to \"change things up\" regarding the betting in the race.  (of course may change the results)

Lots of tourist money in the triple crown races.  maybe you get 1-2 instead of 2-5 on Nyquist, if you call that \"value\", god bless.

Without analyzing the race and having the draw happen, after AP won the triple crown last year and Nyquist won the Derby this year as an undefeated horse, there is going to be an inherent tendency for the masses to view Nyquist as unbeatable in the Preakness.  He is going to be shorter than he should be (which may be completely irrelevant to whether he wins or not, just whether you are getting value).

while I have no opinion yet, I am likely to feel compelled to at least take a mild swing against the horse based on \"perceived value\' in beating him.

I do think Exaggerator ran better than any other closer on dirt all day long on Derby day.  When you go over the charts for Derby day it is very hard to find any horse making a sustained late run.  On the other hand you can\'t call the track a classic \"golden rail / early speed bias\" either.  Not a single horse really wired on dirt.  All dirt winners were in the pace pressing category.  Makes the result tricky to read.

I guess my view would be that if you liked Exaggerator going in (as I did), you can find reason to like him again between the nice close and brief trouble he had on the far turn.  (although \"nice close\" aside, he was NOT getting to Nyquist late - but that also doesn\'t mean he can\'t this next time).

If you thought Nyquist was a beast going in, you got confirmation of it, and aren\'t likely to jump off the bandwagon now.,

Rob

JohnnyM,

Clear redboarding violation aside, your premise that the track was faster last year is way off.

Look at the final times of relative races last year to this year (on dirt, not just the derby but all races).

Water or no water, the track this year was producing faster times, and the variant by all track people, not just TG, reflects that.

i started some of this by saying I think the races are comparable (so I am not going to contradict myself here), but my assertion/opinion was for way different reasons than you post.  

To factor in ground loss and call the races \"equal\", like i did, you have consider \"other factors\" during the race besides ground loss, track variant and final times.  I am giving some credit to Nyquist for pressing a VERY FAST pace and taking away some credit from AP for being part of a \"merry go round\" race where the 1-2-3 finishers were the same all the way around.  (up to others to factor these pace based assumptions in, or decide not to)

Had also talked to people around AP and in the Baffert barn last year after the Derby and they all insisted that AP didn\'t grab the track right at Churchill on Derby day.  Trainer and connections speak aside, pretty sure if you asked the people around AP they would strongly disagree with TGJB that the Derby was AP\'s best race.  (granted none of them are figure makers and I am not saying they are right or wrong).  I thought AP had a comfortable trip on Derby day, was all out and I didn\'t buy the trainer-speak at the time and bet against the horse two more times in the Triple Crown (fruitlessly).  

Rob

TGJB,

You have a product with a methodology, which becomes the way you measure performance.  I respect that.  Otherwise wouldn\'t use the product and post on the board.

That said, for some of us, your figures are a PART of the way we measure performance, not the only input.  Nyquist pressed a much faster pace than AP did.  Not even close.  Last year\'s derby was a \"merry go round\" race.  The top 3 ran around the track together, with AP proving best of the 3.  The Beyer figures between the two Derbies are similar, the main reason you have AP faster is the ground loss, which I get.  But the race flow/pace Nyquist faced isn\'t factored into your figure, nor is the fact that the pace went 1-2-3 all the way around the track last year.  For some of us, the ground loss sort of nets to the soft pace.  I am not saying Nyquist\'s derby was better.  I think they are similar.  

On a related thread, a number on this board questioned the Wood figure.  Not that Andy Serling is any kind of \"end all\", but he was railing on the variant \"many figure makers\" used for the Wood day prior to the Peter Pan yesterday.  Said he expected them to correct the figures soon.  (or that they should - I forget the exact words).  Watching how the Wood horses ran in the Derby and how the Peter Pan winner ran yesterday (nowhere near the negative 2), wondering if you are looking at Wood day again?

Rob

Great point.

Reading this board after a horse wins the derby with all the \"wait till the Belmont\" stuff reminds me of the old NY Post articles on Monday after football season by Steve Serby - entitled \"loser\'s lament\".

Don\'t get me wrong, I unloaded both barrels against Nyquist but I (and many on this board, were just plain wrong).  I don\'t get TGJB\'s post \"an X is coming, maybe not the next time but it is coming\".  This can be said about every horse who ever ran.  They aren\'t machines.  Of course an \"X\" is coming.  But who knows when.  Just like the Martingale system.  Keep doubling your bet, the coin can\'t keep coming up heads.

I don\'t know, let\'s take an objective look at Doug O\'Niell (I don\'t like him, but lets be objective here).  He had I\'ll Have Another run a big number in February, often the kind that put a horse over the top (see Pletcher) and then got the horse to run big in the Derby and the Preakness, running down an extremely game Bodemeister, trained by \"Mr Triple Crown\" - Bob Baffert.  Sure he got hurt before the Belmont, but the guy was 2 for 2 with 2 huge races by any reasonable measure.

Then we get an early developer in Nyquist, who seemingly didn\'t get better at 3.  He ships cross country to Florida to take on Mohaymen in his own back yard, a move many here and elsewhere said was the wrong move, chasing bonus dollars instead of prepping for the Triple Crown.  He crushes Mohaymen.  Then the talk was that no horse had come into the Derby with less foundation (in furlongs of preps) than Nyquist and he was \"flatlining\" from a development perspective and a huge underlay at 2-1.  Well, he crushed the field.  Make no mistake, he crushed the field.  As somebody who was 5 deep against him to nice scores, I felt sick 100 yards into the race.  He looked a winner every step.

The horse has done everything right.  The trainer has been good in these spots.  (and while I think the Rags guys are clowns, in many respects, saying that Nyquists derby was as good as AP\'s is NOT the best example of that.  He ran fast, looked a winner every step and was never under duress.  AP, despite the ground loss loaded final figure, gutted out a win and at times looked like Firing Line would beat him).

All that doesn\'t mean that Nyquist can\'t be a play against at 3-5 next time, but I wouldn\'t be taking out second mortgages to do it....

Rob