RA & Z, figs and off tracks

[joekay]

Very interesting reading all the comments, esp. those concerning how RA\'s 2 4-s tower over Z\'s 0- and 1-s.  Outside those 2 figs {4-}, it seems to me, Z has a bit of an edge fig-wise on consistency.  One of RA\'s 4- was on a sly track, and wasn\'t the other on Oaks day also on an off track?  I kind of remember a rainy day for that race, and didn\'t she win off by 20+ against a completely outclassed field?

[bobphilo]

joekay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very interesting reading all the comments, esp.
> those concerning how RA\'s 2 4-s tower over Z\'s 0-
> and 1-s.  Outside those 2 figs {4-}, it seems to
> me, Z has a bit of an edge fig-wise on
> consistency.  One of RA\'s 4- was on a sly track,
> and wasn\'t the other on Oaks day also on an off
> track?  I kind of remember a rainy day for that
> race, and didn\'t she win off by 20+ against a
> completely outclassed field?

Joekay,

You make an excellent point in your post regarding just how representative Rachel\'s neg 4.5 in her Haskell in the slop really was. I find that a big lifetime top on a sloppy track, especially when earned with a big margin of victory, tells me more about the horse\'s preference for the surface compared to other runners that day, than it does about what to expect when she runs over a dry track. Of course, the neg 4 she earned in the Oaks over an allegedly \"fast\" track does tend to make that figure seem more legitimate, but as you point out, the Churchill track on Oaks day did get enough rain to make a \"wet-fast\" designation more likely. If one looks at the figures Rachel ran on truly dry fast tracks, they fall within the 0 to neg 1.5 range - just like Zenyatta.

Does that mean I\'m predicting a deadheat in the Apple Blossom?, of course not. Handicapping is a game of probabilities and while a deeper analysis of true track conditions makes Rachel\'s probability of a superior top less likely, it doesn\'t eliminate it entirely. Rachel still has the chance of earning a significantly better figure.

How about Zenyatta\'s\'s chances of improving upon her top? As a closer, Z is often a victim of slow paces and as a deep closer often having to contend with very slow paces, she can be expected to improve off a more realistic early pace. Z also seems to be the type of mare that only runs as fast as she has to to win. Her small margins of victory seem to support this as well as the tendency for her figures to improve with the quality of her competition. This last indicator varies with the figure maker and is most pronounced with her Beyer figure being her highest by far with her win in the BC Classic but still holds true in general, though to a lesser degree in her TG figures. Some think that Z will be able to produce a faster final fraction, if needed, to catch RA. Rick B makes quick work of demolishing this argument by pointing out that she would have to run a last quarter of 21 and change to do that. However, a horse can improve their final time and rating by running more evenly and efficiently. This is most often seen with front runners running slower early splits, but deep closers can also improve their final time by running faster early splits by either getting a quicker early pace or running closer to the pace, or a combination of both, so an improvement of Z\'s figures could be possible under the right circumstances. Just how probable this is will depend on who else is entered in the race.

Overall, My main point here is that while I still give Rachel a slight edge, mainly due to her tactical speed, and slightly higher potential for a significantly better figure, the key word here is SLIGHTLY and not an insurmountable figure advantage.

I think we will be treated to a great race between 2 great fillies and mares, but just as lawyers have a saying that interesting cases make bad law, similarly, great races make for bad betting opportunities, as least for win betting, though the exotics may offer value depending on who else is entered. I think that the odds board will reflect that RA has a slight advantage, hence reflecting an efficient market and little overlay opportunities. I, for one, will be glad \"just\" to witness a race for the ages.

Bob

[miff]

\"but deep closers can also improve their final time by running faster early splits by either getting a quicker early pace or running closer to the pace, or a combination of both, so an improvement of Z\'s figures could be possible under the right circumstances. Just how probable this is will depend on who else is entered in the race\"

Bob,

Good point, but there are instances when a closer loses some of their punch when having to track faster splits or being closer to a fast pace than normal.

Mike

[bobphilo]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good point, but there are instances when a closer
> loses some of their punch when having to track
> faster splits or being closer to a fast pace than
> normal.
>
> Mike

True Mike, when a horse has to go out of their comfort zone to track a fast pace they often lose some of their late kick, but with a deep closer like Zenyatta it was often the case that her early fractions were so slow that it was equinely impossible to finish fast enough to record a good time. Huge deviations from even pace, whether early or late, are inefficient ways of running a race and many horses can improve their final times by evening out the extreme splits.

Bob