"Beyer Beware" - figures, ground loss and The Derby

[derby1592]

Let me preface this by saying I have read and enjoyed most of Andrew Beyer\'s books and columns and, in fact, learned from them. However, I question some of his fundamental assumptions in making figures and am amazed on an annual basis with his strange decisions regarding Derby selections. This year was no exception and his Monday column see link below points out some confusing, hilarious and bewildering points on several levels. I will tackle a few of the most obvious and interesting but I recommend that you read the entire article entitled, \"It's all a matter of position.\"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13669-2003May4.html

Here is one snippet worth repeating here:

********
\"After breaking from post position 11, Empire Maker was forced to race wide around both turns. It is a rough rule of thumb that a horse loses one length for every path that he is removed from the rail around a turn. Thus, if Funny Cide was on the rail around the first turn, and Empire Maker was in the three-path, the favorite was traveling an extra two lengths. Empire Maker\'s ground loss equaled more than the 13/4 lengths by which Funny Cide beat him.

If the horses had switched post positions, if Empire Maker had Funny Cide\'s trip and vice versa, Funny Cide probably would have finished fourth and Empire Maker would have a chance to sweep the Triple Crown.\"
********

Does anyone else see the contradiction and irony in this statement? Beyer quantifies the relationship between racing path, ground loss and impact on finishing position (which can then be translated into finishing time and performance). He uses this relationship to both analyze a result (Empire Maker lost to Funny Cide because of a wide trip) and to handicap a race (if Empire Maker had a more inside post and Funny Cide a more outside post, then he would be able to run a faster \"effective\" race and win). This is from the guy who does NOT incorporate ground loss into his figures! How can he make the above statement which seems totally at odds with his own figure-making methodology? To add to they irony, when the Beyer figures come out for the Derby, Funny Cide will be 3 points faster than Empire even though Beyer himself admits that Empire Maker ran the fastest race (i.e., his average speed or distance/time was faster).

The irony, inconsistency and amusement do not stop there. Here is another snippet:

*******
\"The best Beyer Speed Figure coming into the Derby belonged to Empire Maker (111), Funny Cide (110) and Ten Most Wanted (110). I picked Ten Most Wanted, so he was doomed. With only Empire Maker to beat, all Funny Cide needed was a little racing luck. And he got it.\"
*******

Beyer has just described how post affects the trip and he also has quantified the relationship between path, ground loss and final finish positions. He also goes on to show that his Beyer figures indicated that the three were all about the same with regards to ability. All this and yet his pick was not the horse with speed and an inside post that was most likely to save ground. It was not the stalker from the 12 hole that might be able to possibly work out a decent trip. Instead, it was the stalker from the 16 hole that was almost guaranteed a brutally wide trip! Go figure. Add to that, the fact that since Beyer's speed figures do not incorporate ground loss (or weight – but that is another topic although a have to note that TMW was carrying 9 fewer pounds than the other two in his final prep), his Beyer figures for the three horses were actually flawed. Ten Most Wanted had a perfect rail trip to earn his 110 while both Funny Cide and Empire Maker lost some ground in their final preps. If he had used the knowledge he displayed in his post-race analysis to make the figures for those final preps and to handicap the race, he would have seen that Ten Most Wanted was slower than Funny Cide and Empire Maker without any adjustments for expected ground loss, that he was very likely to lose more ground than both of them (i.e., he would be \"effectively\" even slower) and he would have concluded that Ten Most Wanted was very unlikely to win and an extreme underlay as the second  choice in the wagering. Instead, he embarrasses himself with yet another terrible Derby selection.

I have a feeling that I would really enjoy spending a day at the track with Beyer. I also imagine that he is a good handicapper. However, when it comes to making figures and handicapping the Derby, he still has a lot to learn. One of the best things about Beyer though is that he is willing to learn and adapt. I sure hope that he did not have some sort of epiphany after the Derby. I would hate to see him start incorporating ground loss and weight into his popular Beyer speed figures.

Cheers.

Chris

[Easy Goer]

Andy Beyer is one of the two most entertaining and knowledgeable journalists in the sport. (Neumeier is the other). He is willing to take a stand, stick to it, and back it up with both guns, right or wrong! Who can ever forget the stand Beyer took on Badger Land in the Derby many years ago. \"Mortgage the house, this one is a mortal lock\", he was quoted. I didn\'t take his advice, but I thought about it when I proposed to my wife of 16 years now. I said \"Honey, one of these days I may find the lock of a lifetime and I may have to mortgage our house. Can you live with a man like that?\" Her response let me know she was a keeper. And even though I haven\'t mortgaged the house yet, I have been known on occasion to bet with both fists - and I\'m still looking for the really big one...

[Tabitha]

There's different types of wide. There's wide running hard to make position and there's wide running a paced race while the front runners are burning each other up. There's not always a correlation between wide trips and lengths lost at the finish. Which is not to say the wide horse would not have been X lengths closer but for the wide trip. But there are other variables besides wide which influence winning or beaten lengths. In other words it's a tool but to say two lengths were lost to a winner at the finish because a horse went two paths wider than a rival is just not accurate. All that one can say is he covered two lengths more ground.

[mholbert]

chris,

beyer\'s explanation for not including ground loss in his number is that the being closer to the rail is not always an advantage.  he feels there are times when the horse on the inside might be running on a deeper part of the track and thus, the outside horse does not deserve a figure bump for his trip.  that\'s we he has been preaching bias analysis as a supplement to speed figures for the last ten years or so.  i\'m not saying i agree with him, just my understanding.

why did he pick who did?  hard to tell.  why did len pick suprah blitz and peace rules as his top two and thorograph picked brancusi and indian express as its top two.  i know last year at saratoga he took quite a bit of ribbing for not selecting the top beyer horse in the 2002 derby.  he\'s great to listen to, but you have to turn him off around derby time.  i think his derby record is pretty close to mine.

[tonyk]

EM was both types of wide ,in that race ,not to mention the extra ground he had to cover racing to the first turn.It also seems to me the EM was about 5W on each turn,so that is a difference of about 10 lenghts ,thats alot of ground to lose.By the way Jerry did a superb job pointing out that Bailey would likely lose alot of ground being over confident.



Post Edited (05-06-03 11:23)