Fuel In The Tank

[TGJB]

A couple of quick comments.

First, I totally agree with SoCal that looking at \"box scores\" is a mistake if you have accurate figures to work with. Figures represent ability and performance, the other represents accomplishment, and will in turn be reflected on the tote board. The trick is to find situations where the two are in conflict, and the odds, in simplest terms, are wrong. That\'s the basis for not only betting horses, but buying them with success.

Second, about Leroy. Given how often grass horses run close to their tops, I\'m sure the others did not all run \"X\"\'s, meaning it will turn out Leroy ran a big new top. But here\'s the thing-- there was an argument made here that his winning record meant he maybe could have run faster in those races, won by more if he had to. So now all you have to explain to me is why he won by 8 this time. Did he have to?

He ran a new top. It happens. Sometimes by a 3/5 shot, sometimes by a 35-1 shot.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

A five year old that had been running for Frankel for multiple starts ran a new top? ...OK

First question. Did your on the ground personnel clock the 6th at approximately 1.47.25? Later( would point out it looks like around a 2 won that race) If the time is legit have to think a similar number is not far off in the Atto.

last Question, which of the also rans do you maintain ran his race? I\'m guessing Mobil, but hes a better dirt horse than a turf horse. Did he run his 1.5 or did he run his 3.1? Or can we even say?

As far as a horse running within himself that was speculated pre race, thinking he\'d need more to win by a length or two that day.  I see no reason to maintain he gave more Sunday. Unless the answers to those questions change the parameters.

P.S. If that really was Barry Irwin he\'ll be very happy to hear your opinion. Thats undoubtedly why he tuned in. He was searching for a frame of reference.

Barry, You\'re monster is going down Breeders Cup Day. No board for you. (Revising that to no Trophy, this is a pitiful u.s. crop of milers)

LATER I OBVIOUSLY ONLY HAVE CHART GROUND LOSS AND ITS GENERALLY INACCURATE. ASSUME MOBIL RAN A TGRAPH 3.1 AND CALCULATE YOUR BEATEN LENGTHS AND WEIGHT
I\'M GUESSING LEROID COMES OUT TO ABOUT A 1.5 TO 2 IN THAT EVENT
IM CLOSE ARENT I




TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A couple of quick comments.
>
> First, I totally agree with SoCal that looking at
> \"box scores\" is a mistake if you have accurate
> figures to work with. Figures represent ability
> and performance, the other represents
> accomplishment, and will in turn be reflected on
> the tote board. The trick is to find situations
> where the two are in conflict, and the odds, in
> simplest terms, are wrong. That\'s the basis for
> not only betting horses, but buying them with
> success.
>
> Second, about Leroy. Given how often grass horses
> run close to their tops, I\'m sure the others did
> not all run \"X\"\'s, meaning it will turn out Leroy
> ran a big new top. But here\'s the thing-- there
> was an argument made here that his winning record
> meant he maybe could have run faster in those
> races, won by more if he had to. So now all you
> have to explain to me is why he won by 8 this
> time. Did he have to?
>
> He ran a new top. It happens. Sometimes by a 3/5
> shot, sometimes by a 35-1 shot.

[TGJB]

Haven\'t seen the work yet, and I\'m certainly not saying they all ran tops. But it is extremely unlikely statistically that all 8 grass stake horses ran at least 3 points off their recent tops-- you would have to think Mobil ran at least a 1 1/2 to get second with that field. If the ground loss washes out with the weight, Leroy would get about 4 1/2 points better. And even if Mobil ran a 3, Leroy still gets a negative number.

Sort of like Nothing To Lose (did I get the name right?)...

[Michael D.]

Jerry,
Could you compare the time of the Otto M to the times of the other turf races run at WO yesterday. Thanks.

[TGJB]

Michael-- let me get all the work first. I\'ll go over it here later in the week. Keep in mind that the 1 1/8th is around 1 turn, which is worth about a second compared to the 2 turn times you are used to seeing. Of course, the mile is too.

The time of the 1 1/8th race is at least questionable (want to see hand times, runups etc). The other mile race-- the 2yo stake-- went about 20 points slower than Leroy did.

[Michael D.]

thanks.... i realize the one turn nature of the 9f races at WO makes the comparison tricky. the winner of the 6th once ran 9f in 1:43 and change over that course (about 9f?).

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Its a very quick course michael.

They ran the Atto there last year in 1.32.3

Michael D. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thanks.... i realize the one turn nature of the 9f
> races at WO makes the comparison tricky. the
> winner of the 6th once ran 9f in 1:43 and change
> over that course (about 9f?).

TGJB,

\"First, I totally agree with SoCal that looking at \"box scores\" is a mistake if you have accurate figures to work with. Figures represent ability and performance, the other represents accomplishment, and will in turn be reflected on the tote board.\"

To be clear again, I am also saying that the box score measures accompishment. However, I am adding that accomplishment is a very basic way of measuring intangibles that are NOT reflected in speed figures alone. A better way is to actually watch the horses in action and see what abilities they possess, but that isn\'t all that easy and sometimes you learn things about a horse after the fact.

I have been extremely clear over and over that I think intangibles seperate horses that are otherwise \"VERY CLOSE\" in speed figures. I don\'t know what Leroy\'s speed figure will be for this race (probably a new top?), but if it\'s a big new top it\'s entirely unrelated to what I am arguing. I am arguing that he was way more likely to fire a big race, get perfect position, overcome a \"little\" trouble if it occurred, outgame these other horses in a close finish, and find that \"little extra\" if he needed it etc... than the other way around despite similar figures. I believe that\'s the case because he\'s a better horse and posseses more of the intangibles of quality than his opponents and I believe those qualities are tough to measure, but they are \"reflected\" in the boxscore.      

Are you saying that you believe horses with equal speed figures don\'t possess varying degrees of acceleration, stamina, competitiveness, gameness, versatility, early speed, late speed, etc..  that in turn can lead to varying levels of accomplishment that ultimatly wind up being reflected in the box score?

By implication are you also saying that among professional athletes some don\'t possess intangibles that allow greater accomplishment.

Given equal ERAs, are all pictchers equally lilkely to pitch well in the 7th game of the world series or do some handle the pressure and moment better?

Given equal free throw percentages, are all basketball players equally likely to hit both free throws with no time on the clock to tie the game and force an overtime in the NBA finals.

Given equal teams and quarterback accuracy during the season and just enough time for one more drive are all quarterbacks equally likely to lead their team to that touchdown?

Do players like Michael Jordan, Joe Montana, Reggie Jackson, Tiger Woods, etc... have just a little bit extra in the tank that they can call on when the game is on the line?

IMHO, the answers are NO, NO, NO, and YES!

One can see these qualities by actually watching the players/horses over time (which I suggested is the best way to do it), but accomplishment is also often very reflective of those intangibles in a very basic way. IMO, ignoring those intangibles is an obvious error. Measuring them by observation is best.  

 

[TGJB]

CH-- yes, human beings have different characteristics (involving both skill and character) that come to bear on playing games that involve all kinds of skills and decision making.

Now find something that is actually analogous to a horse with an IQ of 20 running for somewhere between one and two minutes, to the point of exhaustion,  while being pointed in the right direction and hit repeatedly by someone with an IQ of ... you get the idea.

When horses start shooting free throws and reading defenses we\'ll revisit this. In the meantime, explain why Leroy won by 8 THIS TIME, and didn\'t keep fuel in the tank. Then put this cap on, and go sit in the corner.

CTC-- if I changed Commendable\'s number it must have been almost immediately-- I would be surprised if I did it after we posted it. I would remember.

TGJB,

\"Now find something that is actually analogous to a horse with an IQ of 20 running for somewhere between one and two minutes, to the point of exhaustion, while being pointed in the right direction and hit repeatedly by someone with an IQ of ... you get the idea.\"

I made a long list of the less tangible qualities I am talking about.

They are things like brilliance, acceleration, stamina, determination, gameness, early speed, late speed, gate speed, courage etc....

I think you would agree that 2 horses can both run a \"0\" and possess various quantities of at least some of these qualities.

One horse might be able to throw in a 21.4 on the turn during his rally or battle while the other is incapable of it because he is more even paced. (think Birdonthewire)

Both might be able to run 6F in 110 but at the end one is exhausted and the other still has plenty of energy in the tank. Not that he could have run faster than 110, but he could have run at the same rate of speed for further than his opponent because he has more stamina.

If there\'s a opening for a split second, one might have the acceleration and courage to go through that tight hole while the other is unwilling to do so or unable to move quick enough to get there (think Summer Squall at Saratoga as a 2YO).

One might dig in a little harder when challenged through the stretch and another might throw in the towel (think Affirmed against Alydar and Seattle Slew\'s 1 1/2 race).

One might be more nimble than his opponenet and handle turns better than the other (think Sunday Silence and Easy Goer)

One might have explosive late speed and while the other is more even paced.

Having more of these qualities in greater quantities will lead to more victories because races develop in ways that will require that you have these extra abilities in order to win from time to time.

As you move up the class ladder, not only are the horses faster (final time wise) but some tend to possess higher degrees of some of these intangibles. I think the public is not crazy when they tend to bet horses with great records. They may overbet them sometimes and they may be getting the right answer for the wrong reason by looking at the accomplishments rather than the actual intangibles, but that\'s better than betting inferior horses that aren\'t the overlay they look like.  

[TGJB]

So you abandoned 3/4 of your earlier post. Good, it was really silly.

The short answer to THIS post is that some of those things exist and some don\'t, some that do are irrelevant, some are reflected in final time and thus in figures, some may matter from time to time, and all or none may in a given case be reflected in a horse\'s record. The original question was not whether other characteristics exist or are important (or even how important), but whether looking at accomplishment, as distinguished from ability, is a good idea. The logical extension of that type of thinking is that every horse\'s odds (which to a large extent reflect accomplishment) will be basically accurate, or that the prices of stocks are always accurate-- you might as well use a hat pin, right?

TGJB,

\"So you abandoned 3/4 of your earlier post. Good, it was really silly.\"

I abandoned nothing. I said from the beginning that a horse\'s record is often \"reflective\" of greater/lesser degrees of the intangibles that make one horse better than another even when they have similar speed figures.  I haven\'t changed a thing.

\"The original question was not whether other characteristics exist or are important (or even how important), but whether looking at accomplishment, as distinguished from ability, is a good idea.\"

Personally, I will continue to look at the quality of a horse\'s opposition and  the consistency of his accomplisments against them etc.. as an indication of the intangibles because very often the intangibles aren\'t measureable (at least not yet) and because they aren\'t contained in the speed figures. When I can see them and measure them, that\'s even better.

It doesn\'t matter to me that the public tends to overbet these horses. People that don\'t pay attention to this stuff often overbet and overestimate the chances of horses that aren\'t as good as their higher quality more accomplished opponents just because they ran as fast. Personally I believe I have a firmer grip on the horses\' abilities and the probabilities of them actually winning as a result.

That\'s what makes racing.  We will have to agree on some things and agree to disagree on others.