Derby Points

[miff]

Frank,

Seems Loaban will need help for sure.Would like to see Whitmore get in, shows very live internal,sharp late run.

Tough year, no Chrome or Amer Pharoah going in.

Mike

[Fairmount1]

Miff,

The moment the maiden crossed the wire in second I told my dad \"This is what the points system gets Churchill, a maiden in the Derby.\"

Two thoughts have come to mind.

1.  Altering the points system would not prevent this occurrence but if they want to stick with this system, change seems in order.  Going against Trojan Nation being undeserving, but does a second place finish in the marquee preps deserve more points than the secondary preps?  For instance, Shagaf deserves 40 points for winning the Gotham while Trojan Nation would earn 50 for being second in the Wood due to recency, increased purse, and competition in the bigger event?  Majesto\'s second place Fla Derby is worth less than Mohaymen\'s FOY?  This doesn\'t seem accurate with obtaining the best horses in the most recent preps.  Also, in addition to second I would propose the scoring for 3rd and 4th in the last preps would be increased.  I don\'t care about Animal Kingdom\'s example but the poly prep at Turfway needs to go.  I want the best 20 dirt horses in the world in the starting gate not a poly or turf horse.  Don\'t give me the Churchill dirt really helps the horses with turf hooves....I want the best DIRT horses which brings me to idea number 2.  

2.  While not as \"defined\" as the current system, would a committee of experts provide a better Derby field than any system?  Certainly there will always be horses left out on the perimeter but I\'m analogizing this to the NCAA tourney.  In addition, the entire \"draw\" could be seeded by the committee 1 through 20 with Seed 1 picking their post position first.  This would reward the most deserving prospect rather than sticking some deserving horses in the dreaded 1 hole.  As for the committee makeup, a representative from each jurisdiction where preps are located would be a possibility.  Include one trainer, one owner, one jockey, one handicapper with one year appointments (no direct connection to the entrants is a reqt.) along with the committee members from New York, Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Dubai, New Mexico, etc.

EDIT:  The committee idea could lend itself to a major television event announcing the horses and seeds that would eclipse the current post position draw tv event that ends up ruining certain horses chances depending on their draw.  And certainly there would be some cat and mouse games with horses running styles playing a part in the strategy of the connection choosing their post.

I know I\'m tilting at windmills but the committee idea really seems to be the way to obtain the truly best dirt field.  Oscar Nominated, Trojan Nation, and Lani appear to have little business in Running for the Roses besides picking up some pieces.  Even CDI should want the 20 best horses possible and a points system is not the way to go.  In addition, the committee can extend invitations to horses they believe are deserving and if the connections decline, they move on to the next horse to make up the best 22 horses with 2 AE until the morning of the Oaks when wagering would begin.

[jma11473]

Fairmount1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Miff,
>
> The moment the maiden crossed the wire in second I
> told my dad \"This is what the points system gets
> Churchill, a maiden in the Derby.\"
>

If it makes you feel better, three maidens have won the Derby, including Sir Barton. If one runs in the race, the world probably won\'t tilt off its axis.

[richiebee]

Fairmount:

Can you point to an instance in the points system era where a runner with a
decent chance of winning the Derby... a legitimate contender... was excluded?
Can you remember winners of major preps who flopped at CD?

If both California maidens end up in the Derby, it is more an indictment of
poor quality preps in NY (the weakest \"bracket\" by far, extending your NCAA
analogy) than the point system. Regarding Lani, given adequate preparation,
acclimation and training, I have no doubt he would have been a major factor in
either the Gotham or Wood, though unless his Derby preparation is exceptional
I do not see him as a Derby factor.

I do not see any need for a committee which would just add a human element to
statistics which are the true selection criteria (NCAA model). Instead of a
straightforward points system, where points are pre determined for certain
races, set up a prep performance ranking system which would take into account
numerous variables-- some measure of the adjusted speed of the race (factoring
weight, ground loss, etc), the distance of the race, graded earnings. Most
importantly, the strength or competitiveness of the race.

The true weakness of the points system is that two different preps may be
assigned the same point weighting in advance (lets say the Risen Star at FG
and the Gotham), but in retrospect one race was much stronger (field size,
quality of competition, adjusted pace and final time) than the other. A
ranking or rating system which incorporates many factors, rather than pre
assigning points, might be the best way to assure the best possible field of
3YOs is standing in the gate.

Regarding a \"major TV event\", you would be lucky to get a half hour on ESPN,
the first ten minutes of which would be pre-empted by women\'s softball.

[belmont3]

Nuff said

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1933/05/07/page/21/article/brokers-tip-wins-59th-kentucky-derby

[Tavasco]

Some picking on Lani as slow and consequently not belonging in the field hmm. Last year ugly scrawny Mubtiislug got a lot of ink and quite a few dead dead presidents. Good for the public and the bettors.

As for the Ca. Maiden looked to me as if it would have won the race if the race had been @ 1+1/4.


At least... Lani is a handsome beast and accustomed to racing in large fields.

[miff]

Fair,

There is no perfect system or at least one that will make everyone happy. For example, the current point leader is slowwww....but has the most points.



Mike

[Fairmount1]

Miff and \'bee,

I agree that no system is perfect.  

But I do believe a human committee would be able to determine the best field. Put TGJB, Beyer, Crist, and jcovello on the committee.  You don\'t trust them to get it right?  I would trust that group over the graded earnings or points system. Songbird certainly could have \"earned\" her way into the field via the points system but I believe based on some of the factors \'bee pointed out that she would deserve an invite from a human committee.  If she declined, on to the next potential entrant moving up at entry time.  If she didn\'t want to face boys before the Derby but her trainer/owner wanted to at this point, I would be all for including her based on her accomplishments to this point.  How many people on this board wouldn\'t want to at least see her in the field if her connections wanted to give it a sporting gesture??  Or also, how many people believe she doesn\'t deserve to be in at this point?  Very few of you is my conjecture.  

It is true the current points leader is considered slow and should be ranked below Nyquist by just about any standard.  A committee would be able to ascertain this flaw.  Nyquist would be the current 1 seed.  This has nothing to do with my thoughts about his chances in the race but rather his accomplishments to this point.  He should choose first for the post position.  No committee would disagree on the number one ranked horse this year.  Now obviously there will be many disagreements about exact rankings and in some years esp the number one seed but that would be part of the enjoyment of the process much like the tourney.  So long as the top 20 are the best 20 horses that get in, that is my concern.  And at the bottom there may be a few disagreements.  But no way could you ever convince me that Cherry Wine should be excluded in favor of Trojan Nation at this point in time.  

And without a doubt, a selection criteria for trainers to plan for and train for beginning as 2yo\'s should be set forth and followed by the committee.  But giving them the discretion element to exclude a 2nd and 3rd place finisher from a weak prep is the key point to accomplishing the best field.  Sophisticated systems or rankings would not be embraced by the public at large in my opinion.  CDI is all about selling the Derby to the masses as it pays for their entire operation for the year from one week of racing.  The points system while not my favorite does accomplish this goal but a committee reveal has also appealed to the masses as CBS has taught us with March Madness.  

So as for tv, where I am really dreaming I know, I think the committee should have the field set leading into Lexington Day (but not revealed at that point) and have contingencies set up in the event that race changes the final rankings and invites.  Immediately after the Lexington, the field would be revealed and ranked through say 25 or so horses on the same network that carries the Lexington.  The week of the Derby the post position would be chosen by the trainers that enter their horses following the invites knowing where they stand in the rankings.  That would be your usual 30 minute show that receives no ratings richiebee.  But the Field Reveal after the Lexington would garner more tv fanfare in my opinion b/c the mystery of who is in and who is out would be a selling point.  

As for horses that may not have run that deserved a chance:  Rock Hard Ten, Bernardini, Tonalist (a stretch), Kid Cruz (??not sure??) are a few that come to mind with a few of those listed from before the graded earnings rule changed to points.  And Songbird this year would be interesting to see as I said.  I didn\'t \"research\" these horses listed so don\'t nail me to the cross on this reply to the bee\'s question.    

Sir Barton was the first so-called Triple Crown winner winning in 1919.  While I am all for tradition and paegentry and a healthy respect for the past, the previous system was already blown up and replaced with the points system rather than graded earnings.  Sir Barton was literally almost 100 years ago and he did win as a maiden defeating 12 other horses including Billy Kelly.  Times have changed so let\'s make the process as accurate as possible for the fans and the horses.....maidens shouldn\'t be entered in the Derby, number one on the list of criteria for the committee to put forth.

Let\'s get the best possible field of 20 is my point and I believe a committee would accomplish that better than any other system even with the human element flaws that may result.

[covelj70]

Fairmount,

Cool post and interesting concept.

Everyone will have their own valid opinions on this.

I happen to like the current format as it rewards the horses who are a) in better form coming into the derby and b) who can run their race at longer distances.

I think the issue with a committee approach (while a very cool concept) is that it would be nearly impossible to take the human connection element out of the decision.  The game is too small and everyone knows everyone else and has connections to certain people.

For example, JB is very close with the Winstar guys, how much pressure would he be under to add a Winstar horse to the final list that might be on the bubble?  One of my good friends and a guy I own two horses with owns interests in Exaggerator and My Man Sam.  There would be no way I would ever leave his two horses off the list.  It would be tough to find any impartial committee members given how close everyone\'s ties are in the game.

Maybe something like what the Breeders Cup does could work where the top 10 or the top 15 slots are determined by points and/or Win and You\'re In races and the rest of the slots are determined by a committee.  But even then, when you are dealing with only rapidly developing spring 3 year olds, many of the horses that would be on the bubble on that list have real chances to win the race.  My Man Sam would be a bubble horse in that construct and I don\'t think there\'s a person on this board that doesn\'t think he has a chance on May 7th (I\'m assuming he paired or moved slightly forward with his fig on Sat).

Regardless of where one comes out on the selection criteria, I was having a good discussion with some sharp handicappers yesterday who were focused on how the selection criteria has made the race more formful (sp?) the last few years.

Without as many speed balls in the race who have no chance of getting the distance (and yes I ran one of those myself a few years ago and it was the best non-family related experience of my life and I would do it again in a heartbeat), the race is simply more likely to produce a winner that is one of the best horses as opposed to one that takes advantage of the chaos that can ensue when a bunch of horses that don\'t belong in a race are in a race.

Someone made an astute comment on the board yesterday that the best figure doesn\'t always win the race when there is a pace meltdown and we can extend that to any scenario where we introduce weaker horses or horses in poor form into the race.

Between likely more reasonable pace scenarios created by the selection criteria and the very transparent coverage from the folks at DRF and other outlets enhanced by Twitter, etc where everyone who wants to know how the horses are training into the race can get informed opinions, you are less likely to have the kind of price horses winning than you have historically.

Doesn\'t mean the favorite is going to win every year but it does mean that we will all know on the morning of May 7th if that bo in the stretch of the Florida Derby was Nyquist being green, tired from only one 7f prep into the race or if he is hurt.  Even 10 years ago, the only people who would have that information had to be pretty plugged in.  Not the case anymore.

Similarly, everyone will know thanks to DRF and Twitter, etc. if Destin skipped the final prep in which he would have been a heavy fav in a $1m race because of sheet theory or because he has physical issues.

BTW, I believe those are the two most important questions to answer for this years Derby at this particular point but obviously other questions will emerge over the next 3 weeks.

Good stuff.  Gonna be fun.

[johnnym]

Graded stakes earnings in route races only..

Also think Nyquist bo may had to do something with Mario shifting to look over his shoulder.
Still came home under 13 seconds the last 1/8th mile

[Fairmount1]

jcovello wrote:  \"Regardless of where one comes out on the selection criteria, I was having a good discussion with some sharp handicappers yesterday who were focused on how the selection criteria has made the race more formful (sp?) the last few years.\"

______________________________

The points system started with the 2013 edition.  From 1986 to 2012, graded earnings were the determining factor for the field.  

Since 2013, the ordinal betting rank of the top 5 finishers are as follows:

2013:  1st-16th-2nd-5th-7th (Orb, Golden Soul, Revolutionary, Normandy Invasion, Mylute)
2014:  1st-17th-3rd-2nd-7th (Chrome, Commanding Curve, Danza, Wicked Strong, Samraat)
2015:  1st-4th-2nd-5th-9th (AP, Firing Line, Dortmund, Frosted, Danzig Moon)

EDIT:  Besides the Dallas Stewart horses, it has been incredibly formful during the points era as compared to the betting public\'s handicapping in the win pool.  For a handicapper who singled a Dallas Stewart horse in a pick 6, the race could have been slightly more formful in \'14 as compared to his handicapping......

[covelj70]

And my opinion is that IF Nyquist is sound (which the daily track appearances will tell us), the favorite will win again this year in part because the pace isn\'t as fast as it would have been in years where speedballs that can\'t route could get into the race

I think that\'s a very big IF though.

[miff]

Hi Jim,

Dosage guys still around but not like in the old days. With a dosage of 7, they are licking there chops to toss Nyquist, obviously the one to beat on paper.

Anyone have the highest dosage derby winner say last 15 years.


Mike

[smalltimer]

Fu Peg 3.67
Giacomo 4.33
Mine That Bird 5.40
Am. Pharoah 4.33

Strike The Gold in 1991 the highest at 9.00

[joemama]

Went to Steve Roman\'s site and got quite different numbers.  Sometimes they update the numbers .  Anyway from Steve Roman\'s site.

Back as far as 2000.

American Pharoah, Giacomo and Mine that Bird were all listed at 4.33 for DI.

Strike the Gold was revised down to a DI of 2.60.  Down from over 4.00 initially.

Giacomo, American Pharoah and Mine that Bird are three Derby winners to have won the race with a DI above 4.00 since 1929.  There have been 6 to win with a DI over 4 since 1929.