Nyquist - please win the Preakness

[Furious Pete]

But seriously, I guess this discussion boils down to what one thinks of as a speed figure. If you are really die hard old school I guess you would think that a speed figure should measure speed, and nothing else, and that every yard one runs matters just as much and that it is the time from A to B that counts. Then you can look at the results, times etc, maybe you have a par time chart or something \"shrewd\" like that and you assign a variant and you get maybe 80 % of totally worthless speed figures because they don\'t say anything about the relative performance of the horses, and they will also be extremely fragile to different pace scenarios, wind differences, errors in timing, and changing track speeds, things you can\'t control or be confident about. This is a kind of \"top down\" speed figure making that maybe was the logical approach 50 years ago, when everything \"modern\" was \"scientific\", normative and top-down. The projection method or regression analysis etc is the \"bottom up\"-approach, the opposite, where you use the horses to project the most likely scenario and frankly you could to this just fine without any variant at all (as long as your database is up and running and in the right ballpark, to get there is a different story). I think TGJB and Thoro-Graph does the right thing in general when they try to keep it some place in between, you use the horses, you try to generate a picture of the day as a whole, you (prefer to!) tie races together, you try to create a picture of how the track was playing out and you go from there. The more datapoints, the lesser the chance to get a race completely wrong, or to produce totally meaningless figures that can\'t be used to anything.

I think it\'s sad that one would still debate the premises of whether track changes speed, of course they do and it\'s obvious for anyone that try to make figures with an open mind. This is sad because these kinds of discussions hinder progress, because you for one Miff have raised many very valid points that really should be where the differences lie between the different figure makers, and what the discussions should be about. What values should one assign a path of lost ground and a pound of weight, and are there \"thresholds\" or whatever where this doesnt matter as much or matter more? What should one do with different pace scenarios both regarding to adjusted figures (if one can \"add\" or \"subtract\" to a final figure because of unfavorable/favorable pace scenarios), and to the values of ground loss (could one find a \"solution\" to the problem of slow pace on ground loss which would create inflated final figures?)? How should one use projection when you have runaway winners on the slop? I really think these are the issues where figure makers should differentiate oneself, and not on the crazy assumptions that tracks don\'t change speed or on a methodology that try to make \"best fits\" of a variant across a whole raceday, it\'s simply to much going on for that approach to ever make sense. The only reason those approaches worked 50 years ago was because before that everyone was betting on grey horses with number 7, or on horses of a different \"class\". Then those numbers represented an edge, but today they can\'t compete. What do you make of traditional speed ratings and the results they can show for in turf racing, doesn\'t that tell a story about flawed methods? Those guys essentially \"gave up\" on turf racing !

[vagrant]

Not sure how anyone soups up a track that was on the business end of a 15-minute torrent 90 minutes prior to post. Too big a variable to account for that close to the race. Whatever contrivance CD *might* have had in mind was undone in that pelting rainstorm.

Nyquist survived that pace on the level. Pace dynamics, imo, are more impactful than ground loss for young horses. Pharoah ran a terrific race but at no point was he made uncomfortable. Straining after 45/1:10, on the other hand, is never comfortable. The two performances were not incomparable.

[TGJB]

Horses on the pace finished 1-3 and ran new tops. Saying the pace hurt them is an assumption, not a conclusion.

[vagrant]

Six horses were within 4 1/4 lengths of the lead after 6 f. They finished 1-3-12-14-15-18.

[TGJB]

Which, combined with the two new tops, barring any other info, would lead one to believe it had no effect.

[T Severini]

pizzalove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with some of this.  I think when TGJb says
> \"an X is coming\" he means very soon probably in
> the next two races.  I also agree with this.  
>
> I don\'t know if Nyquist is a better derby winner
> than AP or not.  There is also a chance that he
> was running on a souped up track.  But I will say
> that if AP was running close to fractions of 45
> and change in his derby he would not have won.  Or
> if Danzig Candy had run last year there would of
> been no triple crown winner.
>
> I personally California Chrome would of destroyed
> either one.  
>
> I am also not going to have Nyquist in first or
> second on any of my tickets.  I did however make
> the same mistake last year.  Hard headed.

Good horses like American Pharaoh, Nyquist and Smarty Jones have an energy reserve you have to get to in order to beat them. At some point in the race you have to take something out of them or they will rebreak and find a way to win.

Nyquist just ran a tough Derby and found a way to win. How much faster a pace can they ask him to chase in the Preakness? To bet with conviction against him wouldn\'t you like to see some bona fide speed and tactical competition?

Travers

The Derby track still has me scratching my head. I don\'t think we\'ll know just what to make of it until after the Preakness.

[miff]

Yea JB, running too fast early has never had an effect on the outcome of the finishing positions of the runners.

[TGJB]

Because that\'s exactly what I said. And why we have a \"h pace\" designation.

[NormandyInvasion]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I had a dollar for every horse that looked
> incredible after a big effort that bounced,I\'d be
> rich. The toll of a previous effort more often
> presents under stress during the next race, not
> while galloping 2minute licks.
>
> Nyquist a very nice horse but has not yet
> established resiliency which gets tested Sat, his
> first race within two weeks of his previous.
>
> Exaggerator also reportedly thriving out of derby.

Then note this:  Baffert says the Preakness is really a fairly easy race for a Derby winner to win as he\'s in great form and can easily take it another two weeks.  Think of all the many winners wot the first 2 legs.  It makes sense.  If there\'s no horse equal to Nywuist in ability and current form, then better to sit the race out than throw money away trying to beat him.

[NormandyInvasion]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just to be clear, the man said Jake had Nyquist\'s
> Derby faster than AP\'s.


That seems believable to me.  I found this winner more impressive than last year\'s.

[TGJB]

Good thing you\'re not making my the figures then.

[NormandyInvasion]

Don\'t forget Curlin and Hard Spun.  I think most agree they ran well in all 3 and they also finished the year strong.  I\'d count Chrome too.  

A lot of good horses skip one or both the Preakness and Belmont these days so that takes a lot of horses out of consideration.  

Bramlage told me a few years ago that the reason we hadn\'t seen a TC winner was the lack of break being given the top 2yos.  He stated that when the right horse comes along and he\'s given a Winter break, he\'ll win the TC.  AP had a break.  And Nyquist had a break.

[NormandyInvasion]

Performances aren\'t all measured by figures.

I would also note that while I respect all the major figure makers, they\'re not infallible.  

I stand by thinking AP\'s Derby was unimpressive, and Nyquist\'s was impressive.  And the Secretariat\'s Preakness was his best race, regardless of times, figures, or public opinion.  ;-)

[miff]

Formulator: for the stat guys


Over the last 5 years,Doug ONeill is 31% (9-29) w/ a $2.28 ROI with horses coming back in 14 days or less on dirt off lifetime top Beyers

[miff]

Abiding Star,more early gas, trying to clear quarantine and run in Preakness.