Friedman/Change Of Track Speed

[TGJB]

Okay. While I was away Classhandicapper put some questions to Friedman on the Ragozin board, and Len responded. There is quite a bit here that demonstrates the different figure making philosophies of Ragozin and Thoro-Graph, so this is a serious post, and I\'ll avoid sarcasm to the degree possible. Len said:

1-- \"Saying something is \'clear\' or \'obvious\' doesn\'t make it so. All it does is say we should believe your assertions because to be frank you know that you\'re right\".


So right away the anti-sarcasm resolve is tested, since that is exactly what Len does.

Specifically-- Len, about six weeks ago I posted  that it appeared you had made a 3 length error in your figures for most of the field in this year\'s Kentucky Derby, and showed in great detail why I thought so, and where you made the error. Your response: no, we got it right, with no detail. And no amount of follow up questioning has been enough to get you to explain what should be pretty straightforward, if you are right.

So I will give you another chance to set the record straight: please tell us the beaten length margins you used between each of the first five finishers in this year\'s Derby, and the ground loss you used for them. If the lengths beaten you used were different than the published ones, please tell us why. This is a simple and straightforward question.



2-- \"Picking on Belmont day to support your general conclusions is terribly misleading. There was a significant (and unusual) change in the variant level from the previous day due to work on the track in preparation for a Belmont Stakes day where there was a forecast of possible heavy rain. There was over an hour between both the 1st and 2nd and the 2nd and 3rd dirt races which is also an unusual situation\".



a) It\'s actually not an unusual situation. It resulted in there being about 75 minutes between dirt races, and every time a track cards two turf races in a row the time between dirt races is at lest that long. In a recent 7 racing day stretch at Belmont it happened 4 times-- 6/12, 6/16, 6/18, and 6/20.

But it\'s also not significant. Every single racing day there is at least a 75 minute gap between two dirt races, whether there are other dirt races run between them or not, and track maintenance done between the races or not (which, depending on the track, can be just as significant). The question is simply whether a track can change speed over a 75 minute stretch, or not.

b) Okay. You say the variant changed from the previous day. How do you know that? By knowing what track work was done, and applying a standard trackwork-done correction? Or by looking at how fast the horses ran, on a race by race basis? If the former, how did you arrive at it? If the latter, aren\'t you doing what you always accuse me of, just giving the horses what you want? More on that later.



3-- \"This combination of factors led to a slide in the variant level during the early part of the Belmont day card, although the amount of the slide was considerably less than what some others have apparently concluded. Slides like this happen from time to time, but they are the exception, not the rule\".



a) How do you know that was why the track changed speed? You were there when I made the original presentation on changing track speeds in Vegas (which can now be found in the Archives section of this site), so you know that scientists (like Dr. Pratt of M.I.T), who have studied the physical properties of racetracks, have found that slight changes in moisture content, as well as ordinary garden variety day to day track maintenance, affect resiliency (track speed). On Belmont day, they watered the track after the first 6 races, and not again. Think that might have caused the track to get faster during the early part of the card, then level off? And it\'s not unusual-- this kind of thing happens all the time, at tracks around the country, although not always to this degree. The fact they expected rain probably did exacerbate the situation in this case. But the reason you say a slide is unusual is because you make the ASSUMPTION that it takes a major event for it to happen, and don\'t ALLOW your variants to slide without one-- which the science has shown is wrong.

b) How do you know the track speed changed during the day, and by how much? Once again, if you look at the day race by race, aren\'t you just giving the horses what you think they should run?



4-- \"Changes in the relationship of the routes and sprints at a given track happen from time to time, but again they are the exception rather than the rule except where the variant level and/or the track condition in some cases makes the short/long the usual result (sic)\".



I would probably disagree with this if I could figure out what it meant. I will say that the relationships between distances are not fixed, due to being affected by track maintenance and climactic conditions. At Belmont there are very significant wind current and sunshine issues that depending on wind direction and time of year (where the sun/shade is) can cause the backstretch to be soaking wet while the stretch is bone dry. The percentage of the race being run over each part varies from distance to distance.



5-- \"Making these decisions is sometimes very difficult, as you say, and that\'s why the hard work of insuring accurate and objective raw data and careful review of all aspects of the track\'s history is a better approach than bouncing the variant around to give the horses what the variant maker \'knew\' they must have run\".



a) The simple, basic question is this-- HOW do you make those decisions, if not by using the figure histories of the horses? In that sense everyone who makes speed figures, whether by using par times or by the projection method using entire fields, is giving horses what they \"knew\" they ran. The only other way would be to have a device that physically measures surface resilience.

b) But more importantly-- you CAN\'T just give the horses what you want to. I was hoping Friedman would go down this road in Vegas, but he didn\'t.

The figure relationships between horses in a race are fixed, by the lengths between them, the weight relationships between them, and the ground loss relationships. You can give exactly ONE horse per race \"whatever you want to\". You can\'t pair the winner to his 6, the second horse to his 8 1/4, and the third horse to his 9 1/2, unless those relationships bear it out. If you start screwing with the relationships of horses within a race, or start pairing individual horses at the expense of giving correct numbers to groups of horses, you will get yourself in a lot of trouble real quick-- you will have a data base where nothing makes sense, the opposite of the Thoro-Graph data base, where lots of horses run in a tight range.

I think this is the most common misunderstanding among those who have not made figures.

He started out giving me a hard time in response to my post. I guess he understandably figured I was there to bash his methodology. I wasn\'t. I was actually  there to get his thoughts.

Belmont day was such an obvious example of the type of track speed change I have long exprienced making figures. More importantly, it was quite obvious that track maintenance was a factor much like you have stated all along. I was there to see it.

Personally, I think there are strengths and weaknesses to every methodology of making figures. The one thing Andy Beyer is right about is that this is part \"art\". It\'s not all science.

That\'s why even though I\'m a very numbers oriented guy, my handle is \"classhandicapper\".

It may seem archaic and obsolete, but there is still merit to looking at the quality and depth of fields (and trip) various contenders have been facing to see who beat who, by how much, and how consistently. There\'s nothing wrong with supplementing the numbers with an alternative view of reality.