Ghostzapper

[thomas]

To: TGJB

Just curious but where does Ghostzapper\'s Iselin number fit amongst your all time best rankings? Also I noticed they watered the track a mere 11 minutes prior to the Woodward today. I read your piece at the DRF symposium but I\'m still not sure how you quantify the effects of watering.

[TGJB]

The Iselin figure was the best we\'ve given out, and renews my interest in adding 5 points to the base-- but I think I\'m going to wait to see what comes out of this new demand for detention barns, etc.

We get info regarding between which races the track is watered at most major tracks (and other work done on it), only occasionally at how many minutes to post. All that stuff is a clue as you try to put together the puzzle, but quantifying things comes down to using the figure histories of the horses.

Certainly watering the track can speed it up, especially at a very sandy track like Belmont, but there are a lot of variables like moisture content pre-watering, which in turn can be a function of how much water they have already put in it and humidity, and evaporating factors like sun and wind, and harrowing.

[Saddlecloth]

when you get the figure for the woodward, is it possible tor release it, for disussions sake.

[thomas]

Perhaps you might want to take an on line poll amongst your customer base whether to change the scale. For what its worth count me in for moving it, I know it will be a pain in the a-- on your end but  negative sixes are tough on the eye.

[P.Eckhart]

I\'m no \'projectionist\' by a million miles but would be interested in TGJB\'s take on how he called it.

I read beyer gave 114, which means I think they keyed St Liam calling it a paired top (to them). This also means they see the race collapsing a bit underneath though.

If you instead pair Seek Golds last at 99, this also pairs Newfoundlands last of 98, which would give Bowmans Band 110 a number he ran 2 back, implying St Liam and Ghostzapper are on 124 (making Stellar Jayne around 107).

So I think TGJM will either sort of agree with beyer or say Dutrows horse ran a huge one and beyer blew it. The rate of deceleration at the end of the Woodward is quite disturbing in that Stellar Jane would have dead heated in another furlong which suggests the Woodward might have been run optimally and St Liam did run big. But what do I know?
Nuffink.

>I read beyer gave 114<

That seems logical to me in light of the way both horses were used hard in the middle of the race. In other words, they both ran a little better than a 114 even though that\'s the speed figure.

Stella\'s figure also makes sense in light of the fact that she closed in 11 4/5. That pace was so slow it helped her win, but probably slowed down the actual time. A horse can only run so fast late at the end of a route.

[TGJB]

I\'m a couple of days away from doing the figure, but there ain\'t no way SL didn\'t run a significant new top-- time aside, the huge gaps behind those 2 (and 3) would mean ridiculously slow numbers for a lot of horses if you did it that way. Also, they carried 126, which Beyer doesn\'t factor in.

>there ain\'t no way SL didn\'t run a significant new top-- time aside, the huge gaps behind those 2 (and 3) would mean ridiculously slow numbers for a lot of horses if you did it that way.<

They would not be ridiculous if the inferior horses ran lower figures because they got bottomed out by the fast middle splits. (something you would ignore)

I do not believe that\'s the case here as someone else suggested, but you are highlighting an EXACT set of cirumstances in which your figures could theoretically incorporate pace right into the final time.  

If inferior horses are used up chasing a fast middle pace and run lower figures, you would wind up adjusting the variant for the whole race to make it faster and give the badly beaten horses full credit for their performance. (building the impact of pace right in)

However, you might then also overrate the winners who would be less impacted by the pace because they are superior horses and could handle a faster pace without (or with less) impact. (by the way, repeatedly doing that would tend to produce slowing improving figures over a very long period of time).    

I think SL\'s figure is a new top on the Beyer scale also (by one point 114 vs 113 if the 114 reported here is accurate).

Beyer also  doesn\'t factor in ground loss which would be important (that\'s something that someone using Beyer figs should do seperately). I haven\'t tried to make a Beyer figure for the race. My first guess was about 118.

[TGJB]

Just to make one point clear-- when I agreed that variations in pace could affect a figure, what I meant was that they can affect final time of the race, and we would then adjust the figure SLIGHTLY. Exception would be a very slow pace, where the adjustment is often more than slight.

I definitely do NOT agree with your point about horses behind a fast pace. If you want to say that there are occasionally times a very hot pace causes front runners to spit it out, I\'ll agree with you, but there is no evidence (or physiological logic) that would cause \"less classy\" animals to not handle a pace they themselves were not part of. A far more likely explanation here is that one horse ran back to one of his huge figures, one jumped up for a trainer who once again is getting some huge jump up figures (Allday?), and the rest ran somewhere in the vicinity of what they usually run-- and that\'s just looking at the gaps, never mind the fast time, weight etc. If the front two had come back to earth in the stretch the performances of those behind them would have looked just fine.

[HP]

All this pace hoo-hah about a horse that figured to run a monster race and did? I don\'t get it.

Also, 108+ for 6f SEEMS LIKE 108+ for 6f, period, in comparison with the other races or not. It doesn\'t \"seem\" better or worse than anything that I can see. That\'s fast! Even non-pace scholars like me can say that is a FAST pace for a nine furlong race, outside of Monmouth Park, of course.

This \"bottoming out\" stuff sounds like nonsense. Two ran and the others didn\'t. I can\'t see how you can ascribe this result to pace as opposed to what you might have come up with just looking at TG and never cracking open the Racing Form. He ran like a horse paying $2.80. Sorry. HP

[P.Eckhart]

As an aside, maybe wrong, but forgetting ground loss (which only makes it look worse) to get a 128 pair they wanted 1.44:8 and a 6L thrashing of Forego\'s race record. That was some race he ran at Monmouth.



Post Edited (09-13-04 16:56)

There is. I am probably not explaining it well.

Here\'s 2 examples in Beyer terms (that\'s the way I think about pace figures)
This is not science. The numbers do not represent formulas. They simply demonstrate principles.  

Example 1:

Assume 2 horses of different ability.

Horse A = usually runs around 118
Horse B = usually runs around 100

The race itself earns 125 - 120 - 116 (first call, second call, and final time) Just a slightly fast pace.

Horse A wires the field.

Horse B was 3 lengths off the lead at the 6F point of the route.

Horse A has 118 potential/ability and thus has only a little trouble handling a 125-120 pace and more or less reproducs his typical final figure.

Horse B has 100 ability and will not cope with a 113 pace for 6 furlongs (3 lengths off a 120) and reproduce anywhere near his 100 final time figure. His figure drops by more that the 118 horse even though he rated off the pace. He was going too fast for \"HIM\" at that point.

It would be like me rating just behind world class milers for the first half. It\'s still way too fast for me.

Example 2 using the same 2 horses:

Race Rating: 80 118 115

Horse A gets away with an easy first part, but accelerates very sharply during the middle part of the race to get to his average pace for the 2nd part. His second fraction is much faster than is normal for him. His effort in the middle takes a minor toll even though he had it easy the first part.

Horse B rates just off the pace the first part with no difficulty, but is used much much harder than his natural ability during the second part just trying to maintain his position. He does not cope with that middle fraction nearly as well at the leader because he has much less ability. His figure declines much more that the 118 horse.  

This is like me rating last in a field of world class milers during a slow first quarter but then trying keep that exact position during the faster 2nd quarter. I would be a dead man carried off on a stretcher if I tried. Trying to keep up with a fast middle pace of world class milers is way beyond my natural ability. It would kill my ability to reproduce my optimum mile time.

I suspect some are going to say I cannot prove it.

I agree.

I suspect some are going to say give me the formula.

I can\'t. There isn\'t one. Horses have unique abilities. Creating very accurate pace figures is virtually impossible. Form fluctuates.

I suspect some will  argue that there is nothing forcing the weaker horses to run too fast at times.

I know that. The reality is that sometimes they just do.

There is some logic to this point of view. All you have to do is look at the natural abilities of the horses, the fractions they run, and think about what would happen to human runners in similar circumstances. That\'s enough to concede it is possible.

I\'ve studied this kind of stuff enough to be almost certain it is true for horses also.  
Very many other people have studied this and concluded the same thing.  

I don\'t want to convert anyone. I know it isn\'t science. In fact, I love the fact that so many others ignore the subtle aspects of pace in their handicapping. They sometimes reach false conclusions about race results, form and figures. Not very often, but often enough.



Post Edited (09-13-04 20:36)

[miff]

Pace figures are all over the place, some proving to be very accurate. I won\'t say here because this is TGs\' site and it would not be appropriate to mention competitive products.Fairly soon, I\'m thinking that a product with pace figs, weight consideration, ground loss, stats and track  bias will come to the market.

>This \"bottoming out\" stuff sounds like nonsense. <

I do not think it happened in the Woodward. The leaders were drawing off from the others. I said it is possible for horses that are off the pace to run too fast in the middle of the race and impact their time.

2 race shapes:

24 - 46.1 - 109.3 - 138

22.1 - 45.3 - 109.3 - 138

45.3 is way too fast a 1/2 mile for 138 mile horses.

One race had a 45.3 early.

One race had a 45.3 in the middle.

Most people would have no difficulty noting that the front runners in race shape 2 that went 22.1 and 45.3 were running too fast early.  They would totally miss the closers that went 22.1 and 45.3 in race shape 2 in the middle because they were off the pace.  

Closers that maintained their position or tried to improve it during the 45.3 middle race would be running too fast even though they were off the pace. It would impact their time. It would \"bottom them out\".



Post Edited (09-14-04 13:54)

Miff,

I made pace figures for myself for many years. I had a several year database of fractions to work with. It is impossible to make pace figures that are of equal quality to speed figures. They are helpful, but not as accurate. I buy them from someone else now. He makes them well. Less work for me.
I think it is necessary to both look at pace figures AND actually watch the races to see how hard horses are actually being used at various points in the race. The two methods often reinforce or contradict each other. It\'s helps to know how certain you are about your conclusions because of the complexities.