B.C. Numbers

[TGJB]

The theory over the years has become that a softer, slower surface is a safer one. With dirt tracks that means more cushion, with grass courses it probably means more water. Don\'t know if it\'s true on dirt, but on grass an awful lot of horses break down when the course is dry and hard, and horsemen scream.

Nevertheless, there was a stretch this summer with some awfully fast grass races,  some of which took place in your neck of the woods-- Royal Regalia ran a mile in 1:31:4 and change, Soaring Free seven furlongs in 1:19:1. Special Ring went 1 1/8th in 1:45:4 around 2 turns in the Eddie Read, Artie Schiller 1:45:2 in the Jamaica. There were at least 3 mile races on the Belmont turf in 1:32 and change. Shaconage went 1 1/8th in 1:46:3 at CD, with 2 others within 1 1/2 lengths-- and they were all fillies.

I came up with all of those with 5 minutes thought and a quick look at the BC pp\'s. There are probably quite a few more examples.

[Boscar Obarra]

\"3-- We gave out our first dead rail on turf ever.\"

   Hmmmm. Was many years before any kind of dead rail was included in any sheets, of course the boys in the grandstand kept track of them for probably 30 years (or more) before that.

   I suspect there might have been a few dead rail turf courses over the last decades that might have been overlooked as well.  Just a wild guess.

[Silver Charm]

There have been several years at Santa Anita and late in the meet at Gulfstream where the Entire Turf Course could have been considered dead.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Silver Charm wrote:

> There have been several years at Santa Anita and late in the
> meet at Gulfstream where the Entire Turf Course could have been
> considered dead.
>


lol

I would like to make one point about a difference between various figures makers that I believe accounts for some of the patterns in the figures we have noticed in recent years.

When some figure makers attempt to interpret results they generally think it is more likely the winner ran a figure approximating its \"expected\" performance (or slightly better) and some of the others runners (especially those well beaten) ran a figure equal to or \"SLOWER\" than what was \"expected\".

The reason for that is that if you believe in the impact of trips other than just ground lost (meaning pace, position, bias, quality of competition etc...) you would tend to think that a horse maximizes its figure when it gets a perfect all around trip against easy opponents. It would therefore run a bit slower against more competitive horses, against more competitive paces, when it\'s out of position etc...

That type of thinking will generally lead to flat figures over the years.

On the flip side, if your assumption is that some of these well beaten horses ran to their expected figures regardless of  positon, pace, and competitive quality issues, your figures will tend to get faster and faster over time because the only way some of the figures can make any sense is if you assume the winner ran quite a bit faster then expected.

I am talking about a very minor and slow process, but one that IMO certainly exists. I see it all the time.

Without making a judgement, I\'m almost certain this is one factor in the different figure trends we\'ve seen between various popular figure makers over the years.



Post Edited (11-06-04 16:32)

[TGJB]

It is true that if one takes a broad approach that is that simple the figures  creep in one direction or another, and it is also true that individual figure makers have tendencies that make them more or less conservative-- Ragozin, for example, treats off tracks the same way he did when he was starting out, when the tracks reacted markedly differently to water. He gives out far fewer good numbers (especially tops) on off tracks, which is incorrect since the newer tracks of the last decade or so have more sand, and are for the most part just fast tracks which happen to be wet, as opposed to the sticky, slower clay tracks of the past.

But in general it\'s not that simple, since you have to move the figures you assign for each race as a solid grid, and look carefully at how the number you assign fits into the context of the various horses. To see what I\'m talking about, take a look at the BC numbers we posted. Look at each race, and see what adding or subtracting one point, two, three etc. to all the horses in it does to each horse-- and that\'s not even dealing with the question of seperate variants and thinking about the day as a whole, which I have spent a lot of time discussing.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Figures are funny things. The only reason we are having this debate is because horses are suddenly running negative 6.5\'s. Negative 3 and 4 were hard enough to deal with and now we have to factor neg. 6.5 The numbers I look at essentially are at all time highs as well.

I have come to have a simple rule. Trust T-Graph explicitly unless theres some oddities involved with the day itself. Changing track conditions, unascertained  bias, something along those lines. T-Graph says GZ ran neg 6.5\'s at 9 marks. I tend to believe them. Which is not to say I\'m convinced GZ ran a neg 4 in the Classic, but I do understand the sliding grid application and assigning him a neg. 4 works out pretty good for most of the field.

T-Graph is the gold standard. If you are able to isolate an issue, you have the opportunity to score nicely. However for the once in a blue moon race where I think I\'m onto something that they are not, I\'m exposed to 20 other races that are solid and unimpeachable. Its also possible that when I do find an issue I\'m lucky rather than good and I understand that.

Last year I was convinced Read the Footnotes ran faster against Second of June in the Fountain of Youth than T-Graph scored him. I thought it was a big top. I remember some talk about the Remsen being \"up figured\" compared to the other fig makers and therefore the fig T-Graph assigned in the F.O.Y. was perhaps a top and that could have explained his bounce in the Florida Derby. At least thats what I recall. At any rate I was convinced it was very fast, bounce fast, and I decided upon Value Plus and hooked him up in myriad combinations. One other horse scared me. Friends Lake and I put him atop Value. The only horse I did so with. Good Thing. Very Good Thing. In hindsight, I was lucky because The Cliff\'s Edge was a better horse than those two. Just not at the time is all. What happened to all those horses anyway? RTF, Second of June, Silver Wagon, Friends Lake. Strawberries!

Anyway I suspect T-Graph may have gotten the Classic wrong. The race to a great extent fell apart with injuries and traffic and pace issues and I suspect a bias. But even then I\'m only talking 2 points in my estimation. When RIM and GZ wax me next time with negative 5\'s I\'ll offer T-Graph my sincere apologies.



CtC

looks like straight line is the TCE heir apparent. like that strawberry road on the back.



Post Edited (11-06-04 18:51)

[Michael D.]

if you tie 12f and 10f #\'s to 8f and 9f #\'s, you are likely to come up with a database full of longer route #\'s that are too fast. horses are bred more for speed than distance than they uesed to be, and are running short races much faster than they used to, but longer routes only a bit faster. most numbers i look at (both running times and other speed figures) confirm this. TGJB, your dogmatic approach to figure making, along with a conversation you had with a track superintendent is the only evidence you can give that today\'s horses are running longer races faster than they used to. go back and look at some of the times \'bid, easy goer, ap indy and a few of the others ran. unless you can give SPECIFIC REASONS why every single track in the country has gotten a lot slower, your route #\'s are very hard for me to believe in relation to the route figs you gave out ten years ago.



Post Edited (11-06-04 18:30)

[TGJB]

Dogmatic? You got the wrong sheetmaker, Michael.

According to NYRA track superintendent Porcelli, many tracks, maybe all, have gone to higher sand, less clay, and more cushion, to make them safer and so they can dry faster. To cite the example I have used before-- when Secretariat, Bid et al were running, Belmont had a 3 inch cushion. It now has a 4 inch cushion. There was only one day in 2003 where there was a 3 1/2 inch cushion-- the day Najran ran the 1:32 mile.

There are lots of reasons to think horses should be getting faster, which I discuss in more depth in the articles that can be found in the archives here. Keep in mind that 25 years is a generation for humans, about 3 generations for horses-- Secretariat is to horses as Jesse Owens is to humans, and there are a LOT of high school kids running faster than Jesse Owens now.

What makes it LOOK so shocking is the artificial barrier of \"negative\" numbers. Lower is faster was a great idea by Ragozin (the difference between a 7 and a 4 is easier to deal with than between a 104 and a 107), but it creates the false impression that horses are moving into some unnatural terrain.

[Michael D.]

i need SPECIFIC EVIDENCE that most tracks around the country are much slower than they used to be. your entire database of longer route race #\'s depends on this point, as your route race figs are getting faster than other figure makers. do you have any info on CD, Hol, SA, GP, Pim, LRl, and all of the other major tracks? some would argue that that CD surface is actually faster than it used to be. this would probably be a long term project, but could you provide specific evidence that the top twenty major tracks in the country are a lot slower than they used to be (please do not direct me towards a conversation you had with a single track superintendent or older posts, i will just drop this if you do not want to address the top tracks around the country).

[TGJB]

Ultimately the evidence is measured by how fast the horses run compared to how fast the same horses have run in the past, which is reflected in the figures-- without having that to tie things to, even the information that the track is deeper and sandier would have no meaning. If you want to know about specific tracks in terms of depth etc, you can contact the track supers yourself, assuming they have been there long enough to know. Porcelli had been at at a conference of guys who do what he does (hosted I believe by the guy who does it at Philly Park), and looked back into the records as far back as the 80\'s for NYRA tracks at my request.

As for the distance figures-- we do studies to make sure the figures for sprints and routes line up at each track. As I pointed out in a post about a year ago here (you might try the search engine) Ragozin pretty obviously was not doing so, at least for SoCal in 03, but may have started to after I made an issue of it, because their sprint/route relationship there changed (we knew ours were right because of the studies I mentioned). In general, the difference has to do with their unwillingness to split one and two turn races, which often results in giving the sprints figures that are too good, and robbing the routes. Another poster here once suggested that the one turn routes at Belmont came up fast on Ragozin compared to routes at other tracks-- I wouldn\'t be surprised.

[miff]

There is no doubt that today\'s racing surfaces have been \"slowed\" at many tracks for soundness reasons.JB correctly points out that the generation has changed and that horses run faster figs today.

The ABSOLUTE offset to that is that 25 years ago they did not have the legal and illegal drugs and technologys that are now enhancing performances. Let\'s call the faster surfaces of 25 years ago and the improved legal and illegal drugs/technologys of today a wash.

For all those who did not see Big Red or Dr. Fager, let me say that IMO the Mineshaft\'s and Ghost Zapper\'s of today (fastest figs on record) would have been little competition to those \"true\" freaks at equal weights.

The numbers today have ground loss factored in  which is frequently the firmer racing path and no adjustment is made. A horse running four wide around the turn at Belmont is often running in a much firmer path than the horse on the rail and yet the wide runner gets a better  fig.Those wide figs have been highly misleading when trying to establish the true faster runner in a race. I can only imagine that this wide beneficial path situation exist at other tracks also.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Mineshaft was a good horse. He was defeated in his eclipse year and he did dodge the big dance. I don\'t put Mineshaft in the \"greats\" category. I understand he ran a negative five or thereabouts with a wide. Wasn\'t it even in the losing effort? I forget.

Dr Fager was the world record miler. Additionally, he beat the very best at 10 marks when they didn\'t throw a suicide rabbit at him. I facetiously called Ghostzapper \"The New Doc\". GZ hasn\'t won a grade I at 6 marks. I\'m not sure they had graded racing in Doc\'s day but he beat the best at six marks as well. GZ is no Doc Fager. He\'s no Dancing Spree for that matter. Spree won grade I\'s at 6 to 10 marks.

Ghostzapper ran one of his neg 6.5\'s in the slop against nothing. I believe it is a neg 6.5 but its inherently suspect.

Ghostzapper then ran his second neg. 6.5 against a horse that matched him stride for stride on what was obviously a cooked surface at Belmont. Two fastest ever speed horses at the same time on a wicked strip?  Maybe.

GZ then had a negotiated pace and a wicked surface play to his advantage in the Classic.

I\'m dying to saddle up against GZ and RIM in 10 mark contests next year. I don\'t know with whom. So many have fallen by the wayside recently but others will emerge. Funny is not done. If Tagg were juicing this guy would be all the raves.

Theres not many 10 mark races for older horses in the East any longer and I\'m quite convinced its easier to run juiced in the East than it is in the West, so if GZ dodges the 10 mark races he\'s gonna be tough to beat. But I don\'t respect him. I think he\'s cheating and I have the cure.

CtC



Post Edited (11-07-04 10:19)

[Michael D.]

TGJB,
thanks for the response. i like your product and will continue to buy it as long as you include all of the valuable features. you have not convinced me, however, that today\'s horses run 10 furlong races ten lengths faster than they did ten years ago, as your figures claim. this is a major concern of mine.

[ronwar]

CtC wrote

\"Funny is not done. If Tagg were juicing this guy would be all the raves.\"

lol

Would anyone be surprised if Funny is taken away from Tagg?