BC #'s

[Michael D.]

i\'m just curious...... given the fact that len has an \"s\" next to c\'stoppers figure (which means slow start), how many people on this board think that if len made an error (if that is), it was because he took into account a slow start when he shouldn\'t have, or it was because he made a ground loss error. i just want the focus to be where it needs to be, otherwise this is a waste of time.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Michael, I can\'t get to the other board to verify what is being said. TGraph uses an \"OP\" designation and leaves it to the handicapper to determine how the performance figure was impacted. If Rags uses an \"s\" and that means the performance figure is adjusted and it was adjusted, that seems consistent with a different figure for that horse. If thats the case the issue for Clock Stopper becomes \"Did he dwell enough out of the gate to merit an \"s\".\" However, Per SoCalMan2, and corroborrated by TGJB, there were other horses in that race with questionable figures. Does \"s\" mean adjusted figure?

CtC

[jimbo66]

Michael,

I don\'t think it is a waste of time either way.

1.  If he made a ground loss error, that obviously matters.  The fact that it occurred in a Breeders Cup race is very bad.  Mistakes happen in every profession, but if he made that mistake on the biggest day of racing, that counts more.

2.  If he adjusted his figure because of a slow start, that would either represent bad methodology or a mistake again.  My unbiased view is that CS broke with the field, then dropped back.  If Rags methodology calls for an adjustment in this situation, I would view that as a mistake.  Of course, that is just me and I am no authority.  But logically, I can\'t see making an adjustment for a horse that breaks and drops back.  

But until Len gives some kind of answer, we really are all guessing at what the issue is.

[TGJB]

Jim has it exactly right. And I would add a point I made in my original post when I brought up the error-- we put three guys on the BC because they are important races with big fields. Ragozin clearly had only one guy on it, or whatever mistake they made would have been caught. This has happened before (Touch Of The Blues a couple of years ago in the Mile), and Ragozin reacted by...  doing nothing to fix the problem.

[Michael D.]

good point ctc, does \"s\" mean adjusted figure? something we will find out when (or if) he replies. seems guys here don\'t think c\'stopper started \"slow\", and guys here don\'t want that in the figure even if he did. call me an idiot, but i don\'t think it\'s that obvious from the replay. i will search the internet, see if i can find any quotes from day (he usually has an excuse when he comes flying too late).

[TGJB]

You can\'t tell from that replay whether he left the gate with the rest of the field??

[twoshoes]

OK you\'re an idiot -  he broke with the field and was quickly taken in hand - as per usual.

Just watched again because I felt a slight pang of guilt. I wouldn\'t have called you an idiot unless you asked - you did - and after further review the play stands as called.



Post Edited (12-11-04 20:06)

[jimbo66]

Michael,

Certainly wouldn\'t  call you an idiot.  It is just that after watching the replay, I don\'t see the slow start.  But different people can see the same replay and view things differently.  I just don\'t want an adjustment in the figure for slow starts - my preference.  I just think a notation to denote what happened and allow the handicapper to decide how much weight to put into the slow start.

I will give you an example, albeit an obvious bad start and not a subtle one.  Do you remember the Preakness with Silver Charm Free House, Captain Bodgett and Touch Gold.  One of my more frustrating TC races ever.  I loved Touch Gold and he was 5 or 6 to 1.  The gates opened, he dropped on his nose and spotted the field 10 lengths.  Actually moved to within a quarter length in the stretch and flattened out slightly, getting beat about 1 length (from memory).  I didn\'t need a figure adjustment to know how much the best he was.  Neither did anybody who watched the race.  The only question in the Belmont (which wound up causing me to get off him), was whether the huge race in the Preakness might have taken too much out of the horse.  

Anyway, I digress.  This slow start brought back painful memories from that year\'s Triple Crown.  The point is that a notation is enough.

>There was no slow start, not the way Ragozin uses the term.<

To be fair, you have to acknowledge that he DID denote a slow start.

If he does have a slow start noted, then that does probably account for the figure.  Thus, the debate should be whether or not it was a bad start by HIS DEFINITION (AS IT IS NOW), whether it was appropriate to consider this one bad start, and not whether the figure is wrong.

IMO, this is probably about methodology.

[TGJB]

Trust me on this one-- leaving with the field but running slowly early is not supposed to be counted in the figure with Ragozin.

That actually becomes another way of getting to this-- maybe one of his players will have the guts to ask Friedman a theoretical question...

Nah.

>If Rags methodology calls for an adjustment in this situation, I would view that as a mistake. <

I am entirely against putting OFF SLOWLY into the figure, but then again I am against putting ground loss into the figure. ha! ha! ha! I want everything as a seperate trip note. :-)

However, if you are going to include it, it MIGHT (repeat MIGHT) make sense in some rare instances where a horse is typically not so sluggish out of the gate or where he got bumped slightly or cut off coming out of the gate and that caused it. I would have to see the head on shot to know.

On the flip side, some horses are off a little slowly every time they run and it\'s crazy to give them extra credit for being off slowly.

[twoshoes]

CH -

Point of interest. What did Nick denote? SG1; SG2 - taken up shortly after or unhurried? I have a lot of confidence in his opinion. I use him only for the meat of the year for me - Belmont Spring and Saratoga into the first part of Belmont Fall.

Mark

[kev]

a small s = off poorly by 2L\'s and thats what they have next to CS number, meaning do they adj. for that by 2l\'s

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

jimbo66 wrote:

  The point is that a
> notation is enough.

When you start trying to determine how a slow start impacted a performance figure, you delve further into the realm of subjectivity. Thats why I assume TGraph doesn\'t go that route. It\'s not consistent with their objective tenor. Yes, I know theres a certain subjectivity to figuring an effort, but the key is to minimize the subjective variables. It also helps to have a thorough understanding of the \"subjective\" variables and thats a key distinction between the two concerns in my opinion.

Long story short, exactly Jimbo. Tell me he was off poorly, let me decide.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Two,

Michael is certainly not an idiot. I just don\'t think that helps the debate. He\'s got a different view or a different interpretation of the start I guess. Thats what makes for wagering opinions. He framed this debate on this board: \"Is the figure divergence related to a ground loss error or is it related to the Rag interpretation of the start of the race.\" The next question is of course, \"If the difference is related to starting gate interpretations is that explanation satisfactory?\"



Post Edited (12-11-04 22:17)