CH/CtC - Over-estimation of the Pace Impact

[jimbo66]

CtC/CH,

Like a lot of us, I am still looking into why this race fell apart and why so many fast horses ran like crap.  

I have read both of your posts about how pace was the determining factor and how ironically both of you are \"upgrading\" the effort of Bellamy Road in this race, where he ran like a snake, when you were both \"down\" on the horse after the Wood, where he ran like the second coming....

I just don\'t buy pace as a huge factor here.  Closing Argument, a decidedly inferior horse than Bellamy Road, on anybody\'s figures, was a little more than a 1/2 length off of Bellamy Road at the first quarter mark.  He dropped a little further off at the half and 3/4 mile mark, then even with him at the mile mark.  CA stayed on well, albeit getting tired, and finished a solid second.  Bellamy backed up to 7th.

Of course the pace was hot, but there have been hot paces in previous derbies and the races didn\'t fall apart.  The Monarchos derby had a similar pace to it and Monarchos figured well in that race, as did the 3rd place finisher Congaree.  

This Derby requires some deep analysis, and even then we may not get any conclusions.  But to say \"pace\" decided it, is not accurate or even to say \"it was just the result of the juicers not getting juice\", understates it a lot.

This Derby will be tough to get over, at least for me.  In most years, even without cashing, there are things to learn about the derby.  The War Emblem lesson was to respect figures from \"lesser tracks\" or \"less prestigious races\", The Funny Cide lesson was not to buy into the \"Empire Maker was toying with him in the Wood, he could have run much faster\" crap, etc.etc.  However, I can\'t find any lesson to learn from this derby, other than not to bet more on the Derby, just because it is the Derby.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

jimbo66 wrote:

> CtC/CH,
>
> Like a lot of us, I am still looking into why this race fell
> apart and why so many fast horses ran like crap.  
>
> I have read both of your posts about how pace was the
> determining factor and how ironically both of you are
> \"upgrading\" the effort of Bellamy Road in this race, where he
> ran like a snake, when you were both \"down\" on the horse after
> the Wood, where he ran like the second coming....

Thought there were a few reasons to bet against Bellamania:

Bounce
Pace Scenario/Adversity (1st time new style - Inability to truly rate)
Post
Price

Also, you\'ll win far more races betting the next horse is NOT a superhorse than betting he IS.

>
> I just don\'t buy pace as a huge factor here.  Closing Argument,
> a decidedly inferior horse than Bellamy Road, on anybody\'s
> figures, was a little more than a 1/2 length off of Bellamy
> Road at the first quarter mark.  He dropped a little further
> off at the half and 3/4 mile mark, then even with him at the
> mile mark.  CA stayed on well, albeit getting tired, and
> finished a solid second.  Bellamy backed up to 7th.

C.A.\'s race was better. Whether it will be next time is the issue.
 
> Of course the pace was hot, but there have been hot paces in
> previous derbies and the races didn\'t fall apart.  The
> Monarchos derby had a similar pace to it and Monarchos figured
> well in that race, as did the 3rd place finisher Congaree.

Monarchos was not on top/bounce projection and he laid off that hot pace. He\'s of won Saturday as well.
 
> This Derby requires some deep analysis, and even then we may
> not get any conclusions.  But to say \"pace\" decided it, is not
> accurate or even to say \"it was just the result of the juicers
> not getting juice\", understates it a lot.

Everyone has to draw their own conclusions. Mine are the outcome was a once in a lifetime result based upon the importance of the following factors in this order:

Bounce
Bias/Path
Pace
Injury
Drug Screening

> This Derby will be tough to get over, at least for me.  In most
> years, even without cashing, there are things to learn about
> the derby.  The War Emblem lesson was to respect figures from
> \"lesser tracks\" or \"less prestigious races\", The Funny Cide
> lesson was not to buy into the \"Empire Maker was toying with
> him in the Wood, he could have run much faster\" crap, etc.etc.
> However, I can\'t find any lesson to learn from this derby,
> other than not to bet more on the Derby, just because it is the
> Derby.

Empire Maker lost to Funny Cide on an injury and ground loss, which was very foreseeable.

[jimbo66]

Ok Chuckles.

I can buy that.  Maybe I was reading too much into the pace comments you made earlier.  

I can buy the combination of the factors you named, although I don\'t know if the bias/path factor was relevant.  I have to review the charts for the day.  

Also, good to see you get a redboard opportunity on the 2002 Derby..........

Jimbo,

I don\'t know if you read all my posts (one to HP about Closing Argument), but I don\'t think the pace was totally responsible for the race falling apart. I think it certainly played a part though. I think several horses probably didn\'t appreciate the extra furlong too. In a race like the Derby with 20 horses, some horses with decent form also don\'t fire almost every year - maybe due to seasoning, preparation, getting overly excited due to crowds, getting outrun, , etc...    

I think it\'s close to impossible to tell which factor contributed how much. I\'ve seen the preliminary pace figure range for the race and it was fast enough to impact several horses.

This is an example of why some people think I talk in circles.

I think most of us would agree that the pace was \"some factor\". It\'s the degree that is debateable.

I think most of us would probably agree that distance was \"some factor\" for some horses.

There was actually some controversey about some of the figures.  

I don\'t know of a way to be perfectly accurate on which contributed how much. So my assessement of the race and thus some of the horses is more of a range than a number.



Post Edited (05-09-05 15:49)

[MO]

You must also factor in the rediculous size of the field and the fact that this is the only race in the country where an auxilary gate is used. It is pure greed. Get rid of the auxilary gate and limit the field to 14.

[beyerguy]

Why shorten the field?  What other single race offers the chance for a life changing score?  Leave it as is, I\'ll take my chances.

[MO]

It\'s an accident waiting to happen. Picture this:

A greedy owner forces his trainer to run a cheap speed horse. The horse has the lead going into the 1st turn and snaps off a leg. The horse and rider go down causing a chain reaction, wiping out half the field. 2 jocks suffer broken pelvis, one a broken neck, one is killed. 4 horses are euthanized. NBC backs out of deal to broadcast the race. Racing gets another black eye. Don\'t say it can\'t happen.

[beyerguy]

It could happen any day of the week, and it could happen with 12 or 14 horses in the Derby.  Heck, I think Wayne Lukas is actually trying to make it happen  Can you believe he is considering Going Wild for the Preakness?

They\'ve been running this way for 100+ years.  They shorten the field, the first Triple Crown winner we get, it is yeah, but...

[jbelfior]

How about we keep try this; have the top 14 get in based on graded earnings and the rest by the invitation of an arbitrary panel.


Good Luck,
Joe B.

[beyerguy]

jbelfior wrote:

> How about we keep try this; have the top 14 get in based on
> graded earnings and the rest by the invitation of an arbitrary
> panel.
>
>
> Good Luck,
> Joe B.
>
>

Ummm, no thanks...

[jimbo66]

Beyerguy,

You want a \"lifechanging score\", play the lottery.

A majority of horseplayers will take their shots at a score that might be difficult to come up with, rewarding, but at least slightly discernable.

Not a completely random result, with no logic, or method to come up with.  THis year\'s Derby was pretty much that.

Yeah, I know, sounds like sour grapes and I guess it is.  

But 14 top quality horses would be a nice Derby.

[MO]

Beyerguy,

Take this for instance:

Came Home was my top pick to win the Derby a couple of years ago. They scratched a horse pre-race and that horse was to start from the main gate. Came Home started from post 15 (which is really post 17) and under \"normal rules\" when the aforementioned horse scratched, Came Home would have moved into the main gate and started from post 14. But noooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Churchill makes up the rules as they go along, and so Came Home remained in the 15 hole. (really, the 17 hole). Cost him at least 2 lengths. No, he wouldn\'t have won anyway (and not because of the distance), but at least this FORMER horseplayer would have gone home knowing at least he hadn\'t been cheated....hmmmmmmmmm.

It\'s all about image, people.



Post Edited (05-09-05 16:05)

[beyerguy]

Jimbo,

Just for the record, I\'ve never spent a single dollar in my life on a lottery ticket, not in my nature.

I didn\'t cash on the Derby, but I would hardly call it completely random.  I know a few pretty decent handicappers that were sold on Giacomo.  It wasn\'t hard to envsision a suicidal speed dual (I know that is almost taboo here, sorry), and there were only three real closers in the race, total closers, not pressers, not in between.  Greater Good, Don\'t Get Mad, and Giacomo.  I don\'t think too many would argue who was the best of those three.

Again, I bet Greeley\'s Galaxy, I\'m not trying to say this was easy, but totally random, I think not.

[jimbo66]

I understand your point Beyerguy and I retract \"completely random\".  But it was pretty random.

Congrats to your friends who were decent handicappers and came up with Giacomo.  I don\'t mean to sound sarcastic, but I would book all their future bets, if they came up with Giacomo in this race.

A couple more points.

1.  You are posting on the thorograph board and Giacomo was the 19th fastest of 20 horses on T-Graph figures.  

2.  I don\'t agree that there were three closers.  Andromeda\'s Hero, Noble Causeway and Sort it Out are all closers.

3.  Many many people would argue that of Greater Good, Don\'t Ged Mad and Giacomo, Giacomo was the best.  25 million was bet in the win pool on Saturday and Don\'t Get Mad went off at 29-1, Giacomo at 50-1 and Greater Good 58-1.  Sounds like the general poublic liked none of them much, but Don\'t Get Mad the most.

Beyer

>Greater Good, Don\'t Get Mad, and Giacomo. I don\'t think too many would argue who was the best of those three.<

I made the pace of the SA Derby a little slow. If correct, that complimented both Giacomo\'s and Don\'t Get Mad\'s performances in that race. I made that point before the Derby Trial.  

It would have been extremely difficult for me to come up with the winner though. I thought there was a reasonable chance the race would fall apart. I just thought there were a bunch of pressers that had shown enough rateability and were much better. I thought one of them would rate nicely and close - like Bandini - Oooooops. The only horse that really shocked me given the race development was Closing Argument. I thought he was a nice horse, but I thought he wouldn\'t want 10F or the fast pace. I was definitely wrong about him. He ran very well.