Changing Track Speeds: A Derby Contender Case Study Perhaps

Silver Charm · February 11, 2006, 05:18:49 AM

Could someone please explain what if anything happened at Santa Anita on Feb 4th. Bob and John in the 4th race ran an identical time as High Limit did in the Strub. However according to Beyer, High Limit received a Best Year-to-Date North American route figure of 109 while Bob and John got the same thing Judge Smells in Caddy Shack gave Spalding, \"You\'ll get nothing and like it\". Obviously Beyer thinks the Track changed speed somewhere mid-day.

Bob and John may or may not be a major Derby contender, a figure identical to High Limits at one mile and one eighth this early would stamp him as the horse to beat. A few years ago some had Smarty Jones fast, some slow.

Has history repeated itself again.........

Tabitha · February 11, 2006, 06:26:30 AM

Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Could someone please explain what if anything
> happened at Santa Anita on Feb 4th. Bob and John
> in the 4th race ran an identical time as High
> Limit did in the Strub. However according to
> Beyer, High Limit received a Best Year-to-Date
> North American route figure of 109 while Bob and
> John got the same thing Judge Smells in Caddy
> Shack gave Spalding, \"You\'ll get nothing and like
> it\". Obviously Beyer thinks the Track changed
> speed somewhere mid-day.
>
> Bob and John may or may not be a major Derby
> contender, a figure identical to High Limits at
> one mile and one eighth this early would stamp him
> as the horse to beat. A few years ago some had
> Smarty Jones fast, some slow.
>
> Has history repeated itself again.........

And Beyer apparently doesnt even factor Wide. You have to remember Beyer thought Bellamy Road was the second coming and has NEVER selected a Derby winner.

That track was hard to get a handle upon and appears to have fluctuated. For the two races in question however, its an issue of \"Which way did it fluctuate\".

Anyone relying upon Projection for that card (aka Give some of the horses what they usually run and calculate the others off those usuals) is making a monumental mistake and is going to lose credibility with knowledgeable handicappers upon later results.

My inclination? Up factor Beyers reading of \"Bob and Johns\" effort. Down factor his view of High Limit\'s effort. There appeared to be more pace in High Limit\'s race, but \"Bob and John\" came home like a good thing. Head to head at the Derby distance, it\'s \"Bob and John\" and thats a no brainer.

More evidence that if you Live upon Mass Produced figures be prepared to Die upon them.

Silver Charm · February 11, 2006, 10:52:54 AM

>For the two races in question however, its an issue of \"Which way did it fluctuate\".

Excellant point, as a matter of fact the onlypoint at all

>My inclination? Up factor Beyers reading of \"Bob and Johns\" effort. Down factor >his view of High Limit\'s effort.

Hasn\'t Jerry and TG been roundly criticized by those on the other Board for doing just such a thing???

TGJB · February 11, 2006, 10:59:59 AM

SC-- I did basically what Andy did. What people keep forgetting is that we don\'t just look at the winners-- there were other horses in those races-- and other races on the card as well. Just after the Bob and John race the track got MUCH slower, and it showed more in the sprints than routes-- next race was slow horses (for SoCal), but they went 7f in 1:27:62.

Hey Chuckles-- why aren\'t you posting under your \"own\" name? As I recall, I gave you a warning, but didn\'t toss you, and if I had, do you think we wouldn\'t be able to tell it\'s you?

The two stakes are attached.

marcus · February 11, 2006, 12:38:59 PM

Thanks for the attachment , I\'ve wondered what you gave everyone in those races and it look\'s pretty much as expected . Nice call on the AQU analysis today , I\'m going w/ River City in the Whirlaway .

Maybe ctc would have had better results had he used the name \"Artist formally known as Prince\" for a handle ...

Tabitha · February 11, 2006, 01:09:59 PM

First, lets look at the entire card, omitting Grass, rather than three races.

1-4^ 25kMdnClm 1.10.96
2-4 50KClm 1.10.34
3-3 100Stk 1.49.15
4-3f 32kMdnClm 1.27.62
6-3f MSW 1.18.29
7-4 300Stk 1.49.14
9-3 MSW 1.16.66

The contention is the 3YO maiden claimer fillies in the 4th race went so slow its an indication the track was \"Slowing Down\". Arguably, that was the worst race on the card however. What about the 9th race when 3YO maiden special weight colts went close to two seconds faster than the same age fillies in the 6th? In light of that race, Was the track really Slowing Down after the 3rd? Or, was it speeding up?

The key to the Sham/Strub reality, does not exist in the Sham or Strub. It exists in the 3YO MSW sprints. Those two races are the races I\'d like to see post race figure assignment Past Performances upon. On the numbers assigned, the horse coming off the win in the 9th race has to be considered a Monster. I don\'t think he is.

On the numbers High Limits Strub is appoximately 12 lengths faster than \"Bob and John\" despite the same raw time, same relative path and co equal weight. That is incredulous. This is the time of year that good 3YOs move forward. \"Bob and John\" did not move forward a snails eyelash per Beyer and TGraph.

Not saying Bob and John is the horse to beat, but this is clearly a problematic result. Again.

The two Turf races were also very interesting as far as final time and quality of animal.

Great card for future handicapping.

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SC-- I did basically what Andy did. What people
> keep forgetting is that we don\'t just look at the
> winners-- there were other horses in those races--
> and other races on the card as well. Just after
> the Bob and John race the track got MUCH slower,
> and it showed more in the sprints than routes--
> next race was slow horses (for SoCal), but they
> went 7f in 1:27:62.
>
> Hey Chuckles-- why aren\'t you posting under your
> \"own\" name? As I recall, I gave you a warning, but
> didn\'t toss you, and if I had, do you think we
> wouldn\'t be able to tell it\'s you?
>
> The two stakes are attached.

JimP · February 11, 2006, 01:48:26 PM

I can easily see how you gave the figures you did in the Sham. Those seem to be very much in line with an expectation from prior figures for the horses in that race. The figures for the Strub are more difficult for me to understand. In fact, it seems that if you added about 3 points to each of the figures in that race it would create a better fit based on expectations from prior performances. Obviously some of the horses at the rear of the field clearly X\'ed, so I wouldn\'t base much on their performances. But for the horses at front and middle of the field there seems to be trend of moving forward with the numbers you assigned. But I\'m not an expert at reading patterns and I admit that my analysis is based purely on a cursory look at the figures rather than a detailed analysis. But I think this race would be very instructive if you would give us a little more detail on why you assigned each of the figures that you did. If that isn\'t too much trouble for you and doesn\'t divulge any proprietary information that you would rather keep secret. Thanks in advance.

miff · February 11, 2006, 02:18:07 PM

After watching and reviewing the entire SA card several times, it makes NO logical sense that HL performed 10-11 lengths faster than Bob and John. If that is a result of the projection method, you can pickle it.

TGJB · February 11, 2006, 03:12:05 PM

Miff-- Okey Dokey.

Jim-- Even if I did that race in a vacuum, not using surrounding info, you can\'t add three points. Very few horses in the race ran tops as it is-- if you did it that way, you would have all but one not running back to a previous top, and most running way off their tops. If you take the last 5 figures for each horse, see what percentage are at least a return to previous tops-- it will probably run 30-50 per cent. The mathematical chance of all those picking the same day to run that bad would be very small-- I discussed this around BC time.

CTC-- You are using raw times, comparing rough classes of horses. We are using figure histories of the exact horses in question, with previous efforts adjusted for track speed, weight, ground etc. Who do you think has a better handle on what happened?

For what it\'s worth, they watered the track before each of the first 4 races, again before the 6th, and no more afterward. The first 3 races held together. The track got much slower for the fourth, and gradually speeded up slightly thereafter as the day went on, possibly because it was drying out. See \"Changing Track Speeds\" in the Archive Section for more on moisture content and track speed.

miff · February 11, 2006, 03:39:41 PM

And of course Greelys Galaxy ran 6 lengths better/faster than Bob and John on the same day. Makes sense.Nice job.

Silver Charm · February 11, 2006, 04:16:17 PM

Far be it from me to stir things up but this one seems to have struck a cord with some and brought out the usual nut cases.

1.)Items of Note there was not a drop of rain in sight on this particular day. The only way the Track Speed changed was by the Track Maintenance Team.

2.)Bob and Johns previous biggest claim to fame was being dusted 5 lengths by Brother Derek and 4 by Your Tent or Mine. High Limit has now won the San Pascual and looked \"really sharp\" winning the San Antonio and will go favored in the Big Cap. Would High Limit have beaten the two aforementioned runners by five lengths last out. The answer is so obvious it doen\'t need answering.

3.)Bob and John beat a field of four that consisted of two claimers and a maiden. A group that apparently ran as fast as the group in the San Antonio.

Yeah Right............

miff · February 11, 2006, 04:52:00 PM

Silver,

Who Bob and John beat is IRRELEVANT.How FAST he ran is all that matters.

TGJB · February 11, 2006, 05:02:50 PM

Miff-- you really need to think about that statement a while.

Once you give him a figure, that\'s true. But to get to the figure... looking at how fast those horses ran compared to how fast they usually ran is how you know how fast he ran. There\'s no other way to make figures.

miff · February 11, 2006, 05:08:21 PM

Jerry,

Tell you what. Your call. I\'ll bet whatever amount you like that NO OTHER CREDIBLE figure maker will have HL 11-12 lenghts faster than Bob and John that day. Wanna bet,Yes or No.One word answer.

JimP · February 11, 2006, 05:10:48 PM

At the risk of getting lumped in with \"the usual nut cases\", I\'m going to offer one more comment on the Strub figures. Note, I am NOT comparing High Limit with Bob And John. I\'m simply looking at the Strub and the relative figures within that field. Here is a summary of the first 7 finishers. all the others were 25 or more lengths back and I\'m ignoring trying tio make sense of those. The first number is the figure for the Strub. That is followed by the next most recent and so on. I have used the x.y format to avoid trying to use superscripts (which I am incapable of formatting in this medium). Otherwise I\'ve used the TG nomenclature for the numbers.

HL 1.1- 2.1 -6.3 -8.2 3.2 24.1 1
TTAT 3 3 6 -7.3 -8 9.2 -10.2
G 1.2 6.2 0.2 0.2 4 5.2 5.1
GG 3.2 2.3 7.1 7.3 3.3 2- 4.3
HTG 3.2 7.1- 5.1 -8.1 -10 -17 -18
IC 6.2 3.2 11.3 -17.2 -10.3 -10.3 15.3
DM 5.1 3 3 5.3 -10.3 6 8.1

Comments:
HL - If you add 3 he gets a 2.3. Very much in line with his last and previous before that on dirt.

TTAT - If you add 3 he is at a 6 and runs back to pretty much the level he had established before he spiked that 3.

G - If you add 3, he gets a 4.2. Pretty much in line with his previous level except for those 2 big numbers last spring. Maybe those are the annomalies.

GG - If you add 3 he gets a 6.2. Hard to see a line on this one. He has been up and down between a 3 and 7 in general except for his one freak out race last spring. I don\'t see that a 6 is an unexpected result for this one.

HTG - If you add 3 he gets a 6.2 as well. His only other dirt race was a 5.1 and all his other grass races were worse than a 6. some much worse. So I don\'t see that a 6 is anything unusual for this one to run.

IC - If you add 3, he gets 9.2. And it would still be the second best figure he\'s run. Maybe he bounced off the 3 in his last.

DM - If you add 3, he gets an 8.1. This is the toughest one to explain. He had been running pretty consistently better than that.

The bottom line is that I can 3 to all these and get what I see as results that are very consistent with their recent history. The only exception is DM. So adding the 3, only requires me to have to assume that one of these regressed. And then there are the last 4 finishers who were 25 or more lengths back. Not much doubt that they regressed. And adding 3 to their figures really doesn\'t change that story.

Once again, I don\'t claim to be an expert in reading figures, and certainly not in making them. So I would welcome any comments regarding the \"analysis\" that I offered above.