More baseball stats and Barry Bonds

[TGJB]

Very good. I was kicking around trying to find out the length of a stride when I came across a site that not only had that but went through the math of ground loss on both straights and turns. They use different width for a path so some of it comes out different, but the principle is the same. Anyway, they worked out that on a mile track going 7 furlongs  the 12 would have to travel a foot more than the rail horse to get to the rail by the turn.

http://www.horse-science.com/Distances.htm

[Mall]

The math is simple enough & my only excuse for not doing it myself, ala the Cajun twins of Bonapaw fame, is that I was up very late watching the Cards rough up the Big Unit, whose nickname, I am told, has nothing to do with his height. Forgetting about the horse in my original example, which was being steered like an F1 car, and using 300\' instead to tranverse the 15\' wide, the ground loss using the well know formula would be a little less than 4.5\". The one thing I was right about is that a lot of photos seem to involve less than that.

[HP]

So Jerry, what is your opinion on the ground loss v. momentum issue? Some posters seem to think that if a jockey can maintain a horse\'s momentum it may be worth the ground lost doing so. Just looking at the chart, it looks to me like the ground loss, assuming say, two paths (and up) lost on the turn, is going to be too much to overcome most of the time even if you\'re riding a freight train. HP

[TGJB]

Ernie Dahlman, who is a primarily a trip and information handicapper (and also believes in class, or used to), once told me he thinks ground loss is overrated. He\'s been winning a long time, although I don\'t think that\'s why.
My own view is that, like drafting, there may be something to it, but it\'s hard to see how you could measure it or do something with it in the figures. I don\'t think it can be a significant factor (in terms of lengths/points) because the figures wouldn\'t come out as tight as they do-- but for all I know they would come out even tighter. The two sides of the house I can see are white.

[TGJB]

Upon further review:
The example cited was not that of a horse starting from the 12, but starting 75 feet off the rail, which would probably be post 18-20. So the ground loss from post 12 would be even less.

[Michael D.]

HP,
\"ground loss (two paths and up) lost on the turn is going to be to be too much to overcome most of the time even if you\'re riding a freight train.\" ........ I am a bit confused here. If a jockey is riding Secretariat (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here, substituting Secretariat for a much faster freight train), he is better off tucked in behind average horses than he is running two wide?  Are you saying that a complete sacrifice of momentum for a speed/stalker type is better than running two wide? Do you realize how many races are won by horses running two, three, or four wide? Would you be more willing to bet MD\'o in the win spot if you think he will be saving ground by tucking in behind other horses with average speed, or would you like his chances better if he is stretching his legs in stride as he pleases, even if it means running two wide? (I know what Frankel and every other informed handicapper would say) Seriously, I must have misunderstood your post (in which case I apologize). Could you please elaborate.

[Alydar in California]

HP WROTE:

 \"So Jerry, what is your opinion on the ground loss v. momentum issue? Some posters seem to think that if a jockey can maintain a horse\'s momentum it may be worth the ground lost doing so. Just looking at the chart, it looks to me like the ground loss, assuming say, two paths (and up) lost on the turn, is going to be too much to overcome most of the time even if you\'re riding a freight train. HP\"

    HP,

     So Bill James, for years you have been leaving stolen bases out of your model. Do you think you are stupid, or do you think you have been doing the right thing? On your rock of an answer I will build my church.

    Seriously, JB\'s reply, part of which he stole from me after I stole it from him after he stole it from Heinlen, was exemplary. This can\'t be quantified, and he\'s right not to try. And trip handicapping is NOT incompatible with TG. They get along beautifully.

   When a rider moves his horse away from the rail, as almost every rider does in almost every race, he is expressing this opinion: \"At this point, something else is a higher priority than saving ground.\" Almost any rider can get almost any horse to the rail before the turn. The rider may have to use his stick out of the gate, or strangle the horse and drop back to last, but it can be done. Yet races are not run single-file to the stretch. Smart riders like Cordero, Pincay, and Bailey choose to lose ground over strangling their horses early. Why?

    In his second book, William Quirin studied 1705 two-horse speed duels. He found that the horse on the outside won more races than the horse on the inside.

    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[HP]

I would say that there are situations where keeping the momentum going is more valuable than saving ground.

To answer the question, no, Secretariat is not better off behind average horses and would not be significantly affected by going two wide. He\'s still going to win. Most horses, however, are not Secretariat. If MD\'Oro goes 3 wide on the turn and some other horse on the rail runs his race, MD\'Oro (according to the chart link Jerry posted) is going to lose about 30 feet on the turn (10 yards), and full stride or not, this may be the difference in the race. Frankel and every other informed handicapper would probably tell you the same thing.

If you\'re telling me that the momentum gained is ALWAYS going to overcome the ground loss, I would respectfully disagree.  HP

[HP]

\"Would you be more willing to bet MD\'o in the win spot if you think he will be saving ground by tucking in behind other horses with average speed, or would you like his chances better if he is stretching his legs in stride as he pleases, even if it means running two wide? (I know what Frankel and every other informed handicapper would say).\"

This is a good question if I use the upcoming Classic to frame an answer. In the Classic, M\'Do will probably not be behind horses with \'average speed\'. I don\'t have every horse\'s sheet in my head, but at least a few of them will be just as fast if not faster. If he runs his race two or three wide on both turns stretching his legs as he pleases and someone runs big on the rail he\'s going to be well stretched, run a 0, and lose by a length to a horse that\'s going to run about a 2. It\'s not to say you (and Aly) don\'t have a point, but I think ground loss is ground loss no matter how Horatio slices it.

I probably don\'t qualify as an informed handicapper. HP

[Michael D.]

Handicapping a horse race involves incorporating a variety of factors (including ground loss and momentum). I think we all agree here.

[Alydar in California]

HP wrote: \"If MD\'Oro goes 3 wide on the turn and some other horse on the rail runs his race, MD\'Oro (according to the chart link Jerry posted) is going to lose about 30 feet on the turn (10 yards),\"

    This adjustment is wrong (unless these are harness horses). How long have you been using it?

[TGJB]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the article uses different path widths than we do. It\'s basically a length for every horse you are outside per turn.
On the momentum issue-- my feeling is that while there may be a negligible difference, a horse will run his race if given a clear run for the last quarter mile, maybe even less. I base this in part on how fast they come home in paceless races (check out how fast With Anticipation came home to beat Balto Star a few weeks ago, and that was in a marathon). The theory is that energy saved can be used later, as long as you get a chance to use it. And yes, I\'m sure there are exceptions.

[HP]

I\'m not using it. I got it from the chart from the link Jerry posted yesterday. I don\'t really figure it out in feet or lengths. I just close my eyes and imagine how much ground I think the horse is going to lose and I pretty much go with that. HP

[Alydar in California]

JB wrote:
 
    \"On the momentum issue-- my feeling is that while there may be a negligible difference, a horse will run his race if given a clear run for the last quarter mile, maybe even less. I base this in part on how fast they come home in paceless races (check out how fast With Anticipation came home to beat Balto Star a few weeks ago, and that was in a marathon). The theory is that energy saved can be used later, as long as you get a chance to use it.\"

      1: Why do you cut loose slow-paced races? If the horses are not locked in late, they get to use their energy, don\'t they?

      2: Since you like to add up the baserunners when judging pitchers, wouldn\'t it follow that the best way to judge hitters is to add up the times they get on base? Geese and ganders and all that. (What the hell is a gander? Seinfeld joke.) You prefer other stats when judging hitters, don\'t you? Why?

[TGJB]

1- Good question. I guess the difference is that the whole field is \"locked in\", and the horse gets to use his energy relative to the rest of the field. One interesting thing about those pace races is that the horses almost always fit in with each other. If a horse is locked in and has to make up 20 lengths in the stretch that would qualify as an exception.
2- Because they show you hits, walks, and innings when they bring a pitcher in, and it\'s better than ERA. I\'m sure there\'s a better stat, but I don\'t want to work that hard, and that stat correlates well with effectiveness. Maybe Bob Barry will run a few guys for us.