Neg #'s in 3 yo season

[justwin]

Just looked back at the archives. The only horse that won the derby since 2006 with a neg # in their 3 yo season was Big Brown. Bodemeister was close last year. 1-16 since 2006. We have 3 this year. It seems that these horses may have peaked too soon. 2 of these 3 will be the top 2 faves.

[chuckb63]

Smarty Jones ran 2 negs before the Derby.  Street Sense ran a neg as a 2yo.

[justwin]

I only went back to 2006. Street Sense with a negative # as a 2yo is exactly what i\'m talking about. That negative number early in the 3 yo campaign takes it toll. Just making a point to a lot of Orb fans that will be looking at 7/2 or 4/1.

[mjellish]

I would be careful with how you look at Orb\'s sheet and his FL Derby number.  TGJB has already said that he has that whole FL Derby day scheduled for review.  And I don\'t want to assume I know what is going through his head.  So I apologize right now if some of this is wrong and hope TGJB will correct me.  

As I see it, I\'m pretty sure the whole issue revolves around Dreaming of Julia\'s race in the Gulfstream Oaks.  Dreaming of Julia absolutely FREAKED and destroyed that field by 20+ lengths.  It reminded me of Quality Road in the Donn or Rachel in the Oaks a few years ago.  When a horse freaks like that in a race the problem figure makers really have is what do with horses that finished behind them.  In this case, if you don\'t give DOJ a really big figure - then that means that every other filly behind her bounced or ran an off race because they were all beaten by 20+ lengths.  And that\'s just not real likely to have EVERY filly except for one bounce in a given race.  Although it is possible.  Especially if we assume that once some of these jocks knew they were hopelessly beaten they did not persevere with their mounts and saved something for another day (and that\'s probably accurate for at least a few of these, see Mott run Emollient back in the Ashland one week later and win by 9).

In any case, if you give DOJ a really big figure, since it was the same day at the same distance as the FL Derby, then Orb probably has to get a big figure as well even though his race was run almost 2 seconds slower.  The only way to avoid doing that is if you break the races apart, assume something changed with the varient or the timer was wrong, etc., don\'t associate the Oaks with the FL Derby and just go off the horses.  When you make figures sometimes you have to do exactly that or a race/day just won\'t make any sense.  Happens more often than most people realize.  Track speeds do change from one race to another, sometimes in as little as 30 minutes or an hour.  Especially on windy days, changing weather, ongoing track maintenance between races - all of that stuff can contribute.  Sometimes it just doesn\'t make sense.  

Fortunately, on FL Derby day we also had the Rampart run at the same 1 1/8th distance, and the Skip Away run 1 3/16.  So I\'m guessing TGJB looked it all over, considered them all as a whole and found that if you just went off the timer and gave DOJ the really big figure, the other races fell in line well enough to justify it.  So he decided not to split the Oaks out.  And because of that Orb got the big fig as well.

But if he would have went the other way and split the Oaks off and assumed that the fillies behind DOJ were not persevered with once they were hopelessly beaten, DOJ still would have got a big figure but probably somewhere between 2-4 points slower.  And if you do that then the other 2 turn races, including Orb\'s, could also come up 2-4 points slower.  So take 2-4 points off Orb\'s FL Derby and look at his sheet that way and tell me what you see.  Do you like him better or worse?

I\'m not saying I know which way is right, because I don\'t.  It\'s a really tough call.  But given all of this, I don\'t think it\'s a good idea to make assumptions about a colt like Orb and negative numbers when the guy who made the figures that day has already disclosed the day is scheduled for review and these numbers could change later.

[justwin]

Mjellish,
Always appreciate your input. If Orb\'s # was 2 points slower, that would be a much better line for me. A slight new top would indicate he is in peak form without worrying about the bounce. I would love to hear others as I don\'t play the races and use the sheets as much as most on this board.

[TGJB]

MJ-- when I get in tomorrow I\'ll comment in detail on this very interesting post. Short version, one of the reasons DOJ gets that fig is because you really can\'t make the Fla Derby slower. Orb isn\'t the problem.

[jimbo66]

Justwin,

I won\'t disagree with your point, but Street Sense is not a good example of a number \"knocking a horse out\".  For the record, he ran the big number in the Breeder\'s Cup, his first time out he ran a very big race against a real good horse in Any Given Saturday, who had recency on him and Street sense still won.  Then, he ran on polycrap which like many, he didn\'t handle.  Then he ran big in the Derby.

I don\'t remember which year it was, but Giacomo year had about 5 horses entering off negative numbers.  Bellamy Road, BAndini, Greeley\'s Galaxy, Afleet Alex and the Baffert speedster who ran huge in the Bluegrass.  (name escapes me, but I do remember that Chuckles the Clown picked him in what was Chuckles only Derby loss in the last 24 years.

As for Orb and his Florida Derby figure, I will be curious to see what TGJB has to say tomorrow, because my TG sheet has a line through both the Orb number and the Dreaming of Julia number, replaced by a number 3 points slower.  I bet out on Emollient that day and she ran about 1/2 mile, and then started backing up, just not firing at all, which to me was validated by her Trainer, Billy Mott,an HOFer, running her back in 7 days, a move he rarely uses and would seem to signify that the horse didn\'t run at all.  So, to have her showing as a \"pair up\" in that race, to her previous decent race, is too hard to swallow for me.

That said, as far as Dreaming of Julia goes, it really doesn\'t matter whether it is negative 5, negative 8 or negative 11.  If she fires or even regresses just a bit, she wins,  But if you think Pletcher can\'t get her to run at Churchill and/or you believe in bounce, then you get a 6-5 shot out of the money in a great full betting field and nice bridge in the Oaks/Derby double or the Oaks/Woodford/Derby pick-3.

As for Orb, I wouldn\'t be playing him to bounce.  I would understand any argument about him being too short a price in a big field, or any argument that he really isn\'t fast enough to merit the short price he will be.  But I would not be reading \"bounce\".

Good luck,

Jim

[justwin]

Hi Jim,

I was saying that Street Sense is not a good example as it was in his 2 yo year. Someone else brought up SS, I was only targeting 3yo negative numbers. I should rephrase the Orb bounce. i don\'t expect him to move forward. In a separate post I mentioned that he should come in around 2 points slower which will put him right there but with so many big figs in this years derby vs. others I think it will take a neg # to win and at the price I don\'t think I will be playing him. Just my opinion on the race. if he was 8-1 it would be a different story but I expect him to be right there with V on odds.

George

[TGJB]

First of all, MJ has the figure making stuff right. For more on some of that anyone who hasn\'t already can check out \"Changing Track Speeds\" in the Archives section of this site.

Any time you look to do figures for a race/day the question is what\'s the most likely possibility. And with the two turn races on Fla Derby day at GP there were only a couple of ways to go and concerns with both of them. And as I have said here before, if you take DOJ out of the day they are eliminated doing it the way I did it, which has the variant for all the routes within 1 1/2 points. Which is not to say I\'m comfortable giving DOJ that figure, I hate it. But I hated giving those figures to Quality Road and Midnight Lute, too.

A few things--

1-- In all four routes the way I did it the winner gets a big figure, one or two others get decent figures, and a lot run from not that well to really bad. These are all top stake horses. If you make the track faster you are giving out one really big figure (DOJ still gets one, obviously) a few pretty good ones, and a LOT of bad to really awful figures to very good horses. It\'s just unlikely that high a percentage of good horses would pick the same day to run bad.

2-- There is no scenario where Orb\'s figure is more than 2 points worse, and only maybe a 20% shot at absolute most it\'s not right as is. The way I did it the only other new top in the race is the 100-1 shot who ran fourth, he got a 2 point top. (Everything else aside, logic indicates that if a 100-1 shot beats 6 horses and only loses to 3 in the Florida Derby he probably ran a new top, that simply pairing his last wouldn\'t have done it). If I were to add two points to the race those last 6 horses, who already get bad figures, would get truly awful figures, completely inconsistent with their histories. One of those, by the way, is Frac Daddy, who came back to his top two weeks later to run second in the Arkansas Derby.
 And there is no way on Earth to add more than 2-- much less than a 1% chance.

3-- The older male race (Skip Away) is rock solid. The winner ran a big new top, but nobody else ran a new top, and only one other even paired his top-- again, in a graded stake. Can\'t make it worse.

4-- The FM stake is the same thing-- one new top, one pair (both Pletcher), and all the rest running at least 4 points off their tops. You can\'t add to either this one or the Skip Away unless you\'re prepared to give out a real lot of bad figures.

5-- So the problem is the DOJ race-- but only with her in it. The way I did it, the second filly goes back a point, third filly pairs, and everyone else runs at least 5 points off their tops. I disagree with Jimbo\'s idea that Emollient runing big a week later makes more sense if she ran even worse at GP-- historically those who have gotten big figures on short rest (like Dutrow and Jerkens) have mostly done it off good efforts, not bad ones. I don\'t think Emollient running big affects the thinking about the GP figure much, but to the degree it does at all it\'s a positive.

Which leaves DOJ. As I have said before, there are some ways to put that performance in perspective. One is that she ran 12 points better than the second filly-- my guess would be that Rachel\'s Oaks is the last time something like that happened in a graded stake, and not too often before then. Again, if she had won by 10 everyone would have been oohing and ahhing and she would still be the Oaks favorite-- well, she ran SIX POINTS BETTER than that.

My sense of it, as I said before, is that other figure makers chickened out, all because of one horse on the day. I may post the sheets for these races later today.

[TGAB]

Attached are the Thoro-Graph sheets for the GP route races, 4, 8, 10, and 12, on 3/30/13.

[Rich Curtis]

Shouldn\'t DOJ get a \"buried race\" symbol? You\'ve got weight and wide here, plus others chickening out on the number. Isn\'t that enough for the \"buried\" symbol?

[TGJB]

If you have something to write with I\'ll show you how to make one for yourself.

Expected to hear from you re Sighthound.

[Rich Curtis]

I think banning her is a mistake for three reasons:

1: You were getting the better of the argument on the merits, and banning her will obscure this in the \"history books.\"

2: Her posts allowed you to keep pounding your points without appearing gratuitous, and the Vet vs TG drama probably increased the ratings.

3: She seemed like a nice girl, and there are a couple of men here who should have been banned years ago.

[TGJB]

Actually, I meant hear from you during the argument that preceded the ban.

[Caradoc]

All good points but in particular points 1 and 3 are excellent ones.  This is the first time I can remember someone being banned purely for the content of their posts, where the content of those posts is not abusive or derogatory.  Not even Barry Irwin was banned for his vile post in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, which should have been the easiest case ever.  Even in the past day, one post repeatedly referred to the now-departed Miff as "Muff."  Leaving aside whether there should be some sanction for the poster of that, leaving that post up is inconsistent with all of the goals articulated in the first post of the "Sighthound Suspension" thread.   Jerry, It is obvious you monitor this board, so what you leave up reflects on you as much as what you take down.

Jerry, your board, your rules.  Nonetheless, you could not seriously maintain that banning Sight or leaving up much of what you do advances the good causes you pursue.