Belmont Finals

[Paolo]

TG figures for Belmont since 1992. More than a bit surprising to see Palace Malice rank so highly on this list after reading all the comments about his \"trotter-like\" final 4f. Jerry, what is your estimate on the margin of error here? Looks like you could have added at least 2 points?

Code Select Expand


2001 Point Given     -2.50
2007 Rags To Riches -1.50
2004 Birdstone       -1.25
2009 Summer Bird     -1.00
2005 Afleet Alex     -0.50
2003 Empire Maker   0.00
2013 Palace Malice   0.25
2002 Sarava         0.50
2011 Ruler On Ice   1.00
2006 Jazil           1.25
2008 Da\' Tara       1.75
2010 Drosselmeyer   1.75
1996 Editor\'s Note   2.00
2012 Union Rags     2.00
1998 Victory Gallop 2.25
2000 Commendable     2.50
1997 Touch Gold     3.00
1992 AP Indy         3.50
1999 Lemon Drop Kid 3.50
1994 Tabasco Cat     4.00
1995 Thunder Gulch   4.00
1993 Colonial Affair 5.50


[TGJB]

Added 2 points based on what?

[Paolo]

I believed I asked the first question. Margin of error estimate with track changing throughout the day, no other races to tie it to, and Palace jumps up 4-6 points? You post the card and then don\'t want comments or discussion? Based on PROJECTION, which is what I assumed you used. If not, please explain.

[TGJB]

I don\'t mind the question if its based on something. There were 13 other horses in the race, not just PM. Which ones look better adding, and why 2 (or any other number)? And unless you\'re going to add enough to only pair PM to his previous top (which would give out horrible figures to everyone else), why is what PM got less likely than other new tops you could give him? \"Projection method\" involves all the horses, not just the winner.

As it happens, the relationship between the 1 1/2m and 1 turn races was virtually identical Friday and Saturday.

[moosepalm]

I think a reasonable starting point in terms of historical analysis, if you\'re going to question the number, is to compare Oxbow and Orb to the performances of other Preakness and Derby winners in the Belmont.  I have no idea what that would look like, nor am I suggesting it\'s in any way conclusive, but it might tether the analysis to some sturdier variables than just the winner of a race, which historically has provided some aberrational performances.  In recent years, at least, reaching two or three point tops for the Belmont winner is practically the norm.

[Paolo]

The question used to be \"Are Race Horses Getting Faster?\". Now it seems that not only are they faster, but they carry that speed just as far. American breed for speed aside, Oxbow has a classic pedigree. So his hot pace in the Derby and Belmont would pair at about 5 if you added 2. Orb gets back to his tired Preakness run. Overanalyze doesn\'t run better in the Belmont than the Derby. The pair by WTC looks good, but just as likely a coincidence as comparing the one-turn sealed track on Friday with the drying out two-turn race on Saturday evening. Pure projection method would give you the same results whether the race was run at 2 or 3 miles. Don\'t you incorporate some type of \"par vs. distance\" correction in your process?

[plasticman]

Maybe based on the idea that a horse like Palace Malice would have no chance against horses like AP Indy and Touch Gold?

Palace Malice has one Beyer fig in the 90s and the rest are in the 80s. Was AP Indy and Touch Gold running Beyers in the 80s? DId Beyers exist back then?

[TGJB]

What\'s the logic to arbitrarily giving Orb and Oxbow figures close to what they ran in the Preakness while giving a lot of grade one 3yos terrible figures? If you add 2 you\'re giving one horse a top (true either way), one horse 2 points off his top, and 12 horses 4 or much more points off their tops.

No, we do not use pars, for reasons I have discussed here before.

[Paolo]

Sorry I am not clearly asking the questions that are not being answered. Nor am I confusing par with projection. I was referring to the relationship between figures at various distances. Perhaps the following two questions are straightforward enough to be answered with a yes or a no.

1. If the race was run at 3 miles, would the figures be identical?
2. If the final quarter was run in 30 seconds, would the figures be identical?

[TGJB]

If the relationships between the horses were the same in figure terms, and if it was the only two turn race on the day, the figures would be the same regardless of fractions or distance. As I said, added confirmation came from the relationship between the two turn races and the one turn races being the same on both Friday and Saturday.

[JohnTChance]

It\'s the other way around. In the Strat-o-matic game of theoretical Thorograph  match races (only to be played on rainy days like today), A.P. INDY would have no chance against PALACE MALICE! That is, through this point in their respective careers. For example, A.P. INDY went 18... 12 in his 2-year old year. He won his Derby prep, the 1992 Santa Anita Derby, with a 7.5. [While PALACE MALICE ran a 4.5 in his Blue Grass Stakes effort.]

PALACE MALACE and A.P. INDY do have one thing in common, however: the same vet.

[Perfect Drift]

IMO, you have to stop looking at the absolute figure and look at individual patterns of each horse and the figure relative to each other.  Whether those figures are in the 20s, 10s or 0s doesn\'t matter.  If you try to relate current figs to past figs you will drive yourself insane.  

Jerry\'s three part series on racehorses getting faster is still in the archive section, but it is 10 years old and perhaps doesn\'t apply anymore.  There is much discussion on depth of the cushion and its effect on raw speed in the archive.  The question now is, why are races with such slow raw times getting such incredibly fast TG figs?

Horses are certainly not carrying more weight... are they consistently running wider?  Are track surfaces getting deeper?

If track surface depth has remained consistent over the past decade, why do such slow races continue to churn out faster and faster figs?  We now have Belmonts with 54 second final 1/2 miles getting 0s.

[TGJB]

I ran into the NYRA track super at a Belmont function last year. I don\' remember the details, but yes, cushion depth is even greater than when I wrote those articles. Somebody might have that info.

Meanwhile, check out the time of the Brooklyn the day before. And the winner was no phony. They are running in a sand box.

[hooper]

TGJB,here are the current Belmont track specs.
http://www.nyra.com/belmont/track-specifications/

[TGJB]

Thanks. So basically the cushion is about 1/2 inch deeper than when I wrote \"Are Racehorses Getting Faster\", and 1 1/2 deeper than when Secretariat was running. Aside from the change in soil composition.