INQUIRY

[Furious Pete]

I would like to use this occasion to raise some questions I have about your figure making methodology and I would love to hear others input about the issues as well! I\'ll use examples from the sheets for this Breeders Cup as I do have spent a lot of time in them these last days anyways and I thought I should be man enough to stick my neck out up front; who knows, maybe we get some good bets out of it too! And if you get proven right on my behalf, that is perfectly fine too!

The questions really boils down to: Do you always use all horses in a race to project figures?

I\'ll provide you with some examples of the kind of figures I\'m talking about.

Stonetastic, obviously. I have noticed this a few times, that a horse that ran away with a lot got crazy figures, and by making figures myself over here in Europe I also understand well how it could happen. Races where everything can\'t possible make sense no matter how you do it. And it shouldn\'t be impossible to run big figures, either! But could Stonetastic really have ran that figure that made her to just about the greatest filly, ever? Here\'s what makes me even more skeptical. I see in the race shapes and by reading the sheets that Stonetastic has run two really great races in her racing career, both where runaways victories (neg 6,25 and 15,75 lengths to the 2nd place finisher, and neg 2,25 as a 3yo filly in august with 8,5 lengths to the 2nd place finisher). What I also see is that in those two races she ran INCREDIBLE fast first quarters, compared to herself! 21.16 and 21.06 is more than 4 lengths faster in the first quarter than she\'s ever done before or since (according to the race shapes). And since those fractions in the race shapes are adjusted for track speed, weight etc etc it means that she actually beat her quickest self by more than 4 lengths in two furlongs in those two starts were she earned those big tops. No matter the difference between the horses in such a race, if you watch a 2 furlong race they seldom finish 4 lengths apart and here she beat herself by 4. Something is weird. And the race should be threated weird, imo. Isn\'t it possible that horses (or/and jockeys!) in a race that have such a superior runaway horse in it in some kind of way just \"gives up the win and concentrate about becoming 2nd?\", with completely new tactics/herd dynamics? And which also, in a figure making kind of view, would mean they all ran \"off\" races? I don\'t like this race personally from a betting point of view and think I\'ll go soft on it, but I do anticipate a regression to the mean for Stonetastic which won\'t give her a piece of this.. And I don\'t like Fioretti! Let me get to that one.

I\'ll illustrate my problem further with a different kind of example that\'s up the same alley, and I\'ll use Fioretti. These ones I call \"sloppy figs\". Are you really sure that what happened was that Fioretti ran a more than 3 points new top in the mud last time out? These I see a lot, runaway winners at off tracks earning huge figures. It just seems so strange that these horses have waited all their lifes to race at awful racing conditions! Isn\'t it more reasonable to think that some horses don\'t thrive, but just don\'t hate the slop or mud just as much as others? Like the off tracks stat for Bernardini, Fioretti\'s Sire also indicates, they win 20 % of these races which is huge. (Can I just say btw, that the off track stat  for different sires is worth the price of the form alone on off track racing days, it\'s the most incredible stat I\'ve ever seen!). So, in the cases, where a horse suddenly runs away from them and earning a huge new top, isn\'t it in those rare cases more likely that everyone behind ran poorly than a horse like Fioretti, a 5 yo at the end of a long season (11 races in 11 months), run a new top like that? And I wonder, what did you actually do to come up with that figure, did it come from using all the horses behind when projecting or did you turn around every stone possible to see if it would be reasonable to give every runner in the field off numbers in that race except the winner (so that Fioretti ran a 5 or a at least not better than a 4?). What\'s your policy in these cases? Greenpointscrusader is another one who fits this category perfectly, and this one will be heavily bet! I for one will bet against for the same reason as not betting Fioretti, I just don\'t buy it. And specially not at a short price. Those I will use for what it\'s worth is Conquest Big E and Exaggerator (whose pretty similar sheet I read completely different btw; didn\'t earn that figure by running away but was close to Brody\'s Cause and figured to run a good one either way (route distance, decent pattern; I like this one). Sire stat doesnt indicate anything special on off tracks either!)

Next category is the perfect set up-figures, let\'s use Keen Ice as an example and there it is pretty obvious what you did because we have Frosted and American Pharaoh in that race too. You paired up Frosted and I would say you paired up Pharaoh too (what he normally does). So, you gave Keen Ice that figure because he beat Frosted and Pharaoh who \"normally\" runs a neg 1 or thereabouts, that was expected. But my question is, instead of projecting with \"Pharaoh and Frosted\", shouldn\'t you have been projecting with a \"totally knackered Frosted and Pharaoh\", they collapsed and Keen Ice picked up the pieces and should not therefore have gotten a neg 3 indicating that he ran a faster race than Frosted has ever done or as when Pharaoh won the Derby and almost as fast as Tonalist has ever done? I thought that was the point, why do you still insist on using all the horses when making the figures for a race like that instead of concentrating on getting Keen Ice right and then let the others get what they get?  I\'ll not be using Keen Ice in the classic, I think this race will go to either American Pharaoh or Tonalist and I will play the race as a spectacularly unspectacular boxed exacta, even though I ain\'t proud of it!

Another issue in the same kind of alley all though not exactly the same are the \"ground-loaded figures\", and I think there are some great examples of it on these sheets. I read Grand Arch\'s sheets, which I really like for this race and will be keying, and notice the X behind his last figure indicating the dead rail. That is fine and is one of the reasons I want to use him heavily in this years cup. But, what I becomes sceptical about is that I read on and find the sheets belonging to Tourist and Tepin. They too also ran on that same turf track that day and they both ran incredible well; in fact both earned a two point lifetop. That is completely possible, of course, but what troubles me is that they earned those figures by being wide throughout. Tourist made his insanely great figure of neg 1,25 by being 5w5w, while Tepin earned her great figure by being 4w3w. I know I have read somewhere on these forums that you do remove the railhorses from your considerations when you project figures on days with a dead rail, so there you have an exception to the rule, however, isn\'t it also possible that on these days where there is a dead rail also the 2path would be slower than the 3path, the 3path would be slower than the 4path etc and that the part of grass where \"noone ever runs\" would be the fastest part of the track? So that what is happening on these days is an \"inflation\" of paths in the figures? I know this is one issue that would be difficult to deal with in a good way anyway, you would probably be better off by go easy on the tops and meet up somewhere in the middle, but in any case, shouldn\'t a figure like that at least come with an annotation in the same way Grand Arch\'s dead rail comes with an X? I for one would love to know about when a figure has been in doubt. As I said I will use Grand Arch as a key in this race and I won\'t be using Tepin and I probably won\'t use Tourist either, but I would if he was drawn inside and by all of these examples I mention I think this is the one that is most likely to come back and bite me in the arse. I really like his pattern, even if the last one maybe was a regular 1 and not a neg 1. Still, a regular 1 probably make him come up just a neck too short here to have anything to do with the exotics, if they can\'t find a dream trip for him, that is..

I won\'t go into the cali-figures vs other track-figures, and the euro turf-figures vs US turf-figures as I\'m sure this is one spot where TGJB and the crew knows better, and that the differences can be related to other things, but I have one thing to say: It is hard to believe that being beat 1 length at a 75 k stakes race on the turf at Gulfstream without horrific ground loss should be worth 1 point better than being beat the same length in a 1000 k sprint at Meydan (where it\'s almost free to enter in the race and the sheiks seem to cover all expenses for owners and trainers; at least that\'s my impression!). We live in a stupid world, but THAT stupid?? Ah well, at least THIS is a spot where I can be proven right this weekend! (Go Green Mask!).

Good luck everyone,

And let me be clear,

I would never touch US racing without buying Thoro-graph first!

[TGJB]

That\'s what I need, 75 questions to answer right before BC. Some of those would be interesting to discuss if you can rephrase them without the \"do you still beat your wife\" assumptions built in. Re Stonetastic, you might notice Breen has others in at Kee today, all recently ran big new tops at Parx.

[FrankD.]

JB,

You have never ever been up this early in your life!!!! Take Noah out for breakfast and tell him to trust his fastball tonight.

Good luck on all fronts,

Frank D.

[TGJB]

Frank-- going back to sleep. Mets and BC don\'t help. I\'m thinking more off speed, less fastballs.

[miff]

Almost unbelievable Mets in do or die game 3,thought they would win in 5 or 6.Harvey and De Gromme losing back to back? What were the odds vs Royals pitchers?

[richiebee]

I think Harvey, deGrom and Syndergaard have to be suffering from various degrees
of dead arm after throwing at 95-100 mph throughout the season and now the playoffs...

Last thing any Met fan wants to see tonight is Bartolo galloping in from the
bullpen, man boobs a bouncin\'.

[miff]

Good point Bee but these young guys in WS for first time are surely geeked up on adrenaline would think.

[JimP]

So the dead arms happened suddenly between the NLCS and the WS? Or maybe the Royals have a pretty good team.

[richiebee]

JimP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the dead arms happened suddenly between the
> NLCS and the WS? Or maybe the Royals have a pretty
> good team.


Jim I\'ve been following the Mets since 1964 but can remain objective.

The Royals have a VERY good team, having \"paired\" WS appearances.

The Royals are certainly better than the teams in the NL Least who the Mets
dominated the last 2 months of the season.

But the truth is in terms of velocity and more importantly MOVEMENT, deGrom and
Harvey\'s arms look tired. The truth is that deGrom was nowhere near as sharp in
the NLCS as he was during the regular season.

If it sounded like I am a whiney Met fan making excuses or if I sound like I am
not giving the Royals enough credit, sorry.

[Rick B.]

richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But the truth is in terms of velocity and more
> importantly MOVEMENT, deGrom and
> Harvey\'s arms look tired. The truth is that deGrom
> was nowhere near as sharp in
> the NLCS as he was during the regular season.

Cubs fan here so no dog in this hunt, just wish we
had a crack at Mets pitchers in their current form,
which is decidedly off. They are making a very good
KC team look even better than they are.

[FrankD.]

Bobby Ojeda had what I thought was a very valid observation yesterday on Michael Kay\'s show. He thought Harvey and deGrom both were pitching more to the advanced scouting reports and being over analytical as opposed to doing what they do best.

He also stated that everyone pitchers and position players are all \"gassed\" by the world series and its about who can gut it out, make a big pitch, get a big hit etc... There is a lot to be said for the team that was right there the year before coming right back with the experience of the war?

[rezlegal]

The Royals are good but I believe the Mets have over scouted. A vast majority of the Royals hits - in The clutch- have come from balls left over the plate  and resulted in hits up the middle or to opposite field. If I am Syndergard I use the fastball to  set up the off speed stuff and not the other way around. With two strikes you have to pound  the inside and plant some doubt in KC hitters. Harvey and Degrom almost never went inside. (and I agree with those who like the 12 in the 8th race today. If you watch the Woodbine race he exploded and has worked well. Not such a reach with ease connections to go from an 11 to a 7 second time out.Likely to be 25-1 based on overseas betting.)- Good luck to all and the Mets this weekend.

[Fairmount1]

As a Cubs fan that lives in St. Louis, I absolutely have no dog in this fight as I\'ve told one board member by text recently.  And I also told him the same thing Frank, the Royals have the \"been there, done that\" factor going for them.  The only reason they lost last year was Madison Bumgarner pitched in every WS game when he was unhittable........(bit of hyperbole there obviously)

With that said, the Chicago Cubbie-Bombers going into the season had a major problem with their lineup, strikeouts.  The Oakland A\'s are still wondering why they couldn\'t beat the Reds in 90.....same problem.  Home run teams struggle against post-season pitching and contact hitting is the best attempt at beating a rotation like the Mets have this year.  The stats on the Royals making contact on deGrom with 2 strikes were pretty unbelievable.  The Mets pitchers are the real deal but are facing a team that doesn\'t \"swing for the downs.\"  And frankly, Game 1 could have gone either way.

Rumors abound that Mike Piazza is making a comeback for Mets fans tonight to try to get back in it.  

Race 4 today:  Billy\'s Star is my play today.  Turf bullet matches stablemate Tower of Texas.  Distance of 1 1/8 miles should allow him time to work out a trip although Joel aboard.  TG figs are competitive on poly, thinking it will translate to turf today, and he just ran against Lucky Lindy of Hawthorne Derby fame while having a shade of trouble.  3, 9, and 10 boxed along with the win ticket on the 10.    (8 passed the Haw Derby of $150k for this $100k race so I\'m not sure what to make of that but I\'m tossing the front runner who I\'m thinking prefers FIRM).  

Best of Luck to everyone today.

[HP]

The Cubs are the exact opposite of the Royals.  The Cubs strike out a lot.  The Royals are successful because they don\'t say \"the strike outs are okay because it\'s a trade off for power.\"  The Mets pitchers get two strikes and it doesn\'t do them any good.  They need to keep the ball down and get ground balls.  The Royals got everything in the air against DeGrom and that did not go well.  They should also put Uribe in instead of Wright but that won\'t happen.

[P-Dub]

Fairmount1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As a Cubs fan that lives in St. Louis, I
> absolutely have no dog in this fight as I\'ve told
> one board member by text recently.  And I also
> told him the same thing Frank, the Royals have the
> \"been there, done that\" factor going for them.
> The only reason they lost last year was Madison
> Bumgarner pitched in every WS game when he was
> unhittable........(bit of hyperbole there
> obviously)
>
> With that said, the Chicago Cubbie-Bombers going
> into the season had a major problem with their
> lineup, strikeouts.  The Oakland A\'s are still
> wondering why they couldn\'t beat the Reds in
> 90.....same problem.  Home run teams struggle
> against post-season pitching and contact hitting
> is the best attempt at beating a rotation like the
> Mets have this year.  The stats on the Royals
> making contact on deGrom with 2 strikes were
> pretty unbelievable.  The Mets pitchers are the
> real deal but are facing a team that doesn\'t
> \"swing for the downs.\"  And frankly, Game 1 could
> have gone either way.
>
> Rumors abound that Mike Piazza is making a
> comeback for Mets fans tonight to try to get back
> in it.  
>
> Race 4 today:  Billy\'s Star is my play today.
> Turf bullet matches stablemate Tower of Texas.
> Distance of 1 1/8 miles should allow him time to
> work out a trip although Joel aboard.  TG figs are
> competitive on poly, thinking it will translate to
> turf today, and he just ran against Lucky Lindy of
> Hawthorne Derby fame while having a shade of
> trouble.  3, 9, and 10 boxed along with the win
> ticket on the 10.    (8 passed the Haw Derby of
> $150k for this $100k race so I\'m not sure what to
> make of that but I\'m tossing the front runner who
> I\'m thinking prefers FIRM).  
>
> Best of Luck to everyone today.

Thanks for the 1990 reference. Fond memories. Those A\'s teams were known for power but had many who didn\'t. They lost because Cincinnati had an outstanding pen, and their lineup got hot at the right time. They just got outplayed for 4 games. It happens.

KC is doing what they do. Grind ABs, aggressive on the bases, solid staff with a very good pen. They don\'t depend on one guy. They make pitchers work.

Its not over yet, let\'s see what happens tonight.