Bodemeister vs Congaree

[Dark Bay]

In his recent column Beyer writes:

\"In the Derby’s 137 previous runnings, a total of 10 horses had sped the first half mile in 45.4 seconds or less. There were some legitimate contenders among them, but all 10 of them virtually collapsed after this exertion. All finished in 10th place or worse. Yet Bodemeister kept on going.\"

The closest comparison I could find to challenge Beyers point is Congaree\'s run in 2001. Although he wasn\'t on the lead I don\'t think it matters much in comparing the two efforts.  I compared the splits and races from both days and concluded that the track in 2001 may have been slightly slower and played less to speed than the one in 2012.  Here are the adjusted splits:

2001 Congaree:    22.3  45.3   1.09.4   1.35.3   2.00.4
2012 Bodemeister: 22.1  45.2   1.09.3   1.35.1   2.02.0


Comments?

[TGAB]

Indeed, Congaree is the only Baffert Derby starter entering off a top that managed NOT to regress in the Derby, as you can see in the attached sheet.

[JR]

Much is being made of his early fractions but not much about his closing fractions. He ran the last 6 furlongs in 1:16 and change. The last half in 52 and change. The last quarter in a shade under 27. The most remarkable thing to me is so few others caught him.

[mjellish]

Comparing Congaree to Bode isn\'t really a good way to do this.  That CD track in 2001 was very fast, not slower than this year.  The pace was also very fast.  The difference was the stretch runners could make up ground.

For whatever reason, no one was passing anyone on Sat at CD.  It was tough for the stretch runners in any race on Sat to make up ground on that greasy, tricky surface.  Even the ones that were far back early didn\'t run fast late.

Here are some rough final 1/4 times times for a few of these that are currently under consideration for the Preakness.

Bode 27.10
Creative Cause 26.4
Dul 25.70
IHA 26.20
LIA 26.60
WTDW 25.30

Certainly DUL and WTDW were not involved in the early pace and should have came home quick.  

Now compare these times overall to most KY Derby races where there are almost always a few that come home in 24 and small change.  Or specifically, if you want to compare any of these to Congaree then compare them to the entire 2001 Derby field when Monarchos, Invisible Ink and a bunch of the others all came home in 24 and change.  I find it very unlikely that all of the colts this year are slower at the end of the race than Invisible Ink.

You can\'t judge any of this year\'s colts by their raw final fractions.  They were all slow, and it is far more likely that this was due to it the nature of the track.

Just go back and watch the replays.  The only horses that got passed in the lane were dead speed.

[Rich Curtis]

MJellish wrote:

\"For whatever reason, no one was passing anyone on Sat at CD.\"

 I think maybe you should check this again, race by race.

[mjellish]

I stand by what I said.  Watch the replays.

[Rich Curtis]

What you said was untrue, whether you stand by it or not. How were horses able to win races from behind (as they did) if they didn\'t pass anyone? Moreover, there were horses Saturday who made up tremendous amounts of ground.

[mjellish]

Guess we disagree. Although I have no idea what you are talking about.  Here\'s a quick summary.

Race #1 - the horses that were 1, 2 at the top of the stretch finished 1-2.

Race #2 - the horses that were 1, 2 at the top of the stretch finished 1-2

Race #3 - the horses that were 1, 2 at the top of the stretch finished 1-2

Race #4 - the horses that were 1, 2 at the top fo the stretch finished 1-2

Race #5 - the horses that were 1, 2 at the top of the stretch finished 1-2

Race #6 - turf

Race #7 - the horses that were 1, 2 at the top fo the stretch finshed 1-2

Race #8 - turf

Race #9 - the horses that were 1. 2 at the top of the stretch finished 1-2

Race #10 - turf

Race #11 - the horses that were 1,2 at the top fo the stretch finished 2-1

Race #12 - the horses that were 1,2 at the top fo the stretch finished 1-2

Do you see a pattern here Rich?

[Rich Curtis]

MJellish wrote:

\"Do you see a pattern here Rich?\"

  What I see is a situation where a horse can be dead last early, then close and win the race, while you use his victory as evidence that it was impossible to close. If horses are on the lead and tire before the stretch call, giving way to the deepest closer, you use this as evidence that the closers in that race had no chance.

Don\'t you see what you\'re doing? If a track is so closer-favoring that all the speed horses and stalkers die before the stretch call, your method considers this race to be evidence of a speed bias.

 Let me ask you this: Do you think it was possible to close in race one? Or did the fact that the race was won (from dead last) by a horse who got the lead by the stretch call suggest to you that it was impossible to close in race one?

[mjellish]

Rich,

I don\'t know what point you\'re trying to make.  What I said was:

#1 You can\'t compare the final fractions of these colts to Congaree, the other 2001 Colts or most other past Derby runners because

#2 The track surface on Sat. made it impossible for the stretch runners to make up any ground and they all came home slow.  No one passed anyone.  

#3 Since they all came home slow, it is probably track related and not talent related.

#4 I stand by those statements for what they were and I cited the evidence as to why I felt that way.  

If you see it otherwise, all the power to you.  

If you are trying to disagree with my point of view feel free to cite your evidence.  

If you want to talk semantics, please refer back to the above points #1, #2, #3 and, most importantly, #4 because that\'s all I was trying to say.

[Rich Curtis]

MJellish wrote:

\"#2 The track surface on Sat. made it impossible for the stretch runners to make up any ground and they all came home slow. No one passed anyone.\"

The track surface did not make it impossible for the stretch runners to make up any ground. The reason I know this is that there were stretch runners who made up a lot of ground. Also: It is not true that no one passed anyone. The reason I know this is that horses did pass each other.

\"If you want to talk semantics, please refer back to the above points #1, #2, #3 and, most importantly, #4 because that\'s all I was trying to say.\"

 I did my best.

  Now one final point, and this is a general point: An awful lot of people do not know where the stretch call is on the racetrack, and this causes a lot of confusion. I\'ll use Zenyatta as an example because she had a famous style of running. In over half of her races, she was either first or second at the stretch call. In general, using the stretch call positions to judge biases is an awful idea.

[HP]

Rich wrote

\"The track surface did not make it impossible for the stretch runners to make up any ground. The reason I know this is that there were stretch runners who made up a lot of ground. Also: It is not true that no one passed anyone. The reason I know this is that horses did pass each other.\"

This made me do two things.  

1)  I was literally laughing out loud...thanks!  

2)  Made me watch the race again.  

What I see is...a wall of horses started coming together on the turn, but the ones going best were widest (except IHA).  Bode cut the corner and it looked like he picked it up again and sprinted away a bit, but I suspect that\'s a bit of an optical illusion.  After repeated viewings, Bode got a good trip and basically made his own race (and you have to give the horse credit for a tremendous performance regardless of how slow they finished) and the ground loss of the ones going best late (except IHA) in the stretch really killed them, as opposed to \"nobody finishing.\"  

HP

[Dark Bay]

Thank you Jay Hovdey.


\"Lay Congaree’s splits over Bodemeister’s and see what you get. The only difference is that Bodemeister busted loose on a pace no one was crazy enough to follow – other than the doomed Trinniberg – while Congaree was in close range of the pace, racing fifth early but hardly being rated. Bodemeister’s half was 45.39 seconds. Congaree was three lengths and a neck off a 44.86. Bodemeister was in front at the mile mark in 1:35.19. So was Congaree, in 1:35.00. At the finish Bodemeister was 1 1/2 lengths shy of I’ll Have Another’s 2:01.83, while Congaree finished third, 4 3/4 lengths behind the 1:59.97 of Monarchos, while the others on the pace crumbled\"



Jay Hovedy - drf