Nyquist vs AP

[HP]

But you did manage to squeeze in this comment.  If this isn\'t patting yourself on the back I don\'t know what is.  

Also this years Derby was not wide open to me it was Nyquist all along.

[ringato3]

JohnnyM,

Clear redboarding violation aside, your premise that the track was faster last year is way off.

Look at the final times of relative races last year to this year (on dirt, not just the derby but all races).

Water or no water, the track this year was producing faster times, and the variant by all track people, not just TG, reflects that.

i started some of this by saying I think the races are comparable (so I am not going to contradict myself here), but my assertion/opinion was for way different reasons than you post.  

To factor in ground loss and call the races \"equal\", like i did, you have consider \"other factors\" during the race besides ground loss, track variant and final times.  I am giving some credit to Nyquist for pressing a VERY FAST pace and taking away some credit from AP for being part of a \"merry go round\" race where the 1-2-3 finishers were the same all the way around.  (up to others to factor these pace based assumptions in, or decide not to)

Had also talked to people around AP and in the Baffert barn last year after the Derby and they all insisted that AP didn\'t grab the track right at Churchill on Derby day.  Trainer and connections speak aside, pretty sure if you asked the people around AP they would strongly disagree with TGJB that the Derby was AP\'s best race.  (granted none of them are figure makers and I am not saying they are right or wrong).  I thought AP had a comfortable trip on Derby day, was all out and I didn\'t buy the trainer-speak at the time and bet against the horse two more times in the Triple Crown (fruitlessly).  

Rob

[johnnym]

No red boarding intended so my mistake..
TY for the response.

[johnnym]

Comment was not intended to be in bad taste

[HP]

I give you credit, not everyone recognizes a mistake, I\'m sure you didn\'t have bad intentions.  

In terms of your original point I would find it impossible to compare tracks year to year.  Who knows what they\'ve done?  Added cushion, there are all kinds of things that could affect it.  Part of what we pay for is Jerry\'s experience in seeing the track evolve over time, whether it\'s during a day, over a week, or longer periods.  I think comparing raw time from one year to the next is pretty useless, dirt is not like track and field.

[Gerard]

AP put away 4 horses who moved forward to new tg tops, five that paired tops, three that went backwards and five x\'s. AP battled for position with 10-11 horses under the wire the first time within three lengths of the lead and never really had a breather after that.

Nyquist put away four forward moving horses (not all new tops), three pairs (only two tops), four backwards moves, and eight x\'s. He reeled in a runaway pace setter while sitting comfortable with no competition moving for position.

Nyquist may be all that, but I think AP had a much tougher derby.

[miff]

And yet from another methodology, AP\'s pace adjusted Derby fig Neg TG -3.25....Nquist TG neg -2 same results for pace adj Beyer.Rags would have Nyquist faster by 3/4 of a point after pace adj.

Discussions about \"better\" are usually subjective,properly crafted figures which take in all measurable racing factors answer \"better\" moreso than opinions.

[Gerard]

These are the same arguments that had Cupid winning the Ark. Derby by daylight.

AP beat nine race horses that put forth their best effort.

Nyquist beat five, and three of those five were never near contention and never that fast to begin with.

I\'ll stand by my statement that AP had a much tougher derby.

[ringato3]

Gerard,

This is beating a dead horse, but taking the figures that TGJB assigned to the race and then using the number of horses that ran tops to determine how \"hard of a derby\" either horse had just doesn\'t make sense.  

We define \"hard\" by how many competitors ran tops?  We don\'t measure trip, pace, track bias, etc.etc.

Not that it matters, but other figure makers had the derby slower based on variant alone.  If TGJB was wrong and you use the other figure makers, less horses ran tops last year, more this year and now we say Nyquist\'s derby was \"harder\"?

Truth be told, who had the \"harder\" derby is mostly irrelevant going forward. The question is whether Nyquist can do what AP AFTER the Derby and if you think not, when is the right time to take advantage of that in the betting pools.

Rob

[Gerard]

Agreed that the discussion is pointless.

I will be playing NYQ to go back a few points this sat. though, weather notwithstanding. Winds are supposed to be out of the east and sustained at times. That\'s going to be very tough on pressing runners exposed to the outside on the backstretch in a race where there is a fair pace. Looking forward to seeing the post draw analysis from the rest of the board.