Silly Season

[TGJB]

Usually it comes before the Derby, for some reason this year it\'s after. I\'m taking the day off, when I get back in tomorrow this is going to get back to being a high level, Thoro-Graph board. Someone wants to question a figure on figure making essentials thats fine. But \"looks like a better race\", faster raw time, racetrack fast, I just think its better, that stuffs over. You want to talk about other handicapping factors (pace etc.) that affect a figure or its interpretation, okay. But if you want to question figures here, and are going to offer an opinion, have some idea what you\'re talking about. This isn\'t the minor leagues.

[NormandyInvasion]

Posts like this are why I don\'t post here often and why I\'ll bow out after this post.

There is more to judging a horse and his performances than numbers on a page.  If those numbers were science and infallible, then there\'d only be one set of numbers.  Making figures is an art, and it\'s part of the larger art of assessing horse performances.  The larger art includes visual assessments, nuances that can\'t be defined by numbers.  That can range from trip incidents to temperament issues to the horse\'s movement and much more. Surely you know that there are trainers, agents, and other observers of horses who can ascertain their ability without knowing a single number or having any intimate knowledge in figure-making. In fact, they may glean a horse\'s ability before a horse has ever raced.

Clearly, you\'re bothered that I and some others don\'t agree with you that AP\'s Derby was superior to Nyquist\'s.  Personally, I think it only benefits the horseplayer to look and learn and consider the entire art.

[speedneed]

You should come play me on the \"fantasy\" sites. I can barely tell the difference between AP and a 5k claimer without numbers

[ajkreider]

Honestly, I don\'t understand this post at all.  You\'re obviously right that there are other factors that can and should be used in evaluating horses - including how they look. But JB has agreed with that before, admitting that the some in the paddock have a good and relevant eye for those who looked primed for a big race.  

As far as trip incidents, there\'s a trip signifier in the numbers. Obviously a \"trouble\" line won\'t tell you what kind of trouble.  But the sheet isn\'t supposed to tell you that.  It tells you to go watch the race.  

I\'m sure there are people that can judge when a horse is likely to be pretty good, before they have raced.  But we\'re talking about horses that have raced - which means we don\'t have to rely on such things.  A beautifully moving but slow horse is still a slow horse.  

And finally, the whole point of speed figures (these or anyone else\'s) is to make is less \"art-y\" and more \"science-y\".  We can get on here all day use this site to give our subjective opinions, with no apparent way to judge whose are more apt. Or we can start, and in some cases end, the discussion based on the numbers.  

None of this is to deny the \"other\" factors.  Horses like Private Zone and Valid look like horses who fire every time and really don\'t want to throw in the towel in the stretch.  That matters (and maybe Nyquist is one of those, as his connections have suggested).  But they are also fast horses by the numbers.  And when two of those hook up, what else is there to decide on except the numbers?

[johnnym]

Good post

[Boscar Obarra]

I\'ll say this, one of the beautiful things about sheets is that it allows you to focus full attention on ONE factor , and make a reasoned judgement.

 While others are trying to juggle the other 27 things that go into determining where the winner is coming from, you have the advantage of clarity.

 I\'ve always thought this was an under appreciated factor in whatever success sheet players have.

 Same thing goes on in the stock market, where many traders pay relatively little attention to the fundamentals of the company, and focus mostly on the trading patterns. They often get it right, where someone reading the latest PR is left holding the bag.

[Bet Twice]

I just wasted 30 minutes of my life that I\'ll never get back reading these ridiculous posts on why nyquist\'s derby was better.....why are we even discussing this?

[rhagood]

Last I checked the Preakness is for 3 year olds and not for horses who were 3 years old in 2015. Comparisons of the like may be fine for bar stool conversations but do not forward handicapping one iota.

Furthermore, to address some of the figure backlash we must concede the numbers themselves are correct. No one else has produced them for the public with as sophisticated methodologies and experience. But remember these are Race horses not Figure horses!  A figure is a numeric representation of a performance. Others have beefed for years about a west coast figure bias and since the past few years have been dominated by west coast horses whose figures were not stand outs going in then those same people say the/your numbers are wrong.

I say the numbers are right and I have a few simple observations on why those horses best numbers have shown up once racing in the east (save FL derby this year). California Chrome, AP and Nyquist all benefited from a tremendous tactical speed advantage (developed as a must in Cal racing) to create near perfect ground saving trips. This combined with the new points system has put them in less strain contesting the pace than previous years. They also like to win which cannot be taught and allows them to often run only as fast as required. They are also trained by men who have very high win percentages (2 of them in limited sample size) in the 3 year old classics vs Pletcher, Asmussen, McLaughlin among others. In other words, what turned out to be the best horse of the last 3 crops came from the west, were handled by excellent horsemen who got peak performances out of their highly competitive runners at the right time - late spring. That was the old fashion method and has always worked well just as the figures generated here.

While the observations are true they are not presented as assumptions and are only meant to show one approach to understanding the bigger picture. At the end of the day, the end user must always increase their level of sophistication and nuance interpreting and applying the figures no matter how they are generated as they become more reflected in the betting pools (big days aside due to excess public money).

[rhagood]

One last poke:

Nyquist cannot get the Preakness distance because Uncle Mo never won at that distance and furthermore it is not the exact distance that he just proved his naysayers wrong. On a breeding note, Uncle Mo (first crop) had a better chance to produce a Derby winner than leading sire Tapit (8 crops of racing age), both had multiple starters this year. Seems the pattern is if you are throwing a precocious offspring the chances diminish with each passing crop.  What this has to do with the Preakness I don\'t know but half the posts on here don\'t either!

In the past 20 years five sires (now 6 out of 21) saw runners from their first crop win the Derby: Unbridled with Grindstone in 1996, Maria\'s Mon with Monarchos   in 2001, Distorted Humor  , with Funny Cide in 2003, Street Cry with Street Sense   in 2007, and Birdstone   with Mine That Bird in 2009.

In the year after their first-crop Derby winner, the stud fees for those five horses more than doubled, going up, on average, 166%. In the year of their first-crop Derby winner, public auction yearling prices for those five stallions jumped, on average, 83% when compared with their yearling prices the previous year.

It is also the fourth time in the last decade that a sire has had an American classic winner in his first crop. Those sires are Street Cry, Medaglia d\' Oro, Curlin, and now Uncle Mo. They produced first crop winners in the Kentucky Derby--Street Sense and Nyquist; Belmont Stakes--Palace Malice; and Kentucky Oaks and Preakness--Rachel Alexandra.

[Strike]

I think you are missing the point of the initial \"silly season\" post by the host. This is a TG Data forum. It is not a horse-whisper forum. Or a body language forum. Or a \"class\" forum. Or any other forum. I took the post as a request to have topics that are discussed ON THIS FORUM to be remotely related to figure making and the interpretation of the same. We all love this sport and at times get a bit carried away (I sure do) -- especially at this time of the year.

[bellsbendboy]

Both you and the initial responder have valid points, as does JB, cogently making his point that comparisons between the last two derby winners is indeed \"silly\".

Sheets/figures/raw times have been computed and distributed for a more than a few dozen decades.  In the early years, just the name of the runner and his \"rating\" for each race.  Many \'cappers have and continue to bet solely on the number/pattern/line.  One respondent mentioned \"clarity\", at the expense of the other \"27\" points of data: no argument.

For me, I realize quality performance figures are a huge benefit but the beauty of the sport is betting on horses, not numbers.

bbb

[rhagood]

From the other side of the pond whose author makes many salient points:
https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/five-hot-takes-kentucky-derby

5. That joke isn’t funny anymore

The kind of analytical slant that now is heavily featured on television in many sports is not everyone’s cup of tea. Fair play. Nobody, however technically minded, should have a problem with this as a choice. It’s a lifestyle choice for many to prefer ‘feel’ over measurement, instinct over studied appraisal.

However, the comments of trainer Dale Romans that “speed figures have become one of the biggest jokes in racing” is typical of the kind of rant made by racing’s traditional reserve.

Speed figures are nothing more than one staple measure of performance. They are not a threat to a different view of the world. The race is to the swift, and figures merely convert running times over different distances and on different surfaces onto a familiar scale that should prevent a lot of subjective waffling and nonsense.

Horses often break track records largely because the track is superfast, rather than the horse. Speed figures are there to stop us making a kindergarten error in confusing the two.

Okay, I agree that figures that take ground-loss, weight and even pace into account lose this advantage, and often lead us to descend into an exercise in playing with numbers. But, there is an appetite for them commercially because they have value to the horseplayer.

Speed figures merely put race times in their proper context. That’s all. They are not a panacea for all handicapping woes, but neither are they “a joke”.

Why does this running battle have to be waged? If a horse has run slow, it doesn’t make it a slow horse, only a slow performance. Speed figures don’t pretend to capture everything about a racehorse. They contain inevitable measurement error; they vary between operators according to that operator’s interpretation of the speed of the track; they are a knowingly one-dimensional abstraction of merit. Surely we can be grown-up about this.

You could teach school children to make speed figures without ever once straying from mainstream academic principles.

After one lesson, they would get it well enough to see the error of traditional thinking about time. After a few more lessons, they would start to learn about classical physics, biology, entropy, statistical inference, randomness, chaos, and many other things besides that are sparked by curiosity about the wonder of the equine athlete.

Speed figures offer a way into the sport for many people mathematically inclined, not privileged to own or train horses or who don’t care to speak the code of racing’s insiders or who trust all their received wisdom. They are for people who want to learn additional awe for great horses via computation, not via visuals, instinct and emotion, which certainly have merit but can be flawed.

They are definitely not “a joke”, Mr Romans.

[NormandyInvasion]

rhagood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From the other side of the pond whose author makes
> many salient points:
> https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/five-h
> ot-takes-kentucky-derby
>
> 5. That joke isn’t funny anymore
>
> The kind of analytical slant that now is heavily
> featured on television in many sports is not
> everyone’s cup of tea. Fair play. Nobody, however
> technically minded, should have a problem with
> this as a choice. It’s a lifestyle choice for many
> to prefer ‘feel’ over measurement, instinct over
> studied appraisal.
>
> However, the comments of trainer Dale Romans that
> “speed figures have become one of the biggest
> jokes in racing” is typical of the kind of rant
> made by racing’s traditional reserve.
>
> Speed figures are nothing more than one staple
> measure of performance. They are not a threat to a
> different view of the world. The race is to the
> swift, and figures merely convert running times
> over different distances and on different surfaces
> onto a familiar scale that should prevent a lot of
> subjective waffling and nonsense.
>
> Horses often break track records largely because
> the track is superfast, rather than the horse.
> Speed figures are there to stop us making a
> kindergarten error in confusing the two.
>
> Okay, I agree that figures that take ground-loss,
> weight and even pace into account lose this
> advantage, and often lead us to descend into an
> exercise in playing with numbers. But, there is an
> appetite for them commercially because they have
> value to the horseplayer.
>
> Speed figures merely put race times in their
> proper context. That’s all. They are not a panacea
> for all handicapping woes, but neither are they “a
> joke”.
>
> Why does this running battle have to be waged? If
> a horse has run slow, it doesn’t make it a slow
> horse, only a slow performance. Speed figures
> don’t pretend to capture everything about a
> racehorse. They contain inevitable measurement
> error; they vary between operators according to
> that operator’s interpretation of the speed of the
> track; they are a knowingly one-dimensional
> abstraction of merit. Surely we can be grown-up
> about this.
>
> You could teach school children to make speed
> figures without ever once straying from mainstream
> academic principles.
>
> After one lesson, they would get it well enough to
> see the error of traditional thinking about time.
> After a few more lessons, they would start to
> learn about classical physics, biology, entropy,
> statistical inference, randomness, chaos, and many
> other things besides that are sparked by curiosity
> about the wonder of the equine athlete.
>
> Speed figures offer a way into the sport for many
> people mathematically inclined, not privileged to
> own or train horses or who don’t care to speak the
> code of racing’s insiders or who trust all their
> received wisdom. They are for people who want to
> learn additional awe for great horses via
> computation, not via visuals, instinct and
> emotion, which certainly have merit but can be
> flawed.
>
> They are definitely not “a joke”, Mr Romans.

I like that article.  Nice.

I don\'t think Roman\'s rant was typical, however.  I don\'t know anyone in the sport who would buy a runner without looking at its figures, and likely from multiple sources.  Figures are respected, and Romans may be alone in his thought.

My argument was that it is possible to have a valid disagreement with an opinion formed by a number.  In this case, it was AP\'s Derby versus Nyquist\'s.  

Figures can\'t measure everything, nor are they infallible.  Maybe the numbers agree with me that Zenyatta\'s last career race was her best, but they don\'t factor in what I do, which is watching her inability to get hold of the track going by the stands the first time.  It was truly remarkable that she ran as she did given this.  What are we to think of Songbird?  Is she as special as many think upon watching her or are we going to toss her because her numbers aren\'t special?  People were falling over themselves to not respect Nyquist due to his numbers, but it puzzled me, particularly after his race at Gulfstream.  AP himself was knocked for a large part of the year due to the consensus in figures, but many believed their eyes anyway.

I got the memo about what one is expected to talk about here, but I think the same way the numbers are respected, the factors that numbers can\'t qualify should be respected as well.

[TGJB]

Rather than pick that apart-- didn\'t you say you were done here? That\'s why I didn\'t come after your last one, where you erroneously decided I was responding to you personally.

If you are staying, you are fair game.

[bobphilo]

\"You could teach school children to make speed figures without ever once straying from mainstream academic principles.

After one lesson, they would get it well enough to see the error of traditional thinking about time. After a few more lessons, they would start to learn about classical physics, biology, entropy, statistical inference, randomness, chaos, and many other things besides that are sparked by curiosity about the wonder of the equine athlete.\"

This part of the article rings very true with my own life experience. Like many teens I hated math as a bunch of abstract numbers that had nothing to do with the real world. I then came across my first set of PPs and found out that the numbers and speed figures could teach me so much about the horses and sport I loved so much. I found that also applies to the whole world and people as well and, to make a long story short, I ended up with a graduate degree in Social Research Methods and Bio-statistics