BOARD OF STANDARDS?

[JAKE]

I use ragozin\'s numbers and have made my share of $$ using them.

Borrego\'s line according to The SHEETS since the 2+ at Hollywood was 8, 5-, 2+ (pacific classic win). His # in the JCGC of 5, I think, is more accurate than the -3 of TG.
The final time was 2:02.80 - not fast.  Flower Alley figured to bounce big in the race because he ran a 0\" and 0 (Rag #\'s) in his previous two efforts.
Lava Man tapped out with his big win (-0+). His last race before the JC was a 5 and he figured to react further. Imperialism ran a 2+ point top in his return race sprint (a 1) and reacted stretching out.
Borrego figures to run another 2 in the Classic, which won\'t get him the Win, but may get him on the board.

I still find it interesting that no one seems to notice the pace at all.

It was 23.2 46.3. That\'s darn quick for a 10F race at Belmont relative to a 202.4 final time. It\'s also fairly obvious that Lava Man, the Rabbit, and Flower Alley are all pretty quick horses. They were out there battling. Flower Alley even seemed rank. They all collapsed to various degrees (Lava Man and the rabbit for various reasons besides just the pace).

Suave was approximately 1 3/4 lengths off that pace and Sun King was approximately 2 1/4 lengths off it.

Well, 47 is still a fast pace relative to 202.4. It\'s certainly fast relative to the final times of \"approximately\" 203.3 and 204.4 they recorded. Few would argue that those 2 are solid Grade 1 horses. So it makes some sense that sitting \"just off\" a fast Grade 1 pace might mean they are running pretty fast \"for them\".

A final quarter of 26.1 is not particluarly fast under any circumstances.

Just look at the final quarter times recorded by Imperialism, Grand Reward, and Sun King (and of course all the pace setters that crawled home). It seems pretty apparent that the race was falling apart.

Only Borrego was well suited to 10F, a Grade 1 horse, \"and\" well off that pace.  

[HP]

How is this relevant?  I think everybody noticed the pace of the race.  It\'s absolutely meaningless in this debate.

The one thing Jerry and Friedman would probably agree on is that they could care less about the pace viz-a-viz the figures they respectively assigned Borrego.  In fact, Class, I think Jerry has posted 15,000 TIMES that he does not factor in pace.  

HP

HP,

\"The one thing Jerry and Friedman would probably agree on is that they could care less about the pace viz-a-viz the figures they respectively assigned Borrego. In fact, Class, I think Jerry has posted 15,000 TIMES that he does not factor in pace.\"

And that sums up exactly why it might be very relevent. It could explain why two very competent figure makers with different philosphies about breaking races out but equal philosphies about pace might come to extremely different conclusions about how fast a race was. Neither of them considered the possible impact of the pace on a few of the horses when assigning the speed figure. I\'ll leave the complexities of the issue and which type of figure is preferable for those with experience making figures to toss around in their own heads. Since I have no strong opinion on the figures other than I don\'t think Borrego is a budding superstar (just another solid contender that likes 10F, a fast pace and weakening opponenets), that\'s all I have to say.  

[HP]

Pace just has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.  Neither side considers it.  It may be relevant to YOU, but it is not relevant to the debate regarding this figure.  You\'re just blowing your own proverbial horn again.  HP

[kev]

Just because he got a -3.3 no one said he was a superstar, now if he does it 3 or 4 more times, then me might just be the next great thing of his time. Unless the pace of a race is crazy fast, I don\'t think it really matters. I say if a horse is going to run it\'s top that day he\'ll run it. How many times have we all seen horses run crazy fast early times and still hold on, or horses coming off the pace in very slow times.

[jimbo66]

Yeah Class,

You nailed it.  The reason that Rags and Tgrah disagree on a figure is because they didn\'t factor in the pace.  Unfortunately your idiotic post doesn\'t factor that both sides have put figures on hundreds of thousands of races, without ever factoring pace.  

But in this particular race, the fact that they both ignored the pace, led them to be off so far, relative to each other.

You just keep posting about pace on this board, like stubborn idiotic mule.  Enough is enough.  Borrego\'s figure matters.  We are two weeks away from the Breeders Cup.  People on this board are trying to discuss real issues.  You are not in that group.  You believe what you believe, others here don\'t agree with you and don\'t care for you to consider posting the same opinion again and again.

pace is the solution for everything.

Pace is why we have world hunger.  Pace is the reason there is trouble in the middle east.  etc.etc.etc

You can call me all the names you want and criticize my views as much as you want. You would do better to actually look at a set of pace figures and learn something about the topic before spouting off.  Then you might actually understand what I am talking about for once, why I am making a reasonable case for what happened, and why there\'s such a huge difference between the two figures. I am doing this because I DO think it\'s important to understand how well those horses ran. This is simply my view for you to reject or accept.

The very rough estimates I use are:

A -3 1/3 TG translates into about a 117 Beyer.

A 5 Ragozin (roughly a 2 on TG scale) translates into about 100 Beyer.

Funny how Beyer (and every other figure maker whose figures I have seen) has the the final time figure somewhere between those two and every pace handicapper has the pace fast.

If everyone else is right, that translates into Borrego earning a figure entirely consistent with his recent past performances. It also translates into  several of the other contenders being impacted somewhat negatively by the fast pace (which would account for Borrego\'s large margin and easy win since he was well off it early and they weren\'t).

IMO, the problem stems partly from not appreciating that Sun King, Suave, Flower Alley and others ran too fast early and did not pair up or even come close (though they ran OK when pace is considered). Without that appreciation, you have to give Borrego a very fast number because he beat them by so much!

On the other side, the lack of much willingness to break out a figure - even when it\'s the only 2 turn race of the day, the moisture changed, the pace was a factor, etc.. means an occasional figure that doesn\'t make sense given the horse\'s PPs.

Given the fact that the pace was DEFINITELY FAST and it was the only two turn race, I don\'t think it\'s possible to know exactly what figure Borrego ran, exactly how fast that pace was, and exactly what impact it had on several of the contenders that raced close to it.

Those that think they can measure all this exactly are living in a deep delusion. It would be nice to think that everything about a  horse\'s performance translated into a neat number or formula that\'s almost always right. The game is more complicated than that. It\'s an even bigger delusion to think that the only two possibilities are a -3 1/3 or a 5 and one of those is right and the other is wrong.  

IMO, based on the evidence (including pace) the most likely reality is that Borrego ran somewhere in between the TG figure and the RAG figure (his typical performance), Flower Alley ran OK when pace is considered (though not near up to his best) and Sun King/Suave also ran reasonably well when the pace is considered.

If you eliminate the portion of the difference between the two figures that is accounted for by pace, there would still be a difference, but not so large that everyone would be making a major issue of it. It would be within the range we see from time to time between competent figure makers.

[kev]

Beyer gave him a 110, again this is where you didn\'t factor in weight and the ground loss in the 2nd turn, add that in and you might have a 114 beyer something like that......right?? Beyer is on the line of rag\'s number, like a 110 is about a 6 for beyer and a 120 beyer is around a 2

Kev,

You are correct that Beyer doesn\'t put the ground loss and weight into his figures and that would move them around a little. The numbers I used to equate the TGs and Rags with Beyer don\'t either. They are very rough.

Borrego typically loses some ground and that ground loss is never in the Beyer. I wasn\'t trying to do a perfect 1 to 1 comparison between all the figures. Just make the point that everyone else is somewhere in between the two.    

Here are 3 other sources on the Beyer Scale.

106, 107, 109

It\'s not worth a long debate. It\'s just my opinion.  

[jimbo66]

Class,

You just don\'t read what anybody writes, do you?  Your points about the pace and performances in the race may or may not have merit.  But they are NOT the reason for the disparity between Rags and Tgraph?  Don\'t you get know that?  Besides the selfish, annoying posts, I know you are not a dumb guy and you post on both boards, you must know that NEITHER guy factored pace into their figure.  The very likely reason the figs are different is because Rags uses one track variant for the whole day unless a major change like a rain storm.  For your argument to make sense, Jerry would have had to bump Borrego\'s figure because of the hot pace.  Do you really believe he did that?

Saying that Flower Alley ran a decent race, albeit not his best, is a gross over analysis of the pace.  He ran poorly.

Class, I have no interest in the pace of the Belmont race, but go back and look at the last 10 runnings of the JC Gold Cup and see the half mile fractions.  Or use the Suburban as well.  The 2nd quarter mile is a straight away, the half mile fraction is very often 46 and change.  The pace was quick, but not some suicidal pace that would excuse the performance of Flower Alley.

That said, if you give FA a \"bounce\" in the race, he still has a shot at overlaid odds in the BC with his negative 2 and change races.  Especially if Saint Liam draws outside.

[high roller]

that\'s enough,

jerry brown you are hereby ordered to appear before the, \"board of standards\"

special counsel ken starr will question you.........................

[kev]

It\'s like this Borrego will be coming into the BC with a 3pt new top, I would have to say he backs up 2pt\'s to a -1.3 I don\'t think he\'ll be a key, but no toss, maybe he\'ll go off at 8-1 or so. I think Jerry said SUAVE got back to his -0.1, wow wacth out for this one then. Can\'t wait till Wed when the pre-BC sheets come out.

[jimbo66]

Borrego is 7-2 in the future books right now.  He isn\'t going to go off at 8-1, at least it doesn\'t seem possible.

jimbo,

>Your points about the pace and performances in the race may or may not have merit. But they are NOT the reason for the disparity between Rags and Tgraph?<

I think you would find me less annoying if you would make an effort to understand what I am saying regardless of whether you agree or not. If I am not clear, I have no problem with trying to explain it better. This stuff is tough to communicate (especially for me).  

As you say, the reason for the disparity is that each figure maker assigned a different variant. *HOWEVER*, IMO, pace may be part of the reason they assigned a \"much different\" variant even though neither looked at pace at all.

There is a very subtle difference between the two methods.

One figure is the result of an average variant (RAGs) and the other is the result of the race being viewed as a stand alone event (TG).

If the average variant is dragging the race in question down to a slower figure (RAGS) and the other is analyzed in a way that makes it too fast you get a huge difference in figures.  

>For your argument to make sense, Jerry would have had to bump Borrego\'s figure because of the hot pace. Do you really believe he did that? <

He didn\'t consider the pace, but perhaps he should have.

If you would temporarily give me the benefit of the doubt I can explain what I believe may have happened.

IMO Borrego was not impacted by the pace. He was well off it. However, I believe that Suave, Sun King, and Flower Alley were impacted to varying degrees (not huge, but enough to matter to the race analysis).

If you start with the assumption that Suave and Sun King (and a few others) ran races similar to their recent past and pace wasn\'t a a factor, you must give Borrego a very fast figure. He buried them all by a huge margin. A very fast race is the only way to explain that result. So you create a variant and figure that expresses the point of view that Borrego ran very fast and the others ran races similar to the past. That\'s what TG did.

If you start with the assumption that Suave and Sun King were negatively impacted by the pace but Borrego wasn\'t, you can give Borrego a figure that \"approximates\" his recent performances (much slower than a -3 1/3) and the big margins still make sense. Suave and Sun King (and others) get figures slower than their recent performances. However, it would still be logical because in this case you are assuming that the pace caused them to run slower and get beaten by so many lengths.  

Toss that around awhile and it will make sense. It\'s a matter of interpreting the result when you create a stand alone number.

This does not explain the entire difference between the two figures. However, if you give Borrego a 0 or -1 instead of -3 1/3 then the two figures aren\'t nearly as far apart. A RAGs 5 (2 on TG scale) vs. a 0 or -1.

IMHO, the rags figure is probably slow by a couple of points because he averaged it in with the rest of the day.  

>Saying that Flower Alley ran a decent race, albeit not his best, is a gross over analysis of the pace. He ran poorly.<

I believe it is impossible to accurately measure FA\'s performance because he was impacted by the pace and was also rank. I do not believe he ran as well as he did in the Travers etc... but I think he ran better than it looks based on how badly he was beaten. Had the pace been neutral and he rated kindly, he probably would have lost, but by a lot less than he actually did in the race. I\'ve seen plenty of rank horses that chased a fast pace run like crap without it being a indication of poor form.

The pace figures I have seen for the race rated it 118-106. That\'s a fast pace, but not outrageously fast. However, the pace call number of 118 is for the 6F point. IMO, the 2F-4F calls were faster than that. 46.3 is quite fast (even if not suicidal) AT BELMONT when the final time is 202.4. If you looked at all the other 10F races at Belmont in recent years I think you\'d agree.

Again, I\'m not smart enough to put an exact formula on all this and that\'s why I speak of FA in grey terms. I\'m viewing him as not so far off form that he can\'t recover his best effort in the classic. If he gets an honest pace without being rank he *could* run well at a good price.