Preakness Day...

[TGJB]

...is now posted in ROTW. The track was clearly a lot faster for the Preakness, possibly because of the light rain, the only question was how much. Only other possible route was to take off 1 1/4 more, this looked better. Beyer has it faster, Ragozin figures to, given his rules about tying the day together. This kind of thing has happened on Preakness day before, time between races might play a part, as it has on Belmont day.

I gave boxes to the last race. there wasn\'t enough info to give out figures-- one erratic horse, a couple of one number horses, rain and track changing speed since the last sprint. Anyone who makes figures for that race is guessing.

[miff]

X

[covelj70]

Thank you as always for posting the data.

Alot of 0-2-x\'s in there in one form or another.

[Cartman]

The Beyer figure for the Preakness looks inflated by 4-5 points.

At 108, he paired the Beyers for Rachel and Mine That Bird. I can\'t see how that\'s possible given that MTB had a perfect trip in the Derby, but lost ground in the Preakness. Rachel had a perfect trip in the Oaks, but lost ground while dueling a Grade 2 sprinter into defeat in the Preakness. In my book, that means he has both horses running huge new tops. It would also mean that Musket Man ran a new top. Possible, but I\'m more apt to believe the top three ran races similar to their previous starts when adjusted for their respective trips.

[miff]

Cart,

The 108 Beyer was arrived at after spending much time on the race,without explanation.

Beyer has RA equal to app a TG neg -2 1/2(adjusted)

TG has RA at 0

Rags has RA at 3 1/4 equal to a TG Neg -1/4


Beyer has RA app 4 lengths faster than both TG and RAGS.

[Cartman]

I believe TG and RAG have the race correct. It appears that some Beyer associates have recently demonstrated a tendency to build aspects of trip right into their figures. There is no logical explanation for some of the figures assigned to high profile stakes other than not wanting to give out speed figures that understate the actual performance.

[Rick B.]

FWIW, when I used to use Beyer numbers (before I discovered a superior source for performance numbers, smooch, smooch), as a rule of thumb I would discount East Coast stakes horse\'s numbers by 10% if they were shipping into the Midwest or SoCal. I figured this out after losing my ass a few times on \"can\'t miss\" NY shippers with \"superior\" numbers that couldn\'t duplicate them at Arlington Park or in Kentucky.

Does Mark Hopkins still make the East Coast Beyers? He was making the inflated numbers back in the day. Have no idea if my method would work today -- I think they Beyers are worth every penny extra that their users pay for them.

[imallin]

I know that TG doesn\'t factor pace pressure into their numbers, but i have a question about RA\'s \'bounce\' from -4 to 0. In the Preakness, she was used harder in the internal part of the race, thus her final time figure won\'t be as good for the Preakness, yet in the \'energy expended\' dept, she might have run a race that was more \'taxing\' than her minus 4 at CD.

Is this something that TG users will blindly accept as a 4 pt bounce, or is pace pressure something that they would factor into the equasion and make the case that even though final time-wise it was a 4 pt bounce, Rachel raced better than a 4 pt bounce indicates because of pace pressure?

[Michael D.]

imallin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know that TG doesn\'t factor pace pressure into
> their numbers, but i have a question about RA\'s
> \'bounce\' from -4 to 0. In the Preakness, she was
> used harder in the internal part of the race, thus
> her final time figure won\'t be as good for the
> Preakness, yet in the \'energy expended\' dept, she
> might have run a race that was more \'taxing\' than
> her minus 4 at CD.
>
> Is this something that TG users will blindly
> accept as a 4 pt bounce, or is pace pressure
> something that they would factor into the equasion
> and make the case that even though final time-wise
> it was a 4 pt bounce, Rachel raced better than a 4
> pt bounce indicates because of pace pressure?


I now agree with Gary Stevens - the Oaks took little out of RA. Put her in the Oaks conditions last Sat, and she probably runs the same race. I don\'t think she bounced.

RA worked harder to get position in the Preakness, and ran an extra 1/16 - a very slow final 1/16 (while drifting out). Spot her 4 lengths for the more taxing trip, and make her final 1/16 :07, and you\'ve already accounted for a race about 4 points slower than the Oaks, without a spec of bounce.

[BB]

But if you are going to cut up the race like that, doesn\'t that also imply that the first 6F of the Preakness was much faster than the first 6F of the Oaks, thereby taking away from those 4 points you mention?

Though it looked like a stroll, I believe the Oaks was a very taxing race. In her earlier races she was throttled down by the wire. In the Oaks she was still flying at the finish (evidenced by the time for that final eighth). She is just one of those rare ones that makes the extraordinary look easy. She put away the quick ones in Baltimore after 6 or 7F with that seemingly effortless way, but when Calvin hit her, she did not have more to give. Which - I think - is why he measured the wire and just coaxed her home. She had already earned that walking 16th.

[TGJB]

Michael--  \"Probably\" and \"spot her four lengths\" and \"make her final 16th 07\", huh.

So basically you agree with him because you agree with him?

The track for the Preakness was significantly faster than for the Oaks, about 4 points (over a second in final time).

[JR]

No way light rain affected the track speed to any measurable degree. I was there, outside, not under cover and there wasn\'t enough rain to to bother putting on a jacket. The rain started less than 10 minutes to post and was at most a light, intermittent drizzle. It wasn\'t enough moisture to dampen my program.

[Michael D.]

BB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But if you are going to cut up the race like that,
> doesn\'t that also imply that the first 6F of the
> Preakness was much faster than the first 6F of the
> Oaks, thereby taking away from those 4 points you
> mention?

Hi B,

The \"cut up\" was in relation to the final 1/16, a 1/16 they did not run in the Oaks. And I\'d say the battle vs the boys took its toll on RA, even before then.


> Though it looked like a stroll, I believe the Oaks
> was a very taxing race. In her earlier races she
> was throttled down by the wire. In the Oaks she
> was still flying at the finish (evidenced by the
> time for that final eighth). She is just one of
> those rare ones that makes the extraordinary look
> easy. She put away the quick ones in Baltimore
> after 6 or 7F with that seemingly effortless way,
> but when Calvin hit her, she did not have more to
> give. Which - I think - is why he measured the
> wire and just coaxed her home. She had already
> earned that walking 16th.

[Rick B.]

JR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No way light rain affected the track speed to any
> measurable degree. I was there, outside, not under
> cover and there wasn\'t enough rain to to bother
> putting on a jacket. The rain started less than 10
> minutes to post and was at most a light,
> intermittent drizzle. It wasn\'t enough moisture to
> dampen my program.

Did the track crew roll or seal the surface before the Preakness?
 
If they knew rain might be coming, it\'s possible that they started packing it down. Anyone know?

[BB]

Hi Michael, Agree about saturday having been tough on her. I just think that even though she was able to run the Oaks on her terms, her terms are plenty fast, and not all that different from saturday\'s. I\'m doubtful it was as easy as she made it look.