Question for the board

[johnnym]

I don\'t know how much credit to give the other jocks,seeing if all them gang up to beat 1 horse they pretty much give up any chance to win themselves.
I believe Victor when he says the horse was not himself.
Chrome did have a decent part of his hoof removed from being stepped on at the break. Was it sore throughout the race? Was he tired? Was it the extra weight from the Sketchers blanket? Who know\'s?
Horse lost a mile and a half race by a length and a half not a bad performance.

[jimbo66]

Jim

When the decision was made by victor to let the Commissioner go on with it, there was no race riding.  Just a jockey decision.

Rosario missed the break a bit and sensing the slow pace he eased his horse up down the backstretch, albeit losing ground on the turn.  

So, sure, at that point chrome was down inside.  

But a big difference between the way he was down inside this time versus the race MJ pointed to last year.  In those races he was rank and climbing.  Uncomfortable.  He settled fine in the Belmont.  No pulling.  No rank ness.  He was a spent horse.  Racing always creates diverse opinions because there are so many factors.  But this was one that was pretty clear to me.  He was hard used in the Preakness.  Figured to be pointing toward empty unless he was a freak.  Once he let a plodder like commissioner outrun him to the lead, I knew he was not the same horse.  Espinoza eased him off the rail and he had a chance to win but made up no ground and lost ground late.  To a slowish horse in commissioner and Tonalist who got a 4w trip around 1.5 mile track.  

The 3 races in 5 weeks got him.  

I am shocked at the number of people, including Beyer who want to blame Espinoza.  This was not as clear as big brown who was a completely dead horse, but I thought it was pretty clear chrome was over the top and victor didn\'t have a lot of options

I suspect that if victor did go to the lead, we would NOT have seem the slow fractions.  Rosario would have pressed them pace if it was chrome up front.  The fact that it was commissioner up top and chrome down inside made Rosario and the other jockeys feel comfortable with their position and the pace.  Which almost got commissioner home.

[Boscar Obarra]

Not being  on the lead at some point before the 1/8 pole was an almost certain recipe for defeat.

  You\'d think that would have been in the plan. If he thought he had \"no horse\", he certainly rode the hair off him down the stretch.

 Tough game.

[jimbo66]

Chrome got a better trip than the winner.  By a lot.  

If he was good enough he wins.

Nobody ganged up on him.  Silly comment.  This was not smarty jones.  The pace was 24 and 48 and change on a fast track.  He could have set it, instead got a tucked inside trip and relaxed well during it.  

No punch late.  

No excuses (except the grabbed quarter, which could be a big exception, but I think there is some evidence to suggest he was just a tired horse).  

Tough to fire three big ones in 5 weeks at these distances.  Especially as the breed continues to evolve with more and more speed influences as opposed to stamina.

[Boscar Obarra]

considering what i read daily on the boards, I feel out of place if I don\'t make at least one silly comment.

[Boscar Obarra]

maybe you\'d like to wise up this Sherman guy who said

\"I was watching the race, and down the backside he was in all kinds of trouble,” Sherman said. “Victor was trying to get him out. They were pushing him down in there and he had no racing room. But, hey, listen, the horse has had six straight races with perfect trips. Sometimes, in this game, when you have a bad trip, that’s part of it. Racing luck means a lot. Being a former rider, I know that.”

 probably just imagined it because he trains the dang horse.

[Tavasco]

There are no coincidences.

[miff]

\"I\'ll see what the day looks like when I get it, but the single biggest noteworthy thing about the 2014 Belmont is how slow it went vs. the Brooklyn (and thank God they ran another 1 1/2 race). Yeah, they carried a lot more weight. But Norembega isn\'t a world beater, and there were three together at the wire\"


JB,

So far Tonalist Belmont win:

Beyer 100 equal to a TG 1

Rags 6 equal to a TG 2.5

Timeform 102 equal to a TG 2


TG figs,having both Tonalist and Commissioner a little on the slow side going in, imo,should be interesting.Highlights the different creative license portion of  what goes into making speed/performance figs.

Mike

[sekrah]

This is where I get a headache and don\'t envy figure makers.  Rags has ground loss, and Tonalist was wide so they had it WAY slower than Beyer.

[miff]

Sek,

Of all the fig makers,Rags stays closest to the clock. If a race comes up slow on the day,adjusted for track speed at the distance,it gets a slow figure, period! no wiggle room, not the case with most other fig makers.

But do you really need anyone to suggest the race was slow based on the glib surface, the Brooklyn,the Belmont splits and the stagger fest home in 26 seconds?

Mike

[TGJB]

Actually, as Miff can tell you, Jake guys almost always overstate ground loss for \"wide\" horses-- they should have him faster relative to the second finisher than we do.

Miff-- it\'s not simply a matter of creative license (judgment)-- there are differences in methodology which force certain figure makers to certain conclusions in certain situations, no matter what figures result. Not kidding about that. A few years ago a Rag guy (David Patent?) posted here that they gave Paseana something like a 15 when she won a GI by more than 10 lengths.

Their definition of a correct figure is one that results from a specific process, period. What makes it worse is that the process is not founded in logic or science (see \"Changing Track Speeds\").

[miff]

\"Miff-- it\'s not simply a matter of creative license (judgment)-- there are differences in methodology which force certain figure makers to certain conclusions in certain situations, no matter what figures result. Not kidding about that. A few years ago a Rag guy (David Patent?) posted here that they gave Paseana something like a 15 when she won a GI by more than 10 lengths\"

JB,

I agree for the most part but to insist that horses at a certain level,as a group, never can have an off day, ie, a slow performance, is not credible.The greatest athletes in the world, human or equine, can underperform at any time for a host of reasons.

Sometimes,I identify fig makers dismissing the clock,the most slippery slope one can take when making or gambling off such figs.Peeking back/projection off back races is a fine tuning process imo, but should not dominate the fig, the adjusted clock should always be overweight in making figs.


Mike

[TGJB]

The issue is not whether anyone has an off day (and even in that discussion, since you have to make the same correction to all of them, the question would be whether they ALL had an off day at the same time).

The entire question centers around the belief (as stated clearly in Ragozin\'s book) that tracks do not change speed unless there is rain, a freeze or thaw during the card. That forces them to use the same variant all day long-- which in effect means using an AVERAGE variant for ALL races on days when it does change speed.

Paul thinks that when he was there they had some kind of artificial rule along the lines that you could change a variant no more than 1 point from one race to the next even when there was rain.

And forget about splitting one and two turn races. They believe that relationship is a constant (they are the only figure makers I ever heard of that do). Just like the sprint/route issues they have in SoCal, if you look at their NY figures you will see the route horses almost always have their tops in the one turn routes at Belmont and Aqu.

[miff]

Spoke to many fig makers, never anyone at Rags so I will not guess their mo though I have a feel from conversions.No question they are seen to be one of the top fig makers along with TG and Beyer from  from those involved in the game, owners, trainers,gamblers.Their figs stack up in conversion overall to TG and Beyer, whereas, for example, the computer generated type figs have been dropped as being too inconsistent.

There is science/data provided by Dr.Mick Peterson regarding the measuring of track speed which confirms that tracks can/do change speeds,mainly due to weather or maintenance. Quantifying how much track speed is being affected/changed,during a given day, is another story.

From my standpoint,looking back/projecting to establish by how much a track may have changed speed TODAY is nothing more than backing into a fig,it\'s so so methodology. I can easily argue that the track speed of a horse\'s previous race is completely irrelevant in establishing today\'s track speed.Looking back to fine tune a fig is one thing, looking back to tweak to days track speed is another.(understand the process brings similar results)

Never will buy that a fig should look pretty or fit on paper,but should only reflect today\'s performance without preconceived notions regarding prior performance/ability.

[TGJB]

You know, I get the feeling you never watched Changing Track Speeds.

I contacted Peterson (and his predecessor, George Pratt, and others) before putting together that presentation for the DRF Expo. They sent me emails which I show there saying all that. Peterson also sent one saying basically the best method for quantifying track \"speed\" is the one we use.

That method, dubbed \"projection\" by Crist, is a form of regression analysis, recognized everywhere as a scientific statistical tool. The important questions, always, come when you decide what to leave in and what to leave out when doing your analysis. And once you know tracks are capable of changing speed, you understand it is unsafe to make the ASSUMPTION they don\'t.

If you break down your third paragraph, you will find that the only way NOT to do it the way you don\'t like is to make the assumption the track stays the same and use an average. Try it and see.