Originally Posted by the_fat_man (Post 643542)

Phil

Take a deep breath. Consider for a moment that whether Ice Box ran well or not really meant nothing to me, as I went into the race with doubles to SC and NP. So, when NP fell apart, it didn't matter to me. If I thought the horse ran well after the fact, I'd certainly comment to that effect. But I wouldn't want anything that closed out of this race and I certainly wouldn't want the one that last moved the last movers.

Now, if you take a look at the chart for the race, you'll note that the 3rd last, last, last horse at the 1st 3 calls, ran together from the 3rd to the 4th call, where that made significant gains. At that point, while LaL and MMFM continue on making a slight gain, IB is going sideways. Clearly, he's expending energy while doing so but he's not expending the same amount as the other two. In other words, he gets a BREAK in his run and the chart shows that while the other 2 are gaining, he's losing ground to the winner. (this is between the mile and the stretch call). The stretch call to the wire, LAL backs up, MMFE makes/continues a nominal gain and IB comes on, gaining significantly. So, NP collapses the race, having 1st SS bid, then a whole wave of horses that included PoP (all of which fizzled out except PoP), and, finally, the 3 horses from the rear. So, not only did IB have the benefit of making the last run in the race but he was even able to last move the last movers, as a result of getting a break in the stretch. This horse has no shot in a race where he actually has to do any running on its own. I realize it's hard to grasp what I'm writing.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind (Post 643547)

We've established that he's abrasive and obnoxious....should I get a Thesaurus and find some more words in order to continue to post in this manner?

He still has something to say.....at least this time.

Your car analogy was bad. I'm not saying I wholly agree with him....but you can do better than that.

Originally Posted by philcski (Post 643553)

It was sarcasm.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind (Post 643554)

You think it's easy to keep up with this and watch Mad Men?

Originally Posted by philcski (Post 643555)

Sarcasm doesn't translate well to the Internet, that's for sure.

The math of 29 feet for 2 seconds of 30MPH vs 40MPH is accurate, however, in case anybody was remotely interested.

Originally Posted by the_fat_man (Post 643546)

Horses that find trouble at key points in the race are at an advantage.

Originally Posted by ateamstupid (Post 643361)

Putting the Derby aside for a second, this is what I don't get about the dude's analysis. He talks about how so and so made "this run" and "that move" but if you completely ignore fractions, how the hell do you know if a horse was really accelerating or if the others were slowing down? For instance, sometimes in races (especially routes), a horse or two will separate from the field early, then three or four horses will catch up quickly down the backstretch. This doesn't make sense visually until you see that the fractions were something like :23 and :49. If horses get closer during a slow quarter after being far behind during a fast one, that doesn't mean they were making an early move, nor should they be given extra credit if they win with "another" move.

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane (Post 643569)

Judging by the fourth quarter mile It looks like the leaders were backing up and NP simply inherited the lead. I can't see anything to indicate he was the one to "collapse the race".

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind (Post 643571)

Once again, not to discredit what you are pointing out, but it may be more than the fractions. Noble's Promise made a classic premature move that triggered the ensuing collapse. It was partially timing....but it's worth thinking about.

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane (Post 643569)

Judging by the fourth quarter mile It looks like the leaders were backing up and NP simply inherited the lead. I can't see anything to indicate he was the one to "collapse the race".

Originally Posted by ateamstupid (Post 643622)

This is exactly my point, and why I said I don't understand how one can determine who's accelerating and when if one ignores fractions.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind (Post 643563)

It didn't " help " him, you're right....it couldn't have, but I guess in Fatmanese he's trying make people realize that it's not necessarily cut and dried that it buried him either. It's worth exploring how it changed the race.

It would be great to have many alternate universes and see what would have actually happened under many different scenerios.

Originally Posted by NTamm1215 (Post 643566)

If the argument, and I'm sure I'll be wrong, is that a horse who will ultimately attempt to rally into a race that unfolds in a layered scenario (a la most Derbies) runs into trouble as other horses are moving, it enables him to make that "last run" that often works best in said type of race.

Ice Box is almost always going to be a "last mover" type of horse and he's certainly going to need a layered race (pace that backs up, another horse that moves prematurely and/or collapses the race). I guess the only part of this argument that I'm unsure about is how we can say with certainty that he wouldn't have won the damn thing by three lengths had he been able to swing out just inside the 1/4 pole and make one sustained run down the middle. I probably can't be sure it wouldn't have worked by noting that Lookin at Lucky and Make Music For Me attempted basically that and both came up wanting.

NT

Originally Posted by the_fat_man (Post 643630)

A few weeks ago I turned on ATR and heard your comments concerning Looking at Lucky and the Rebel Stakes. Now, unlike Beyer, you don't stutter, and I could've sworn that I heard you almost come flat out and say that LOL got the benefit of the setup because he found trouble. In other words, you understood that by having to check while the others were in a drive, he was able to last move the field. Why is this any different than what I'm claiming for the Derby?

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind (Post 643644)

Comparing the supposed trouble that Lookin at Lucky had in the Rebel to the very real trouble Ice Box had in the Derby is a slippery slope. One horse steadied mildly on the backstretch while the other was stopped dead in the midst of his significant rally. Maybe Lookin at Lucky was helped because it forced his rider to make the last move, though Gomez doesn't usually have a problem with this, but I don't really see the comparison.

There is some relevence to history as well.....and a final last move in the Derby never seems to win.

Originally Posted by the_fat_man (Post 643643)

Because Ice Box has never demonstrated the ability to run anything remotely resembling an against the grain race.

I don't know about MMFM but LaL is certainly a horse that has demonstrated the ability to win a race where he doesn't get a perfect trip. Ice Box hasn't. Why would I assume that Ice Box is able to put in a sustained run on Saturday when LaL couldn't?

Originally Posted by the_fat_man (Post 643292)

Listen. The jock did not ride the horse the way McPeek apparently wanted him to be ridden. Moreover, this jock has cost the connections a number of wins; PRIMARILY the BC (and at least a 2nd in the Derby). There's no way, PHIL, that you can tell me that he didn't move prematurely in the BC. How can these people be in the game and be clueless to the fact that this jock cost them the BC? It's clear to anyone with a low level tripping ability and these people don't get it? It's pitiful.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 643722)

Bejarano was super-patient on him in the Cash Call Futurity. He didn't explode in the stretch. He just runs o.k. He couldn't catch LAL. You can't transfer that huge middle move NP has going 2 turns. It will only become a mediocre late move. He's a sprinter/miler. Don't care how obnoxious you write. Now matter how condescending you are to people, this horse naturally wants to move at a certain time. If you change that, he will not put in this huge stretch move (especially not going 9 or 10f.) This is a nice sprinter/miler.

Originally Posted by parsixfarms (Post 643679)

I certainly was not an Ice Box fan going into the Derby, but his trip in his allowance win on January 18 (against Pleasant Prince) was far from "perfect." Rather than sitting in behind covered up in a short field, Velazquez moved up him four-wide into the first turn and he then pressed the pace while wide and uncovered. He essentially was able to grind out a win even though Pleasant Prince had a relatively easier (and ground-saving) trip.

Originally Posted by the_fat_man (Post 643794)

One constant in all these races: IB made the LAST move. Put him in a race where he has to do his own work and he's just not getting it done. He needs help. Quite a bit of help. So, I ask again: where's his GOOD race?

Originally Posted by the_fat_man (Post 643781)

I'd watch the Cash Call again, Ace. Wasn't that the race where LaL was inside the entire race and NP was widest BOTH turns. If I remember correctly NP ran about 4 or 5 lengths more and lost by 3/4 of a length.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 643811)

Wouldn't mind seeing Gomez ride him. Still think he'll flatten out going 9-10f in Grade 1 races. Are you saying Bejarano, Albarado, and Willie all gave this horse a bad ride? The only problem is the ride? He's had 6 two-turn races. The only one where he isn't giving up ground (late) is the race where they set a 1:13 pace. That race is thought of as one of LAL's least impressive efforts. Even when he won going two turns, he was giving up ground late in the race.

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane (Post 643408)

2 years ago.

Originally Posted by philcski (Post 643464)

... and 3 years ago, 4 years ago, 6 years ago...

Originally Posted by pba1817 (Post 643834)

Watch the replays of the years you are quoting guys... the horses who win this race take the lead at the very end of the turn or after the final turn, not on the turn.

Originally Posted by iamthelurker (Post 643846)

I honestly think the fact that Conveyance and Sidney's Candy were stopping so badly made it look like Willy made more of a move then he really did. His horse was simply traveling better then the two tired leaders. The only move Willy made was to move in time to split the two front runners. After he split them and hit the front he sat chilly again, it's not like he went all in at the 3/8ths pole like everyone is acting. The only possible move you can critique from his ride is the fact that he didnt shut back off the rail when he did hit the front. This is a son of Cuvee and 5th in the derby is an overachievement in many ways. I dont think he was cost a placing nor do I think he is any better then what he's shown so far. He could be a very dangerous horse at a mile maybe a little more. But that's it, Willy is getting lumped way too much blame here.

Originally Posted by iamthelurker (Post 643846)

I honestly think the fact that Conveyance and Sidney's Candy were stopping so badly made it look like Willy made more of a move then he really did. His horse was simply traveling better then the two tired leaders. The only move Willy made was to move in time to split the two front runners. After he split them and hit the front he sat chilly again, it's not like he went all in at the 3/8ths pole like everyone is acting. The only possible move you can critique from his ride is the fact that he didnt shut back off the rail when he did hit the front. This is a son of Cuvee and 5th in the derby is an overachievement in many ways. I dont think he was cost a placing nor do I think he is any better then what he's shown so far. He could be a very dangerous horse at a mile maybe a little more. But that's it, Willy is getting lumped way too much blame here.

Originally Posted by hockey2315 (Post 643787)

Don't feel like reading through all of this - so maybe it was already mentioned - but Noble's Promise is now likely for the Preakness. Might offer some good value. . .

Originally Posted by philcski (Post 643865)

This is very well stated and I very much agree with you on him inheriting the lead rather than hitting the proverbial "all in" button. Watching the overhead really reveals this.