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