Performance Figures for top preps
 

Well, there is much discussion about this weekend's races and the Beyer figures, as I have done for years, I use Dr Roman's Performance Figures (PF's) instead of Beyers as they have proven (to me at least) to be more accurate (the sheets may be best but I refuse to buy them). Crist and others have bemoaned the slow times and resulting Beyers of the major preps this year and Dr Roman's figures support the fact that so far, this class has underperformed recent crops during the preps. This of course may actually be a good thing as perhaps trainers have suddenly learned to conserve more of their horses' energy for the big race (but i doubt it). Anyway, here are the PF's for the winners of the 5 major preps...note the discrepancy between Beyer and Dr Roman regarding Dominican and Curlin:
Blue Grass (Dominican)...-54
Ark Derby (Curlin)...-43
Wood (Nobiz Like Shobiz)...-55
SA Derby (Tiago)...-45
Fla Derby (Scat Daddy)...-46
So, according to Dr Roman, Curlin's race produced the least impressive figure. All of these figures are close enough that a case can be made for any of the above, and the races were slow enough to make a case for about 15 others come Derby Day. I'm afraid the preps aren't gonna be a huge help this year!

what are the performance figs trying to measure: Some combination of pace and final time?

They are a combination of fractional and final times as are all speed figures. If you want an overview, along with lots of numbers to ponder, go to Dr Roman's site: http://www.chef-de-race.com/

As a comparrison, here are the PF's for the races in question for 2006, 2005 and 2004:
Ark Derby...-60, -63, -74 (Curlin...-43)
Fla Derby...-57, -68, -33 (Scat Daddy...-46)
SA Derby...-51, -42, -57 (Tiago...-45)
Blue Grass...-84, -49, -64 (Dominican...-54)
Wood...-60, -103, -58 (Nobiz...-55)

So what it says is the Roman numbers are completly meaningless in picking a Derby winner. Last year his second worst prep performance won the Derby...in 2005, his by far worst prep's 4th place finisher won the Derby. Only Smarty in 2004 was true to his form. I think it is beyond psychotic for Roman to say Teuflesberg ran a better race than Curlin yesterday.

If you bet the Derby based on which horse obtains the best sheet number in a single race, which horse has the single highest Beyer or which horse has the best PF, you are the psychotic one. Instead of finding a way to be critical (and appear rather ignorant of basic handicapping), I'd suggest using the PF's (or Beyers or Sheets) in the way in which they were meant to be utilized...as part of the handicapping process! All any speed figures will give you is the basis for a comparative analysis of different races at different tracks...if handicapping a race like the Derby were as easy as just picking some number, I suspect even you could select the winner.

All you did was post the last Roman numbers of final preps the last 3 years like that meant something. I just commented that to me they looked meaningless considering Barbaro won the race last year off the Fl Derby and Giacomo won in 2005 off the SA Derby. I realize you need to look at a horses whole body of work to properly "handicap" a race alledgedly. I guess I probably really am ignorant of basic handicapping...I'd shoot myself however before I spent 1 penny betting on a race (well, not really, I guess if someone threatened to shoot me or bet on the Derby, I'd probably bet the Derby!!). But as an ignorant handicapper, I think it looked quite obvious that Curlin ran a better race than any BG participant yesterday. IF I'm wrong on that point, I'm wrong. But yes, one race is one race and certainly if Giacomo beat Bellamy road, then certainly any BG participant could certainly beat Curlin the first Saturday in May, and I don't think the Roman numbers or Beyers have anything to do with it.

I'm sure his formula is fine and the numbers he come up with have a basis, but what I saw yesterday tells me Curlin was the best animal running. The numbers are a curiosity for me, I like them for the most part, but I have no financial reason to scour over them, I will never make a bet ever...especially with most top trainers now being proven to be cheaters. I only follow the sport becuase they are beautiful animals and it's racing so you will always have a winner determined in quick fashion.

(To prove my ignorance, the last Ky Derby winner I properly selected was Strike the Gold...so I am on a 16 year drought!! so in all liklihood I am out of my element arguing this one!!)

But you started this thread out by suggesting that the Roman numbers were some sort of evidence that this years crop is "underperforming" vis a vis other crops.

But then you admit this only the first step in comparing this years crop to itself. Maybe it's useless in comparing year by year???

Which horse ran the -33 in the FL derby? Is that Barbaro? What was wrong with that race?

Who knows? some of these systems seem rather self fulfilling. The race where they broke a track record at TB comes back as a Beyer 102, so now the purpose of Beyer numbers is to compare other horses. So naturally if you are comparing vis a vis SS/AGS other horses have got to line up with 102. So only one other horse has run a 105....Does that really prove this crop is bad or is it self fulfilling?

Friends Lake in 2004 won the Fla Derby and was assigned a -33, I don't "admit" a damn thing, speed figures are what they are. What I said was that Roman's PF's support the claim of Beyer and others that this year's crop has earned slower speed figures than the past few years. Speed figures are a handicapping tool, part of what I use in handicapping a race...never claimed they were magic or some absolute. Computation questions should be posed to Dr Roman or Andy Beyer or the folks who generate the sheets...my only point is that I prefer PF's to Beyer figures and I use same as a handicapping tool. You may use whatever you wish...or not!

THe Friends Lake race I can understand, I think someone lost a rider early on in that one. okay.:)

Not asking for a computation question, just wondering why they are some evidence of how bad this years class is when they are not even giving you the whole picture on this years class....:confused:

Your question answers itself....they are, as you say, "some evidence" but not the "whole picture". All I ever said was that the PF's support what others are saying...they are a piece of the "evidence" that this year's crop appears a bit slower in the preps...that alone is far from a determination of how this year's crop will perform in the TC. The interesting thing to me is that so many horses have run races with PF's within about 25 points...to me, this makes separating them very difficult.