The Derby figure
 

In the figure making process in North America, the basic goal is to determine how fast a horse ran while accounting for the speed of the racing surface.

"Facts" are things like: fractional clockings, final time, beaten length margins, relationships between distances, weight carried, ground loss on turn, wind velocity and direction.

Of course, these aren't even actually real facts. North American races are timed with varying run-up. The fractional and final time clockings are occasionally timed wrong or reported wrong. The chart callers don't always get the margins correct. The weight carried isn't even always dead-on precise. And wind velocity and direction is a variable I'm not sure anyone knows how to accurately account for all of the time. It can hinder the day-to-day relationships between distances.

Nevertheless, flawed as each one is, these are the facts. The facts make the figures. Thus, the figures make themselves...(with the aid of algorithms, parallel time charts, beaten length adjustments, etc.)

The "theories" start to arise when:

A.) The figures show a clear pattern suggesting the surface changed speed.
B.) A figure makes no sense at all to any sane person.
C.) A figure makes no sense at all to the person who is making the figures.
D.) A figure comes to a conclusion with which we strongly disagree.

There are countless reasons why A-through-D happen. Everything from the race being timed inaccurately, to changes in weather conditions, and so on.

The remedy comes in the form of "split variants" as well as the more extreme measure of "cutting a race loose"

After this, you've arrived at your final figure. Obviously, there are varying types of figures. For instance, sheet style figs will account for weight, wind, and ground loss -- but not pace.

In the case of the speed figure for this years Kentucky Derby. I think of a quote attributed to Arthur Conan Doyle that warns "one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

The "facts" clearly point to one single conclusion -- the race was alarmingly slow!

The test now is "can I twist theories to suit these facts?" The answer for me is yes...

* The race in question is run at a longer distance than any horse had ever run. They all carried more weight (126lbs) than ever before. The congested field, led to either rough trips or wide trips. Off the pace types were subjected to taking a lot of kickback on day when closers didn't perform well.

* The problem I have with the argument that the track slowed WAY down for the Derby, look at Race 13, a 2-turn route that was run only five points slower than the Derby. I guess it sped back up again.

* We Miss Artie, a poor dirt horse with excellent turf and synthetic form, ate a ton of dirt and finished 10th, but was still only beaten 8.25 lengths. This is the same We Miss Artie who was blown off the track in an in-company workout the weekend prior. Even with California Chrome getting only a 97 Beyer, We Miss Artie still "pairs up" his figure for his perfect trip Sprial win.

* Commanding Curve, a plodder I selected to finish 4th in print, never got the pace setup he seemed sure to get. Still, he finished 2nd beaten less than two lengths. This is the same horse who finished 6th in the Risen Star and was 3rd beaten 5 lengths to Vicar's In Trouble in a Louisiana Derby that went much slower than the girls did in a tough Fair Ground Oaks edition on the same card. He still has his N1X allowance condition. While he enjoyed a remarkably clean trip, he still ate a ton of dirt as well.

My conclusion: Give the horses a few bonus points for racing an extra 1.5 furlongs into a head-wind versus the races on the card at 8.5 furlongs. Also, assume improvement from some horses for logical reasons. They'll cutback, they'll have easier trips, they'll mature physically, they'll carry less weight...stuff like that will obviously lead to improvement.

The Kentucky Derby is an outlier type race, and horses figure to go backwards in it because of the more demanding circumstances to it.

I've noticed two great figure makers are also using track maintenance happenings to soup the figure up to a more comfortable number for them. Maybe correctly so on their part, who really knows.

However tough this figure was, it's cringe worthy to see a lot of racing fans, industry people, and media members dismiss the speed figure as it's somehow 100% irrelevant.

Most amusingly, the people who are doing it the loudest, are the same exact people who either shunned or glossed over the insanely fast 2013 Derby pace. Instead of substantive discussions -- these people try to appeal to morons by spouting off nonsense.

One more note...

The last major 'headline grabbing' speed figure controversy at Churchill Downs involved the 2012 Kentucky Jockey Club. Pay attention to Ken McPeek's comments in the link:

http://www.drf.com/news/churchill-do...ey-club-stakes


Here are the subsequent past performances for the top 11 finishers of this race, through June of their 3-year-old season.










As you can see...

* The top 5 finishers of this race were a combined 0-for-22 in subsequent starts through the first half of the following year.

* The top 11 finishers of this race were a combined 1-for-37 in subsequent starts over that period ... and the lone win came on a synthetic surface by Java's War in the Blue Grass. His odds were just 4/1.

I am sure there's some merit to what Kenny McPeek said...and fudging the number upward from a 76 might have been the prudent thing to do. However, the figure was slow and the figure does matter.

Thanks for the good analysis. In terms of playing the Preakness it seems that the logical conclusion from this appears to be that people should take a serious look at any of the horses who aren't coming out of the Derby.
But without Untapable running, are there going to be any non-Derby starters worth playing?

Pablo del Monte ran a very solid race at keeneland off the bench...think he can easily compete with continued progression...the local md horses seem to clunk up frequently at big numbers

5/17/14 Preakness 1 3/16M - PIM:

California Chrome (Sherman)
Danza (Pletcher)
Ride On Curlin (Gowan)
Social Inclusion (M. Azpurua)
Kid Cruz (Rice)
Dynamic Impact (Casse)
Bayern (Baffert)
Pablo Del Monte (Ward)
Ring Weekend (Motion)__________________

One question I would have to ask is which of the above horses would have run faster in the derby. If the answer is none then every one of them is as suspect as the derby runners.

Danza was gaining ground late on the winner and appears to be the biggest threat to win the Preakness.

Watch but do not touch for me.

Beyer at noon on ATR..

Great Analysis. There are 6 or 7 horses that had trips where someone said they would have been 2nd or 3rd with a better trip, but with how the race played out I keep thinking there are no trips in slow race. Should trips be downgraded out of the derby?

as you said and I believe this here are no trips in slow races. I suppose pace trips maybe but in this race the pace was average.

I don't make my own and have an enormous respect for those who do. That said, I have always disliked adding subjectivity to adjust figures up or down in an attempt to boil everything down to a figure. To me that is what the "art" of handicapping is all about. Give me the data- pace fractions, good variants, and let me draw my own conclusions about who ran the best race, and more importantly, who projects to run the best race on the day I am handicapping.

Thanks for having Andy on to discuss the figure. Regardless of what the masses think, he's not just making crap up.

The problem is that this has turned into a food fight with everyone talking past each other. I think there's valid considerations on either side.

Regardless of the fig, the clock says the race was slow and that’s black and white and now etched in the history books.

The question in front of me is how am I going to use the fig, the clock, and all that other information from the day going forward. I’m of the mind that the wind is playing a much bigger role than is being allowed for in the figs. I think the pace actually was strong into that stiff breeze and stronger than the clock indicated.

If it was such a soft pace, why didn’t the speed stick better? If you look at the chart without the fractions, it looks like partial, if not total, pace collapse. So I’m giving most credit to Chrome and Samraat in my hindsight handicapping. Maybe I’m wrong, but I won’t know until I get more races from these guys.

Specifically to Beyer’s point in his article about Chrome’s move at the top of the stretch being an illusion, go watch the blimp view of the race from the long video on DRF. Skip to the 9:00 mark and tell me if that turn of foot is illusory.

good post mack

I just cant use the race for anything really. Will toss it out from the PP's from a pace and time wise.

My feeling is the pace collapse is always exaggerated by the fact that few of the horses in the Derby are bred for 10 furlongs. There are to many sprinters and milers trying to stretch their speed, so even with a soft pace, a partial collapse will always be the norm because they just can't get the distance.

Very fair point.

If you listen to Beyer on ATR today, he says something similar. The slide of the Belmont figure over the past 25 years is now hitting the Derby as well--not only are today's American horses not bred for 1.5, but 1.25 is getting to be out of reach.

great post, thanks.


what i don't understand is why the early pace wasn't fast. it seemed we had more than our usual share of speedsters, and kept hearing they would all get cooked. did the trainers blunt the one tool those horses had in their arsenal, in order to try to get them further?

I say this to myself about 5 times a day playing NY races it seems. If anyone is surprised the Derby pace wasn't faster, watch one of our turf routes sometime.

:)

i just know it was a constant theme, that the front runners were going to sizzle, would chrome get cooked because of the pace, etc.

i was concerned early on about some of the horses, looked like bumper cars a couple times.

Wildcat Red's start to the race might have had something to do with the slower than expected pace. He bobbled a bit out of the gate and then got bumped. Then he started running for a few strides but the slow start meant that other horses crossed in front of him and he had to check sharply early. He never really got going.
I'm not saying this was the only cause but I think his presence certainly was a big reason why people thought the pace would be hot, and the circumstances of the race caused him to never sniff the lead.