Hence has 3rd highest BSF of Derby horses
 

I just saw this note at DRF.com:

"The winning Beyer Speed Figure of the Sunland Derby, won by Hence, has been adjusted to 97 from its original 93, according to Andrew Beyer. Irap and Conquest Mo Money, second in the Arkansas Derby, both exited the Sunland Derby."

(it's at the end of this article: http://www.drf.com/news/cloud-comput...kentucky-derby )

Three other probable Derby starters have run 97's, but only J Boy's Echo (102) and IWC (101) have run higher BSF's.

I realize that creating the BSF's isn't an exact science, but I'm always uneasy when figures are changed based (presumably) on subsequent races.

DRF's Road to the Derby indicates that Classic Empire ran a 102 in the BC
Juvy.

I understand, but it should actually make you more confident in the figure. This was a clear case where the initial number was too low with Irap and Conquest Mo Money running the way they did.

Oops, right! I should have written "3rd highest 2017 BSF of Derby horses". Thanks for the correction.

I'm not sure it makes me more confident, but it does make me give a little more chance to those 3 horses, especially Hence. But what happens if Hence has a training blip and skips the Derby to run in the Preakness, while Irap and CMM finish 20 lengths behind the leaders in the Derby? Will the Sunland Derby BSF's get lowered back down 4 points? It's a potential can or worms.

I get that the motivation is to provide the best estimate of the Sunland performance, and I'll use the new figs, but back-fitting data always sets off alarms with me.

The problem with this is the edge if you thought the figure was too low (like me) is now gone, going into the biggest stage of the year. I appreciate the figuremaker admitting their error, but revising previous figures seems like it is not the original objective of the Beyer speed figures.

Phil the only objective is to make a good fig either 5 minutes after the card is done or 5 months later. It's Sunland how many 90+ races they get there a year

I liked him as a longshot before the fig change, this may make him the "now" horse in the derby ;)

Didn't those two have some excuses for their relatively subpar performances in Sunland?

Irap was clearly steadied at the 3/16th pole right when he was advancing towards the lead. Gutierrez then spent the next furlong trying to get the horse to switch leads (something Leparoux didn't bother with at Keeneland) instead of trying to recover.

Conquest Mo Money was taken out of his normal running style (i.e., disputing the pace) in the Sunland Derby, which he reverted to at Oaklawn.

Irap had some traffic trouble on the far turn while gingerly handled by Gutierrez. Honestly, he benefited from a more decisive rider and a favorable pace setup in my opinion. We're both basically saying the same thing though.

Conquest Mo Money ran a very nice race in Arkansas given the way he rebuked Malagacy, even if that one ultimately has some distance limitations. They each received more favorable setups in their subsequent starts and ran improved races.

How many months later are they gonna lower that 119
They gave send it in @ aqueduct for that 2:02 + race ?

Never.

Nice to see he was able to get that last quarter 30 seconds more than frosted got a mile last year

The only way to reasonably deal with your observation is to downplay everything that ran that day at that track, especially that race and the Wood.

I'm with Phil here. Isn't one of Beyer's claims that the BSFs are not a predictor on future outcomes? If that is the case, then why would they be changed based on future outcomes?

On 2/25 in the Risen Star Stakes Girvin got a 93 beyer ( 1:43.08 ) while Honorable Duty, winner of the Mineshaft got a 97 when running 1:43.03.
How does this figure?

Disagree- the number of 90+ races they have is irrelevant. Its just math. In fact it should be one of the easiest places to make figures since they run a lot of similar races at common distances. What happens in future starts should have no bearing on the number decided on at the time of printing.

Dunbar, Philski, and Cakes, I agree with you guys 100%.

I don't know how this really relates but I remember back in 2004 there were several 9f races run at Belmont Park over the course of several months. All finished in the same time and all got the same figure. Two of the horses were Ghostzapper and Oratory. I have been skeptical since.

KG, why would that would make you skeptical? Tracks play differently on different days, we all know that. On top of that, horses don't run the same every time.

My problem (and I think philski's and cakes's, too) with the new Hence fig is that I think a BSF should represent the best estimate of the horse's speed from info available at the time of that race. I can see where if the fig was extremely hard to make (e.g., fast changing weather conditions during the day, no other routes or no other sprints) you might want to revisit a number that seems out of whack. If there were issues like that with the Sunland Derby, I didn't see them mentioned. Revisiting the number primarily because 2 horses out of the race ran way bigger figs in subsequent races seems like blatant backfitting.

In general, I'm a big fan of the BSF's. I'm not a fan of adjusting previous figs based on subsequent performances.

I agree with you. I would actually look at it in a different way. Without getting into how much of a tool the figures should be when it comes to handicapping or how big an influence they should have on an individual in making choices, the reality is that they do play a part. With that in mind, publishing figures that they may change later based on subsequent performance could be seen in some ways as manipulating the market.

I think the process of changing figure stinks all the way around. I wish they would say here is what the figure is and leave it at that. If it comes out unusually high or low, so be it. Let the handicappers figure out why. Sort of like in track and field. You get times or marks made in strong winds or at altitudes. Records will show that but won't alter the times. Obviously not an apples to apples comparison but I'd rather that than being told from race to race that what I saw was better or worse than what you told me I saw last week.