Week/Weekend Stakes Beyers

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Agree. I was expecting more like an 11 pt BSF difference. Did they swamp the track between races?


--Dunbar

The difference should have been 14. The pace for the Curlin was very slow, causing Beyer to "project" a number.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

The difference should have been 14. The pace for the Curlin was very slow, causing Beyer to "project" a number.

I'm not looking to resurrect an old discussion, but back in April, as Eskendereya was being hailed as the second coming, when people questioned the fig for the Wood, the explanation was that the splits of 24.1, 49.1, and 1:13.2 were "average." Now we're asked to believe that the fractions of the Curlin (23.3, 48.2, 1:13.2) were "very slow." The track at Saratoga on Sunday may have been a bit faster than the Aqueduct main track on Wood Memorial Day, but not enough to explain how the pace of the race (Wood) with the raw slower splits could be considered "average" while the pace of the race with the raw, faster splits (Curlin) is now deemed "very slow."

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I'm not looking to resurrect an old discussion, but back in April, as Eskendereya was being hailed as the second coming, when people questioned the fig for the Wood, the explanation was that the splits of 24.1, 49.1, and 1:13.2 were "average." Now we're asked to believe that the fractions of the Curlin (23.3, 48.2, 1:13.2) were "very slow." The track at Saratoga on Sunday may have been a bit faster than the Aqueduct main track on Wood Memorial Day, but not enough to explain how the pace of the race (Wood) with the raw slower splits could be considered "average" while the pace of the race with the raw, faster splits (Curlin) is now deemed "very slow."

You make too much sense

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I'm not looking to resurrect an old discussion, but back in April, as Eskendereya was being hailed as the second coming, when people questioned the fig for the Wood, the explanation was that the splits of 24.1, 49.1, and 1:13.2 were "average." Now we're asked to believe that the fractions of the Curlin (23.3, 48.2, 1:13.2) were "very slow." The track at Saratoga on Sunday may have been a bit faster than the Aqueduct main track on Wood Memorial Day, but not enough to explain how the pace of the race (Wood) with the raw slower splits could be considered "average" while the pace of the race with the raw, faster splits (Curlin) is now deemed "very slow."

Really good points.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I compiled my own pace pars for about 30 different race tracks by going back and using several thousands of races over several years.

Based on my pars - the raw pace and final numbers for the two races at Saratoga come back like this.

Winslow Homer race: 74 pace figure and 96 Final Figure

Malibu Prayer race: 117 pace figure and 110 final figure

The pace call is 6 furlongs into the race at 9fs


How anyone can possibly think the pace wasn't slow in the Winslow Homer race is beyond me.

As for what this has to do with Eskanderya's race going 9fs on AQU's main - I have absolutely no idea.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

As for what this has to do with Eskanderya's race going 9fs on AQU's main - I have absolutely no idea.

Thank you.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

As far as the raw numbers for Eskanderya's Wood Memorial ...

84 pace and 94 final

They ran a Grade 3 stakes for older males at the same distance one race earlier that day. As for that race ...

80 pace and 80 final

As for the relationship between paces at 9fs at AQU on the main and 9fs at Saratoga - an identical pace is going to yield a clocking 4/5ths faster at Saratoga than it will on the AQU main.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

How anyone can possibly think the pace wasn't slow in the Winslow Homer race is beyond me.

Nobody here said that a 1:13.2 split for a stakes horse going 9F wasn't slow.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Nobody here said that a 1:13.2 split for a stakes horse going 9F wasn't slow.

Assuming both of the tracks are playing right dead at par - a 1:13.40 clocking on the AQU main going 9fs is the same thing as a 1:12.60 clocking at Saratoga going 9fs on the dirt.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Assuming both of the tracks are playing right dead at par - a 1:13.40 clocking on the AQU main going 9fs is the same thing as a 1:12.60 clocking at Saratoga going 9fs on the dirt.

And a 1:12.60 clocking for a graded stakes horse going 9F at Saratoga would be slow.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I'm not looking to resurrect an old discussion, but back in April, as Eskendereya was being hailed as the second coming, when people questioned the fig for the Wood, the explanation was that the splits of 24.1, 49.1, and 1:13.2 were "average." Now we're asked to believe that the fractions of the Curlin (23.3, 48.2, 1:13.2) were "very slow." The track at Saratoga on Sunday may have been a bit faster than the Aqueduct main track on Wood Memorial Day, but not enough to explain how the pace of the race (Wood) with the raw slower splits could be considered "average" while the pace of the race with the raw, faster splits (Curlin) is now deemed "very slow."

Well, I'll start by saying the races were run on completely different racetracks. Do you know that when final times are equalized, average Saratoga 6f fractions are a full 4/5ths faster than those at Aqueduct?

I'm not sure how the Wood form could be flattered since the winner is retired and he won by a football field. Jackson Bend ran 3rd in the Preakness.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Well, I'll start by saying the races were run on completely different racetracks. Do you know that when final times are equalized, average Saratoga 6f fractions are a full 4/5ths faster than those at Aqueduct?

We've already had that discussion above.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

We've already had that discussion above.

I see now, Douglas handled it quite well in my stead.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I see now, Douglas handled it quite well in my stead.

If I understood your post in a recent thread about figures put up the weekend of the Man O'War, I think we agree that this whole "projection" thing in slow-paced races shouldn't be done. Just let the figures fall where they may, and let the handicapper draw his or her own conclusions about the circumstances that led to the figure. A "projection" figure really becomes more a performance rating than a true speed figure.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

If I understood your post in a recent thread about figures put up the weekend of the Man O'War, I think we agree that this whole "projection" thing in slow-paced races shouldn't be done. Just let the figures fall where they may, and let the handicapper draw his or her own conclusions about the circumstances that led to the figure. A "projection" figure really becomes more a performance rating than a true speed figure.

I definitely agree with this. It is also a big flaw in the Moss pace figures because they use the Beyer figure to attain the variant for the day.

Here is an example for those wondering. Let's assume that we have three horses, one a dead front runner that consistently runs 80 Beyers, another front runner that runs 75s, and a closer that is capable of a 70 on his best day.

Now, today, the front runners hook up and run a very fast pace, about 20 points faster early than normal. The best front runner puts away the other late to beat him by two lengths. The closer comes "flying" late but doesn't quite get there, beaten a neck. Assume all the other sprints on the card were using a zero track variant.

Many times, the Beyer guys will just set this race on its own little island and use a different variant, in this case 10 slow. They will give the winner his usual 80, the other front runner his 75, but the closer will get a 79.

Now, the two duelers are probably getting an accurate reflection of their ability. The winner ran 90 pace, 70 speed while the runner up ran 90 pace, 65 speed. But the closer in no way should be getting a 79, but it happens every single day. I used a fast pace here, but it happens the other way around as well.

For the record, this isn't really a criticism of Beyer. The same thing holds true for Thorograph. What I'm doing is pointing out the flaw of using speed figures in isolation. It forces the figure maker to make decisions like this. You are going to get lots of individual horses wrong.

When it comes to slow pace, lets say several horses in a race are capable of a 100, but one only a 90. The pace is brutally slow and there is a blanket finish among the 100 horses with the 90 horse a length back. The clock says the race should get an 85. This happened in the Blue Grass a few years ago with Teuflesberg.

Do you boost the number to 100 to reflect the best horses ability and give the 90 horse a 98? Do you adjust the beaten lengths chart to show the race was actually much shorter than the distance run and penalize a length more than the standard chart? There are lots of ways to try to mitigate the problem, but none are perfect.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Which prominent speed figure systems incorporate a "projection" apsect?

Besides Beyer? Thorograph.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm not sure how the Wood form could be flattered since the winner is retired and he won by a football field. Jackson Bend ran 3rd in the Preakness.

Jackson Bend sandwiched that race around a 12th place finish in the Derby and a 5th place finish in the Pegasus, where he beat one horse, fellow Wood contestant Schoolyard Dreams (who was up the track in Baltimore). And Awesome Act beat one horse in Louisville.