Derby and Performance Figures

[Gate Dancer]

I visit his website religiously during the TC season..............I realize dosage has taken it's hits but it still is interesting to see the information he provides.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Highest "last out" Beyer coming into the KY Derby:

2010: Devil May Care - Sidney's Candy (tie)
2009: Dunkirk
2008: Big Brown ($6.80)
2007: Curlin
2006: Sinister Minister
2005: Bellamy Road
2004: The Cliff's Edge
2003: Empire Maker
2002: War Emblem ($43.00)
2001: Millennium Wind
2000: Fusaichi Pegasus ($7.20)
1999: Charismatic ($64.60) - General Challenge (tie)
1998: Indian Charlie
1997: Silver Charm ($10.00) - Free House (tie)
1996: Skip Away
1995: Serena's Song
1994: Holy Bull
1993: Diazo
1992: Pine Bluff - Lil E Tee ($35.60) (tie)

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Gate Dancer

I visit his website religiously during the TC season..............I realize dosage has taken it's hits but it still is interesting to see the information he provides.

I agree...as I've said, I prefer his PF's to BSF's in TC races and major stakes, I also look closely at horses' DP for the Derby knowing that no horse has won the Derby since 1950 with less than 16 points in his/her DP. Dosage parameters have melted somewhat in recent years so they are no longer an accurate indicator of Derby performance but his site still is informative.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

they are no longer an accurate indicator of Derby performance

Bit of an understatement I'd say.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Bit of an understatement I'd say.

accurate statement.

[somerfrost]

Actually, Dosage parameters haven't completely failed in predicting Derby winners....since 1991, only 5 winners have exceeded dosage parameters of 4.00/1.00:
Strike the Gold...(91) 9.00/1.30 (later adjusted due to sire appointed CDR)
Real Quiet...(98) 5.29/1.27
Charismatic...(99) 5.22/1.00
Giacomo...(05) 4.33/0.94
Mine That Bird (09) 5.40/1.19
Lots of folks rushed to discredit Dosage but to date the vast majority of Derby entries fit within parameters.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Actually, Dosage parameters haven't completely failed in predicting Derby winners....since 1991, only 5 winners have exceeded dosage parameters of 4.00/1.00:
Strike the Gold...(91) 9.00/1.30 (later adjusted due to sire appointed CDR)
Real Quiet...(98) 5.29/1.27
Charismatic...(99) 5.22/1.00
Giacomo...(05) 4.33/0.94
Mine That Bird (09) 5.40/1.19
Lots of folks rushed to discredit Dosage but to date the vast majority of Derby entries fit within parameters.

It's worthless.

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Actually, Dosage parameters haven't completely failed in predicting Derby winners....since 1991, only 5 winners have exceeded dosage parameters of 4.00/1.00:
Strike the Gold...(91) 9.00/1.30 (later adjusted due to sire appointed CDR)
Real Quiet...(98) 5.29/1.27
Charismatic...(99) 5.22/1.00
Giacomo...(05) 4.33/0.94
Mine That Bird (09) 5.40/1.19
Lots of folks rushed to discredit Dosage but to date the vast majority of Derby entries fit within parameters.

Prior to Strike The Gold in '91 every Derby winner had a DI under 4.00 going back to Clyde Van Deusen in 1929. During the 80s I was a believer in DI. Today I think it is irrelevant. There used to be quite a few Derby runners over the 4.00 limit years ago so there seemed to be something to it. Today there are fewer starters that are over the limit, and there have been 5 winners in the last 20 years being over as opposed to none in the previous 62 years. It is irrelevant now

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Slewbopper

Prior to Strike The Gold in '91 every Derby winner had a DI under 4.00 going back to Clyde Van Deusen in 1929. During the 80s I was a believer in DI. Today I think it is irrelevant. There used to be quite a few Derby runners over the 4.00 limit years ago so there seemed to be something to it. Today there are fewer starters that are over the limit, and there have been 5 winners in the last 20 years being over as opposed to none in the previous 62 years. It is irrelevant now

It was irrelevant before, too. Dosage is a classically bad use of statistics. It's meaningless to quote results BACKWARD to 1929 when the idea was created in the 70's.

--Dunbar