Weekend Stakes Beyers: Shackleford 104

slotdirt · #1 05-22-2011, 07:19 PM

So I don't make figures, and I'm not questioning those who do, but I would love to understand how Apart and Royal Delta end up with 100, but Shackleford gets a 104. Thanks.

philcski · #2 05-22-2011, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

So I don't make figures, and I'm not questioning those who do, but I would love to understand how Apart and Royal Delta end up with 100, but Shackleford gets a 104. Thanks.

The raw figure for Apart was a 101 and Shackleford (about) a 105 (since they don't run 9.5F very often, his 9F equivalent time of 1:49 4/5 is the best proxy.)

The real question is how Apart and Super Espresso both got a 100. The figuremaker is suggesting the track slowed down about 6-7 points between race 8 and race 10. I don't agree with that.

slotdirt · #3 05-22-2011, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philcski

The raw figure for Apart was a 101 and Shackleford (about) a 105 (since they don't run 9.5F very often, his 9F equivalent time of 1:49 4/5 is the best proxy.)

The real question is how Apart and Super Espresso both got a 100. The figuremaker is suggesting the track slowed down about 6-7 points between race 8 and race 10. I don't agree with that.

I know the BES was a different day, but based on what you have above, Royal Delta's 1:49 3/5 should have earned her something better than a 100, no?

Not being argumentative or putting down figure makers, just asking the question.

philcski · #4 05-22-2011, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I know the BES was a different day, but based on what you have above, Royal Delta's 1:49 3/5 should have earned her something better than a 100, no?

Not being argumentative or putting down figure makers, just asking the question.

Different day, not comparable. You'd need to compare the time to Friday's other results.

slotdirt · #5 05-22-2011, 07:47 PM

It's just odd - at least in my head - that the slowest Preakness since 1993 would result in a lifetime top for the winner.

blackthroatedwind · #6 05-22-2011, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

It's just odd - at least in my head - that the slowest Preakness since 1993 would result in a lifetime top for the winner.

But also one of the lower Beyer figs.

slotdirt · #7 05-22-2011, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

But also one of the lower Beyer figs.

Very fair.

philcski · #8 05-22-2011, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

It's just odd - at least in my head - that the slowest Preakness since 1993 would result in a lifetime top for the winner.

That isn't an issue. Would it be fair to say it was his lifetime best effort? Without a doubt. He ran huge. The number makes a lot of sense from that perspective. And it also means Animal Kingdom ran close to his Derby win, which is also a fair assessment.

analyizethis · #9 05-24-2011, 11:47 AM

Dale Romans doesn't get enough credit. In the last five Triple Crown races he has finished third, second, third, fourth and first.

He knows how to bring them up to a big race with their top effort.

ateamstupid · #10 05-24-2011, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philcski

The raw figure for Apart was a 101 and Shackleford (about) a 105 (since they don't run 9.5F very often, his 9F equivalent time of 1:49 4/5 is the best proxy.)

The real question is how Apart and Super Espresso both got a 100. The figuremaker is suggesting the track slowed down about 6-7 points between race 8 and race 10. I don't agree with that.

Agreed.