Idea for Post Position

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by jms62

There is quite a bit of chatter about post having little to do with the Preakness. Would a .018 winning pct from the 1 hole in the last 53 runnings (That is 1 out of 53) indicate that only horses that werent good enough have drawn that number? That is mathematically astounding.

hmm...53 years. Without looking this up, and I promise I haven't, I can be pretty sure that 54 years ago a horse won from the 1 hole. If true, it makes it 2 in 54 years, which is roughly only half as astounding as 1 in 53.

If there was a significant change in track configuration 53 years ago that warrants using 53 years as a cutoff, then that would justify using an odd number like 53.

--Dunbar

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

hmm...53 years. Without looking this up, and I promise I haven't, I can be pretty sure that 54 years ago a horse won from the 1 hole. If true, it makes it 2 in 54 years, which is roughly only half as astounding as 1 in 53.

If there was a significant change in track configuration 53 years ago that warrants using 53 years as a cutoff, then that would justify using an odd number like 53.

--Dunbar

Well you got me. 2 for 54 completly changes things.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by jms62

Well you got me. 2 for 54 completly changes things.

I'm glad you agree. Otherwise I'd have to point out that there were 8 winners from the 1 hole in the past 84 years. I think we can safely say that 8 in 84 does not fall into the 'mathematically astounding' type of stats. Neither, for that matter, does 2 for 54.

--Dunbar

[The Bart]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I'm glad you agree. Otherwise I'd have to point out that there were 8 winners from the 1 hole in the past 84 years. I think we can safely say that 8 in 84 does not fall into the 'mathematically astounding' type of stats. Neither, for that matter, does 2 for 54.

--Dunbar

[hi_im_god]

tabasco cat had an open stall to the left of him at the start of the preakness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_8ElpNT7l8

so if you really want to make a point you could say bally ache in 1960 was the last winner to start from the #1 hole.

[miraja2]

Let's just look at the last ten years. Obviously there is no way to know for sure, but how many of the following Preakness winners do people think would have failed to win the race had they drawn post #1 instead of wherever they actually ended up:

Funny Cide
Smarty Jones
Afleet Alex
Bernardini
Big Brown
Rachel Alexandra


My answer is....zero. They all would have won. Did being stuck down inside have a negative effect on Orb? Yeah. But that doesn't mean the #1 post is some kiss of death in the Preakness.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Let's just look at the last ten years. Obviously there is no way to know for sure, but how many of the following Preakness winners do people think would have failed to win the race had they drawn post #1 instead of wherever they actually ended up:

Funny Cide
Smarty Jones
Afleet Alex
Bernardini
Big Brown
Rachel Alexandra


My answer is....zero. They all would have won. Did being stuck down inside have a negative effect on Orb? Yeah. But that doesn't mean the #1 post is some kiss of death in the Preakness.

If Orb had post 8 rather than the rail I'm pretty confident that he would have been 4th by 7 rather than 4th by 9.

What if the rail was golden? The post 1 would be desirable. Perhaps the Derby winner's trainer can instruct the track maintenance crew on how they want the track to play as a reward for winning the Derby?

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If Orb had post 8 rather than the rail I'm pretty confident that he would have been 4th by 7 rather than 4th by 9.

Hard to know. If he was outside & wasn't hurried a bit & then shuffled back, I think second or third may have been at least possible. But yeah, Oxbow won the race because they let him go 1:13+ for 6f. Orb's post position had no effect on that fact.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Hard to know. If he was outside & wasn't hurried a bit & then shuffled back, I think second or third may have been at least possible. But yeah, Oxbow won the race because they let him go 1:13+ for 6f. Orb's post position had no effect on that fact.

I believe he was pressed into action a little earlier than usual was because Rosario was worried about the pace which would have been the same regardless of where Orb started from. I think he was shuffled back because he didn't have a whole lot of horse under him as opposed to traffic. He was 4th because Departing and Goldencents fell apart late. He wasn't on the rail from 3 furlongs on and his rider never stopped riding him at any point and he wasn't gaining ground in the stretch.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Let's just look at the last ten years. Obviously there is no way to know for sure, but how many of the following Preakness winners do people think would have failed to win the race had they drawn post #1 instead of wherever they actually ended up:

Funny Cide
Smarty Jones
Afleet Alex
Bernardini
Big Brown
Rachel Alexandra


My answer is....zero. They all would have won. Did being stuck down inside have a negative effect on Orb? Yeah. But that doesn't mean the #1 post is some kiss of death in the Preakness.

And my answer is . I have far too much experience than to speak in absolutes when it comes to Horse racing and truly get a kick out those that do.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by jms62

And my answer is . I have far too much experience than to speak in absolutes when it comes to Horse racing and truly get a kick out those that do.

I don't see anyone speaking in absolutes in this thread....with the possible exception of you and your "mathematically astounding" claim.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I don't see anyone speaking in absolutes in this thread....with the possible exception of you and your "mathematically astounding" claim.

You give a list of horses and state ZERO would have lost and then say no one is speaking in absolutes Really are you kidding me right now?