Someone on another forum asked a question that I found very interesting. While I understand where Beyer was coming from with the article and I do agree with his point of view, one of reasons he cited for pointing out This Ones For Phil's sudden huge improvement from a figure standpoint. So part of what made the argument was the jump from a career best of 81 to a 117, a 36 point jump. What kind of jump would be considered acceptable? I remember when Bellamy Road got that 120 and he had never been anywhere close to that before. Midway Road got a 124 and hadn't come close to that before. Would a 20-25 point increase for TOFP had been ok? Would Beyer still have written the article if TOFP had gotten a more normal 109 or so? The question comes up now when looking at the number for Haynesfield in the Damon Runyon. He received a 101 originally but it's been downgraded to a 93 now because of the subsequent form of the field in their next races. What if down the line somewhere, the number for TOFP is downgraded to a 109? While still a huge jump, it wouldn't have generated nearly the same attention the 117 did.

Perhaps the 81 prior best BSF is low? Maybe the horse can't turf or go long and his subsequent figs were negatively impacted by surface/distance/# turns issues? Not that these things can explain a 117 BSF.

how do we know the 117 is right? these numbers have been corrected lower in the past no??

i just happened to mention a couple factors i did not notice in the thread. i did note the 117 was mentioned.

i hear you

I'd like to see that trial on Court TV; or True TV whatever thay call that now .

Midway Road was a Keeneland freak. I got sucked into betting him good in the Preakness off of a Kee win .. he also won like a monster as a 2yo at KEE and the 124 you speak of came when he was an older horse at KEE.

Bellamy Road won his allowance race comeback at GP by about 16 lengths and his Wood Memorial win was 2nd off of a layoff.

I would say neither performance was as suspicious as This Ones For Phils.

I guess somebody had to eventually pick up that loose ball and dunk it.

While I understand what you are saying, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. To call This Ones for Phil's number suspicious is a huge understatement and I 100% agree with Beyer's column on the subject. The point was that if you are going to use the suspicious Beyer increase in your argument, I think you weaken your argument because as we all know, those numbers get adjusted down the road, sometimes more than once. I think the argument would have been strong enough without using the numbers as some sort of basis of factual support when there's not enough evidence in as yet to say whether or not the number is indeed fact.

Are you suggesting the figure makers are being disingenuous? Interesting argument, if a player uses a beyer speed figure and the original figure is inaccurate when adjusted at a later date, it can be considered no different than receiving wrong information when buying a stock. Who's liable then?

but how often do figures get adjusted?

also, i find it interesting to see comments that beyer shouldn't have used his figure to call out 'supertrainers', that they may not always be correct, but you see them everywhere. in the form, in articles, on stallion pages....but they aren't accurate? that info gets disseminated a lot, by a lot of people, as a judge of a horses ability-but then some of those same people attacked beyer for using his figure?! how ridiculous.

In my opinion this is a major flaw with Beyer speed figures, since the numbers were created to aid horseplayers within a reasonable amount of time in making decisions for future plays, the accuracy of numbers is paramount. Adjusting numbers at a later time creates a suspicion of fudging the numbers for insiders, whether this is true or not that is not my assertion and is an all together different argument. Adjusting your numbers at a later date is just an admission that your numbers were wrong and these are the numbers most players pay for and rely on. Though isolated as it may be, it can't be considered good PR for the system.

So it is better to have an inaccurate number? Adjusting the number gives me the appearance them trying to get the most accurate info and admitting that the original number may have been flawed. The idea that Beyer is fudging numbers for ""insiders" is laughable.

And it isnt as though his was the only number that was unusually high.
This one is for Phil got a 121 equibase number after never nearing 100 before. Perhaps someone could get the sheet number also?

like i said, how often do they get adjusted? also, are they adjusted before a horses next race? if so, then the correct figure would be in the pp's, wouldn't they? surely it's not months down the road and several starts later before a revised figure is produced?
like chuck said, better a revision than keeping an incorrect figure.

I found that hilarious as well.

-4 (negative) on Thoro-Graph.. And I believe a -1 on Ragozin.

There is simply not a discussion to be had about the Phil number... NONE.. EVERY SINGLE FIGURE MAKER HAS IT THE SAME. They all aren't wrong. There is just a group out there that has an irrational animosity for Andy Beyer. It's very strange.

the negativity towards beyer because he spoke out on his figure i thought was ridiculous. obviously the other figure makers back him up, so what limb do the beyer detractors have to stand on? surely they're aware that the other figure makers are also showing a big improvement by 'phil'? but the funniest part of it to me was dutrows 'how dare they question my integrity?' posture.

I'm not suggesting that at all and I believe it to be the opposite. I think that they have every intention of and make every attempt at being accurate. That's what I do like about them going back and making adjustments. I don't know if it's being lost here in translation but my point wasn't specifically tied only to This One's for Phil's case. What I'm saying is that it kinda makes the argument weaker when you say that a figure out of whack because it's 20 points higher than normal when there is a chance that later on down the line, the number will be adjusted and not be so out of line.

To answer Danzig's question, I don't know how often they get adjusted. I do remember the case with Lava Man a few years ago and his number from the Californian was adjusted several times, appearing in a couple of subsequent pp's with different numbers.

I've always taken numbers from 2yos and 3yos in the spring with a grain of salt. First, trainers are often adding new dimensions to each race so the horse is attempting something he's never done before. Whether that be two-turns, added distance, shipping and racing, etc. With so many new variables thrown into the mix, I think it's very difficult to project what a horse should do in a given situation that he's never tried before. A good example would be a horse that's running in two-turn races because they are trying to get him to the TC and say he's running consistent figures in the 80's then when returned to one-turn, he puts up a 105. That figure seems out of whack but it could be that if he had been running one-turn races the entire time, he might have been closer to that 105 and nobody would have looked twice at it. You also have horses at different stages of their development and trainers with different goals and objectives in a race. For instance, because of his win in the Hollywood Futurity, Baffert knows he's pretty much assured a spot in the Derby based on earnings with Pioneerof the Nile. With that in mind, he can work more on getting the horse closer and closer to his goal with each race. But take a horse like Papa Clem, who just ran second to Pioneer last weekend. He HAS to win a big race soon in order to get the earnings. So his trainer might tighten him up a little bit more than Baffert will Pioneer because they have totally different goals for the race. You might look and say that Pioneer is 10 points better than Papa Clem but if PC is at 90% for their next meeting and Pioneer is at 75%, it would be logical to not expect the difference between them to be 10 points so if Pioneer beats him by a neck, you can't look at their previous figures and say what the figure should be. Likewise, you can't take a figure earned today in a sprint and then look at the subsequent form of the horses and then downgrade today's race. For example, if horse A runs a 110, horse B runs a 106, and horse C runs a 100......then next time out in a route, horse A runs a 94, horse B runs a 92, and horse C runs a 90......perhaps none of them are good routers but that doesn't mean you should downgrade what they did in the sprint.

Alot of points in your post, it will be interesting to see if Phil can indeed follow up his next race with a simular number or if this was a one off.

I'm not sure how often numbers are adjusted after they have been published for public use, all I know is I'm not happy with the thought that information that you thought was accurate wasn't when a bet was made. Obcourse accurate information is better in the long run, just how it was arrived at a later date is the question that puzzles me.