Week/Weekend Stakes Beyers
 

MTH Izod Haskell S (G1): Lookin At Lucky 105 (B. Baffert/M. Garcia)
MTH Matchmaker S (G3): Unbridled Essence 89 (G. Sacco/P. Lopez)
MTH Oceanport S (G3): Get Serious 97 (J. Forbes/P. Fragoso)
MTH Regret S: Lady Alexander 94 (B. Alexander/C. Marquez)
MTH Jersey Derby: Hudson Steele 95 (T. Pletcher/J. Lezcano)
MTH Teddy Drone S: Repole Stable 98 (B. Levine/E. Castro)
MTH Majestic Light S: Omniscient 104 (S. Asmussen/C. Borel)
MTH Mongo Queen S: Rose Catherine 91 (T. Pletcher/C. DeCarlo)

SAR Diana S (G1): Proviso 97 (W. Mott/M. Smith)
SAR Jim Dandy S (G2): A Little Warm 103 (A. Dutrow/J. Velazquez)
SAR Ruffian H (G1): Malibu Prayer 103 (T. Pletcher/J. Velazquez)
SAR Fourstardave H (G2): Get Stormy 101 (T. Bush/J. Castellano)
SAR Curlin S: Winslow Homer 97 (A. Dutrow/R. Albarado)
SAR William B. Fasig S: Exclusive Scheme 80 (W. Badgett/J. Velazquez)
SAR Fleet Indian S: My Dinah 85 (K. Feron/J. Espinoza)
SAR Lucy Scribner S: Devil by Design 85 (W. Mott/K. Desormeaux)
SAR Quick Call S: Beau Choix 89 (B. Tagg/J. Castellano)
SAR Lake George S (G2): Perfect Shirl 90 (R. Attfield/J. Velazquez)
SAR Evan Shipman S: Giant Moon 90 (R. Schosberg/E. Prado)

WO Wonder Where S: Free Fee Lady 85 (R. Baker/E. Wilson)
WO Vandal S: Sensational Slam 67 (T. Pletcher/P. Husbands)
WO Deputy Minister S: Race for Gold 83 (R. Tiller/C. Sutherland)

DMR Bing Crosby S (G1): Smiling Tiger TBD (J. Bonde/V. Espinoza)
DMR San Diego H (G2): Dakota Phone 95 (J. Hollendorfer/J. Rosario)
DMR Fleet Treat S: La Nez 81 (J. Kruljac/V. Espinoza)
DMR Cougar II H (G3): Temple City 100 (C. Gaines/J. Talamo)
DMR Wickerr S: Blue Chagall 97 (J. Canani/D. Flores)

PEN PA Governor's Cup H: Chamberlain Bridge 98 (W. Calhoun/J. Theriot)
PEN Capital City S: Thunder Brew 80 (A. Pecoraro/A. Napravnik)
PEN East Hanover Township S: Awesome Son 100 (T. Kelly/F. Maysonett)
PEN Jenny Wade H: Canadian Ballet 93 (L. Rice/S. Elliott)
EVD John Franks Memorial Sales S: Reyina 51 (T. Richey/D. Simington)
PEN Red Carpet S: First Ascent 78 (L. Delacour/L. Garcia)
PHA Roanoke S: Love Ridge 77 (D. Curry/J. Ferrer)
PEN Femme Fatale S: Come Sunday 70 (J. Servis/S. Elliott)

TDN Ohio Derby(G3): Pleasant Prince 91 (W. Ward/A. Solis)

PID Windward S: Informed Decision 94 (J. Sheppard/J. Leparoux)

The Ruffian comes up seven ticks faster than the Curlin, and the Beyer spread between the two races is only 6 points. Doesn't seem right.

7/31 (SAR 2): MSW Admiral Alex 87

Awesome Son is a cool little horse.

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


--Dunbar

Joeys Beyers had it like this.....

Ruffian 105


Curlin 93

The only thing swamped between those two races was the new (very cool) Paddock Bar.

What did the Clement maiden sprinter get the other day?

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."

You make too much sense

Really good points.

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.

Thank you.

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.

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.

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

Yes it is - but only if you're working with the assumption that the track was playing right at par the two days in question.

Obviously the track was slower than par at AQU on Wood day ... unless you really believe a Grade 3 for older males was won with an 80 Beyer and Esk only ran a 94 while winning the Wood by a huge margin?

The Excelsior was an absolutely ugly race, and the form of the Wood, like the Excelsior, has not exactly been flattered. I know one-turn and two-turn races can play differently, but when the Carter and Bay Shore go in 1:21 and change, I think it's hard to conclude that the track on Wood Day was seven or eight lengths slower than par.

They can play differently - that's for sure.

The same day Zenyatta won the Apple Blossom in 1:50.71 this year .. a 6f MSW race went in 1:09 and change on that Oaklawn Park card.

Please stop bringing up Zenyatta every chance you get.

I'm having trouble deciding who my 4th best is at Detroit Race Course and Arapahoe Park.

No one was claiming that Zenyatta ran a "fast" race in the Apple Blossom ... and just so no one's under the impression that some ordinary maiden went an aberrational 1:09 and change that day, that 11-length Stonestreet/Asmussen maiden winner came back to run second, beaten a length by Safe Trip, in an entry-level allowance at Churchill that went in 1:08.4.

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.

We've already had that discussion above.

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

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.

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.

Besides Beyer? Thorograph.

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.

Here's a hypothetical:

YOU and a bunch of other novices go a few laps around a velodrome against a world class track cyclist. You all do the initial 1.5 laps at a VERY SLOW pace and then the superior rider takes off and WIPES all of you out. In other words, NONE of you are able to gain on him the last 1/2 lap. This is because even though you went ridiculously SLOW for 3/4 of the race, he's just too fast for you (the field) the last 1/4 and you just can't keep up. This makes sense.

Now, substitute the field from above with one of world class track cyclists that are, say, very slightly below in terms of ability, to the cyclist mentioned above. The dynamics remain the same: 1 1/2 laps at a ridiculously SLOW pace and then an all out dash to the wire. What are the chances that this cyclist WIPES OUT the ENTIRE field? Slim to none?

Then explain to me what saying that the Curlin had a slow pace actually has to do with the race itself.

I thought I did that, and I don't care about cycling.

I see. You only want to be on record that SLOW PACES don't impact wide trips.

I honestly didn't get the point of your post. I think you basically said the same thing but with a cycling analogy. What was the point? I actually did cover exactly what you were talking about, but you didn't seem to get it. The post was about making figures and how some situations can be handled. I don't think anyone makes figures for cycling.

With the slow paces, you can do as I mentioned and boost the final figure to the ability of the winner, but it has problems. You probably need to penalize the also rans more than the standard amount for beaten lengths.

But, what do you do when the horses are lightly raced or going a new distance and you don't know their abilities? Guys like you want to pretend figures are bad and the people making them are clueless. I'm showing some of the many issues that are involved. Whenever some big race figure is criticized, it usually involves one of the scenarios I mentioned, and you can add in changing track speeds. Those that criticize like to pretend all figure making should be cut and dry.

As for those like yourself that abhor figures, I have no idea why you even get involved in these discussions. You should be happy so many seem to like figures and take advantage at the windows.

You know I respect you as a figure maker. Sooner or later, you'll stop being defensive and try to address some of the issues I raise.

Specifically, in this case:

1) you're on record that POLY races are tightly paced typically at the end because of the slow paces -- caused by jocks that intentionally slow them down; this makes sense

2) you're also on record that wide trips aren't as relevant in SLOW PACED races; this also makes sense


I'm simply asking, given the above, with full awareness that dirt and poly don't play the same, WHY the rest of the field quit as bad as it did in the Curlin, and HOW your figures 'explain' this. Merely telling me that the PACE is slow allows me to draw the conclusion that these horses QUIT because they BID into a 25.27 SPLIT. But a slow pace isn't supposed to do that in reasonably evenly matched fields. So maybe, just maybe, it was a result of WHEN and HOW MANY moves were made rather than how fast or slow the pace was. Just maybe. :rolleyes: Cause, the Wood and the Curlin are both WIPEOUTS but they're not really the same 'type' of race in terms of dynamics.

Unless time is taken at points of call about every 20 yards, figures will never explain everything. I'm sure you know that. However, without figures, the moves alone without context don't tell much either.