Derby and Performance Figures
 

I find the use of Dr Roman's Performance Figures (PF's) superior to Beyer Speed Figures in handicapping the Derby. Since 1998 (first year PF's computed) 10 of 13 Derby winners had a PF within the top 5 horses in the race. The average winning PF in the Derby has been -57 (Monarchos tops with -75, Mine That Bird slowest with -42). This year to date (two turn races) among possible starters:
The Factor -57 (last -18)
Pants on Fire -57
Nehro -56 (last -52)
Shackleford -54
Dialed In -54
Archarcharch -53
Still a couple races to go but these appear the best, note The Factor's last race may eliminate him.

So what is the record of the top five BSF's earned by 3yo's going two turns during the same time frame?

Either system covers 1/4 of the field to win the race. To have any value at all you could show me that the top five PF's or BSF's made up 3/4 of the superfecta or 2/3 of the trifecta a certain percentage of the time.

Honestly I think that by themselves without any other considerations they are both worthless, or at least no better at making money at the windows than they would be in any other race.

The use is eliminating 3/4 of the field, making it easier to employ other handicapping factors to narrow 5 prospects down further....note that the average winning PF has been -57, the lowest -42...which horses left can run within those parameters at 10 furlongs? It certainly isn't the sole factor one would use, just one used to "thin the herd".

Well BSF's could "thin the herd" as well. You are eliminating 3/4 of the field for the win position. That could show me a flat win bet profit roughly 75% of the time provided the winner pays at least $11. A 9-1 shot doubles my money when I bet five horses to win and a 19-1 shot gets me back 3-1 on my money. I wouldn't be surprised if the drf speed figure plus track variant could achieve the same "thinning of the herd".

Again, you are missing the point, using all 5 horses based on this one factor is not my suggestion. There are other factors to consider. When I look at the Derby, I consider this factor, Number of points in horse's DP, number of 3yo preps, races as 2yo, time between last prep and Derby, breeding on both sire and dam side and other factors....then again, sometimes I go with a gut feeling, for example I am waiting this year to hear whether Master of Hounds is coming over...he doesn't fit via PF's, # of 3yo races and other factors but he still interests me. PF's are a tool...one of many!

Sorry but I'm not missing the point. Your first post stated you believe PF's were superior to BSF's in narrowing down the field in the derby.

My reply asked for the record of the top 5 BSF horses over the same time frame and you have not addressed that question. I completed my reply by pointing out, maybe not in the same way you just now acknowledged, that they are "simply a tool,one of many."

I like a lot of the stuff over on Dr. Roman's page. It's basically Sartin style pace information, but Roman has done a good job of analyzing the late pace segments and trying to build a profile for identifying a winner at 10 furlongs.

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.

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)

What in the hell is a 'Dr. Roman's Performance figure' ?

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.

Bit of an understatement I'd say.

accurate statement.

Sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me.

I'm assuming his variants are based solely on class pars?

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.

Not really...again, his site details his processes.

It's worthless.

Without enough clarity for me to comprehend

Ok, I understand you want a multi-year comparison, somewhere in my files I have several years of same which led me to use PF's instead of BSF's. I started using PF's exclusively in 2005 so I didn't compare the two thereafter. If I can locate same, I will post....in the meantime, Dr Roman did a one year study with results posted at his site. The two methods were compared in a variety of ways but in reference to top 5 vs top 5:
2001 Derby
BSF:
Millennium Wind...114 (finished 11th)
Balto Star...112 (finished 14th)
Keats...110 (finished 16th)
Point Given...110 (finished 5th)
Congaree...108 (finished 3rd)
PF's:
Congaree...-76 (finished 3rd)
Thunder Blitz...-76 (finished 4th)
Monarchos...-70 (winner)
Balto Star...-69 (finished 14th)
Millennium Wind (finished 11th)
Again, this was a one year study and Dr Roman summarized results thusly, "No general conclusions about the value of BSFs or PFs should be drawn from these singular results. BSFs have stood the test of time. They are certainly a profound improvement over raw time as a measure of performance. Nevertheless, the results do suggest that other approaches may be at least as accurate and equally useful."

Thunder Blitz's prep was open lengths faster than Point Given's Santa Anita Derby romp - or Millenium Wind's tour de force on that crazy old KEE dirt track?

That pretty much only shows a glaring flaw with his variant as I understand it. Thunder Blitz was coming from Hialeah - had he ran his final prep at Thistle Downs his figure would have been huge because of the straight class par model.

Again, quoting Dr Roman:
"The two approaches differ mainly in that BSFs are based only on the final time of a race while PFs are based on an integration of final time and fractional time. In other words, PFs incorporate a significant pace factor while BSFs do not. The general methodologies are similar to the extent that both use variants from an expected level of performance to fine tune the raw numbers. These variants from the norm may be derived by comparison with par values for the class of race or, in the case of BSFs, projecting an expected figure based on the past history of an individual horse."

Yes this is what I was looking for. I was looking at it just a few minutes ago.
The link to the page is here.
http://www.chef-de-race.com/pfs/bsf_vs_pf.htm

He picked a good year for the comparison.

Dr. Roman's 'Pace Parameters for 2011 Ky Derby Preps' link on the main page is definitely worth looking at. It exposes horses or races that just won't stack up on Derby Day also.

I looked at the site, but I sure would like a summary before the Derby, as there is way too much info for me (tonight, anyway)

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

Dr. Roman never created the Dosage Index as a handicapping tool, he just discovered the results when looking at the winners of the Ky Derby. If you understand what is is and how it reflects speed/stamina characteristics typically passed on by certain sires, it is an interesting study if nothing else. He didn't change the formula as so many naysayers want to believe, but he did change the status of certain sires as sample sizes helped draw firmer conclusions over the life of the stallions. It wasn't an attempt to excuse Strike the Gold's DI, it was Alydar gaining "Chef" status as a "Classic" sire, something it would be difficult argue against in retrospect.

I remember actually arguing with some dosage nuts about Strike the Gold, before the Derby. I was going to play him, but was told he can't win because of his high dosage. I tried to explain that because Alydar was almost certainly going to be a chef, with stamina points, that he would indeed be a qualifier, down the road.

The whole concept of Dosage, however, does make some sense. I think people should use a little sense and flexibility with it though.

Then again, if you have any clue about racing and pedigrees, one has no need for dosage.

Very true......regarding Alydar, Roman was very slow to upgrade his chef-de-race status. Easy Goer should have made that a no brainer.

Alydar should have been upgraded earlier but they do same by committee and that took time.