In Figures We Trust

[the_fat_man]

Interesting situation in SAR-08-30-10_R4

Two horses coming out of off-the-turf efforts, ran, apparently, significantly FASTER in their respective race than they ever had before. Now, I don't have the Beyers for these horses but I do know that they were incongruent enough for Serling to point them out; and, dismiss them. I do, however, have the BRIS speed numbers, and, I imagine, these capture the incongruence.

D'big Cat:
98
86
55
76
86
83

So, D'big Cat jumped up 12 points in an off-the-turf 5.5F sprint, claiming 25K.

Fastus Cactus:
109
94
87
88
84
82
85
81

Fastus Cactus jumped up 15 points in an off-the-turf 5.5F sprint, claiming 25K.

Now, RUDY trains the former and Dick Dutrow the latter but, still, the point is WHY are these figures so high, when, clearly, they're not representative, as neither horse won yesterday. (I have no idea what the number for the race was.)

I'm known as a critic of numbers but, surely, one has to wonder why these off-the-turf 5.5F sprints are coming back with such high numbers; both for BEYER (who should 'know' better) and BRIS (automated figures which, I hear, are not as accurate).

[ateamstupid]

D'bigcat sure as hell didn't disgrace that figure yesterday (running a furlong further than he wants to) and who knows what Fastus Cactus would've done if he didn't bolt at the top of the stretch. This is a bad example of phony figures.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

D'bigcat sure as hell didn't disgrace that figure yesterday (running a furlong further than he wants to) and who knows what Fastus Cactus would've done if he didn't bolt at the top of the stretch. This is a bad example of phony figures.

What were their Beyers in the 5.5F races and what were the Beyers yesterday?

Surely, you can't believe that those races were for real? Fastus Cactus only won by 2.4 lengths and D'big Cat by 4.75 lengths. Who was behind them and why are their connections wasting time running them on turf?

Is it a methodological issue or a JUICE issue? Maybe Fastus Cactus is a STAKE horse on DIRT (and a relative plug on Poly and turf.)

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

What were their Beyers in the 5.5F races and what were the Beyers yesterday?

Surely, you can't believe that those races were for real? Fastus Cactus only won by 2.4 lengths and D'big Cat by 4.75 lengths. Who was behind them and why are their connections wasting time running them on turf?

Is it a methodological issue or a JUICE issue? Maybe Fastus Cactus is a STAKE horse on DIRT (and a relative plug on Poly and turf.)

They may have been a tad high, but it's hardly the huge inflation you're implying. The bolded makes no sense, you realize there can be more than one MTO in these races, right?

Devilish Due, who ran a 77 (not out of character) in running second to D'bigcat, was an MTO like D'bigcat was. Especially considering what Rudy's been capable of, the 90 for D'bigcat makes plenty of sense. Again, he ran well yesterday considering he clearly doesn't want to go a step beyond six furlongs. I don't know what the Beyer was, I'd guess in the low 80s.

Fastus Cactus' number is the more questionable one, but again, he beat an MTO in My Golden Opinion, who was 6+ clear of third and ran a 94. I didn't buy that number because I don't think MGO is capable of that at this point in his career and it made me take a stand against FC. However, like I said, considering FC completely blew the turn, we can't know whether or not he could've run close to the 101. My guess is no, but he was taken out of the race.

[the_fat_man]

I haven't looked at the PPs of the horses behind them in those races. But, I suspect, many turfers ran significantly faster than they ever have on dirt.

It's not about someone with an opinion buying into these numbers, as, cleary, neither had a shot (to win) going 7F -- both the distance and the setup were against them. But, these stick out like sore thumbs and, I'd think, that there'd be some work put in towards making sense of them. If it's the case (likely) that they just got the best of it on the front end, given the distance, then the figure should be tweaked. Not like this would be unprecedented.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I haven't looked at the PPs of the horses behind them in those races. But, I suspect, many turfers ran significantly faster than they ever have on dirt.

It's not about someone with an opinion buying into these numbers, as, cleary, neither had a shot (to win) going 7F -- both the distance and the setup were against them. But, these stick out like sore thumbs and, I'd think, that there'd be some work put in towards making sense of them. If it's the case (likely) that they just got the best of it on the front end, given the distance, then the figure should be tweaked. Not like this would be unprecedented.

Of the horses that were entered in the main body of D'bigcat's race (race fig/top dirt fig):

Dixie Night Out (73/76)
Cayo Hueso (69/73)
Morning Run (68/75)
Regal Soul (62/83)
Little Alex (58/65)
Count Catamount (45/78)

So, nobody behind D'bigcat even ran back to their previous dirt top, much less improved on it.

Fastus Cactus' race:

Subtitles (76/98)
Patron Saint (71/88)
Estimator (73/89)
Sumfun (55/93)
A. P. Eddie (51/90)

Now obviously, these weren't all 'turf' horses. But other than My Golden Opinion running second behind FC, there's no also-ran fig that jumps out at you as phony high.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

D'bigcat sure as hell didn't disgrace that figure yesterday (running a furlong further than he wants to) and who knows what Fastus Cactus would've done if he didn't bolt at the top of the stretch. This is a bad example of phony figures.

Fastus Cactus didn't just blow the turn. He was getting out the whole race. He must have been in the 8 path as the field went down the backside.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Interesting situation in SAR-08-30-10_R4

Two horses coming out of off-the-turf efforts, ran, apparently, significantly FASTER in their respective race than they ever had before. Now, I don't have the Beyers for these horses but I do know that they were incongruent enough for Serling to point them out; and, dismiss them. I do, however, have the BRIS speed numbers, and, I imagine, these capture the incongruence.

D'big Cat:
98
86
55
76
86
83

So, D'big Cat jumped up 12 points in an off-the-turf 5.5F sprint, claiming 25K.

Fastus Cactus:
109
94
87
88
84
82
85
81

Fastus Cactus jumped up 15 points in an off-the-turf 5.5F sprint, claiming 25K.

Now, RUDY trains the former and Dick Dutrow the latter but, still, the point is WHY are these figures so high, when, clearly, they're not representative, as neither horse won yesterday. (I have no idea what the number for the race was.)

I'm known as a critic of numbers but, surely, one has to wonder why these off-the-turf 5.5F sprints are coming back with such high numbers; both for BEYER (who should 'know' better) and BRIS (automated figures which, I hear, are not as accurate).

I think it's a function of the quirky distance. Really all you have to compare times against at 5.5F are 2yo races- obviously not a great sample size or scope of talents. Therefore your "par chart" would have a problem trying to match up 5.5F vs. 6F, etc. Since each track has a different 5.5F to 6F distance average time due to runup changes (like for example Pimlico has a very high differential- like 7 seconds- and Churchill has a much smaller number- just under 6) putting a "plug" number in doesn't work too well. Likewise, at Belmont Park when they run the 7.5F dirt races they often come back with too LOW of numbers it seems, probably again due to lack of sample size. I would understand it in this situation if Beyer smoothed the figure and left it out of the rest of the day's calculation. Then again, one could make the argument that a horse might be capable of running a 101 Beyer at 5.5F and be completely hopeless at 7F (there's plenty of those types at Charles Town.)

I think the best way to treat figures at quirky distances like 5.5F or 7.5F are to cross them out in the form and ignore them.

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Can't really go off one figure, but it being a juice thing isn't out of the realm of possibility.

And I know figs aren't your thing, but it's pointless to ever quote a Bris fig. They're not real figures.

They're real figures... just not real good.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by philcski

Then again, one could make the argument that a horse might be capable of running a 101 Beyer at 5.5F and be completely hopeless at 7F (there's plenty of those types at Charles Town.)

I think the best way to treat figures at quirky distances like 5.5F or 7.5F are to cross them out in the form and ignore them.

This is more of what I was looking for.

I think that distances differences of even .5F do make a difference. They certainly make a difference for horses at GG, TAM, TP, PID, etc. (of the tracks that I play). Before we dismiss this as a case of cheap horses, this also holds pretty well at WO, where there are horses that excel going 5F, that can't sniff 6F; and 6F runners that are hopeless going 7F and struggle to get 6F. (Hopeless in terms of have zero chance to win, as I don't know what their numbers are.)

I think if Campo were to regularly card 5F, 5.5F, and more 6.5F races, along with the 6F and 7F dirt staples, we'd see this was also the case for many of the better quality horses.

I don't know how this fits in with Fastus Cactus, however, as he's won going 7F on poly.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

This is more of what I was looking for.

I think that distances differences of even .5F do make a difference. They certainly make a difference for horses at GG, TAM, TP, PID, etc. (of the tracks that I play). Before we dismiss this as a case of cheap horses, this also holds pretty well at WO, where there are horses that excel going 5F, that can't sniff 6F; and 6F runners that are hopeless going 7F and struggle to get 6F. (Hopeless in terms of have zero chance to win, as I don't know what their numbers are.)

I think if Campo were to regularly card 5F, 5.5F, and more 6.5F races, along with the 6F and 7F dirt staples, we'd see this was also the case for many of the better quality horses.

I don't know how this fits in with Fastus Cactus, however, as he's won going 7F on poly.

Very much agree with this. Obviously, the cheaper the horse, the more susceptible they are to having a "preferred" distance- and it might be that they can excel at 6F and be hopeless at the same level of competition at 7F.

Given this- to me, the true champion horses are those that can win at multiple distances, for example sprinters that can stretch out and win the Met Mile or Cigar Mile, or routers that can cut back and win at 6.5F.

As for Fastus Cactus, winning on poly at 7F might have just been a case of being a decent horse beating a really bad bunch (especially since MCL $12.5 is the lowest level at WO.) Clearly he has SOME ability, since he's also won at a mile and a sixteenth on turf (even though that was a biased turf course) and 6F on turf, and ran a big race at 5.5F on dirt. I'm sure Dutrow knows he probably doesn't want to go 7F on dirt against real competition, but was taking a shot for the $48K purse and protecting the horse for a race instead of say tomorrow's $25K CLM turf sprint for $36K.