Week/Weekend Stakes Beyers: Flightline 112; Jack Christopher 107

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Conrad

Weird day to make speed figures when you have horses who were clearly geared down late and could have run faster times.
Matareya, Jack Christopher and Flightline were all basically eased in the last 1/16m or so. Same with Jackie's Warrior on Friday.

Interested to see what numbers Beyer and TimeFormUS assigned.
By my humble figures, Mo Donegal ran huge.

I am not knocking him, but that was a hungry field. Could he have just found his friends? I think CJ's disciplines will value Flightline performance numerically higher than Beyer? We will see; it's more for conversation than anything else.

[Kasept]

CD Mighty Beau Overnight S: Just Might 92 (Justin Phillip) M. Lovell/R. Bejarano

WO Stella Artois Fury S: Moira - (Ghostzapper) K. Attard/R. Hernandez

MTH Lady's Secret S: Leader of the Band 88 (Bandbox) J. Servis/I. Castillo

SA Affirmed S (G3): Hopper 95 (Declaration of War) S. McCarthy/A. Cedillo

CT It's Only Money S: Hypothesis - (Algorithms) C. Pickett/J. Montano

GP Martha Washington S: Sister Lou Ann 77 (Frosted) S. Joseph/L. Reyes
GP Not Surprising S: California Frolic 77 (California Chrome) A. De La Cerda/E. Perez

HAW Work All Week S: Isolate 94 (Mark Valeski) T. Amoss/O. Mojica

GG Albany S: Give Me the Lute 87 (Boisterous) A. Mathis/I. Orozco

PRM Prairie Mile S: Rome 86 (Empire Maker) S. Condon/W. De La Cruz
PRM Panthers S: Butterbean 89 (Klimt) K. McPeek/G. Corbett
PRM Jim Rasmussen S: Ax Man 90 (Misremembered) D. McFarlane/E. Gonzalez

HST River Rock Casino S: Shamra (Lent) E. Mendoza/E. Hernandez
HST Ross McLeod S: Regal Riot (Jersey Town) R. Anderson/E. Hernandez

[King Glorious]

So I have a question. It’s not a knock at all on Beyer so please don’t take it that way. It’s not saying that I think he’s right or wrong either. It’s just a question so hopefully, I can gain more knowledge. Reading Beyer’s article, he says that the track variant was the same from the start of the day to the finish. If that’s the case, why not apply it to the Brooklyn? I understand when he says that doing so would have caused an unusually low number for the winner and others in the field but my question is why does that matter? He says that they arbitrarily assigned a number to the race that made it make sense with what the runners had done in the past. But the problem as I see it is that with the way this race was run, with the extremely slow pace, this wasn’t a normal race for any of them so why try to normalize it by giving it a normal figure? Freddy made the statement that he was unsure how anyone could think Mo Donegal and Nest were faster than the Brooklyn horses and it’s a legitimate question. But that can only happen if you take figures at face value and say the horses that ran the higher numbers were the faster horses. I would think that most people that aren’t novices would understand that this is not the correct assumption as far as the overall ability of the horses but I would think it should be clear that absent the evidence of a changing track speed, on this day, the Belmont horses were faster. At that point, it would seem like a handicapper should be able to understand the difference between faster and better. We don’t know if Mo Donegal is faster/better than the Brooklyn winner but we can safely assume he’s not 14 points better as the raw data says. So I would think any decent to good handicapper could look at the chart and figure out that there were extenuating circumstances that led to huge difference in figures and react accordingly. Maybe even capitalize on it wagering wise on the next out races for the Brooklyn horses. I guess I just feel like Beyer didn’t need to “dumb it down” for people. Do we really need to be told that the Brooklyn was a normal race when it’s obvious that it wasn’t?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

So I have a question. It’s not a knock at all on Beyer so please don’t take it that way. It’s not saying that I think he’s right or wrong either. It’s just a question so hopefully, I can gain more knowledge. Reading Beyer’s article, he says that the track variant was the same from the start of the day to the finish. If that’s the case, why not apply it to the Brooklyn? I understand when he says that doing so would have caused an unusually low number for the winner and others in the field but my question is why does that matter? He says that they arbitrarily assigned a number to the race that made it make sense with what the runners had done in the past. But the problem as I see it is that with the way this race was run, with the extremely slow pace, this wasn’t a normal race for any of them so why try to normalize it by giving it a normal figure? Freddy made the statement that he was unsure how anyone could think Mo Donegal and Nest were faster than the Brooklyn horses and it’s a legitimate question. But that can only happen if you take figures at face value and say the horses that ran the higher numbers were the faster horses. I would think that most people that aren’t novices would understand that this is not the correct assumption as far as the overall ability of the horses but I would think it should be clear that absent the evidence of a changing track speed, on this day, the Belmont horses were faster. At that point, it would seem like a handicapper should be able to understand the difference between faster and better. We don’t know if Mo Donegal is faster/better than the Brooklyn winner but we can safely assume he’s not 14 points better as the raw data says. So I would think any decent to good handicapper could look at the chart and figure out that there were extenuating circumstances that led to huge difference in figures and react accordingly. Maybe even capitalize on it wagering wise on the next out races for the Brooklyn horses. I guess I just feel like Beyer didn’t need to “dumb it down” for people. Do we really need to be told that the Brooklyn was a normal race when it’s obvious that it wasn’t?

I am no expert but IMO figmaking has a level of subjectivity, and creative educated license if you will. The fig was always going to be an interesting number to create and discuss at least the Beyer fig.

[moses]

I have two thoughts on the Brooklyn.

One, a lot of these 12 furlong figures are hard for figure makers because there aren’t other races at the same distance those days to compare it to. Because of that, I’ve always questioned some of the figures a horse like Lone Rock was getting and I’m not sure how good many of the horses are that he’s faced.

Two, Fearless is a good horse obviously. He was 3-4 wide throughout the race and seemed to make a sustained move on the second turn which is maybe why that final quarter fraction came up so slow. Beyer figures don’t factor in ground loss but I’d be interested to see what the TG numbers are for Fearless vs Mo Donegal.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by moses

I have two thoughts on the Brooklyn.

One, a lot of these 12 furlong figures are hard for figure makers because there aren’t other races at the same distance those days to compare it to. Because of that, I’ve always questioned some of the figures a horse like Lone Rock was getting and I’m not sure how good many of the horses are that he’s faced.

Two, Fearless is a good horse obviously. He was 3-4 wide throughout the race and seemed to make a sustained move on the second turn which is maybe why that final quarter fraction came up so slow. Beyer figures don’t factor in ground loss but I’d be interested to see what the TG numbers are for Fearless vs Mo Donegal.

In addition to not factoring in ground lost, I also thought they didn't factor in internal fractions.

Also, one other thing about 12f races, particularly the Belmont Stakes. For all of those horse, it's their first (and likely only) time running 12f and so I would think that would make it difficult to determine what a "normal" race would look like for them at that distance. For example, whatever Jackie's Warrior's norm is in sprints, I can't have him run a 10f race and when the figure comes back weird, just assign his norm to it cause his 10f norm is not the same as his 6-7f norm, if that makes sense.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

In addition to not factoring in ground lost, I also thought they didn't factor in internal fractions.

Also, one other thing about 12f races, particularly the Belmont Stakes. For all of those horse, it's their first (and likely only) time running 12f and so I would think that would make it difficult to determine what a "normal" race would look like for them at that distance. For example, whatever Jackie's Warrior's norm is in sprints, I can't have him run a 10f race and when the figure comes back weird, just assign his norm to it cause his 10f norm is not the same as his 6-7f norm, if that makes sense.

King Lone Rock wolf whatever has been a route of ground a billion times...He is who we thought he is