Analyzing The Preakness

[Rupert Pupkin]

How many times in the past 30 years have the fractions been slower? These were the slowest fractions I can ever remember. Oxbow ran the half in :48 3/5. Let's look at the fractions over the last several years in the Preakness. Last year they went :47 3/5. The year before that :46 2/5, the year before that :46 4/5, the year before that :46 2/5, etc.

That being said, I still think the best horse won.

This was actually the slowest final time in the Preakness in 50 years. However that could be somewhat misleading because the track was on the slow side yesterday.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

This was actually the slowest final time in the Preakness in 50 years. However that could be somewhat misleading because the track was on the slow side yesterday.

When the surface of the track is very slow, the raw fractions will also be very slow.

Cheap claimers can run 21 and change at Turf Paradise because the surface is lightning fast.

Whenever you see a turf course get yielding, good horses can go 25 and change and 51 and change and easily get caught.

Like I said, the pace was a +4. That means the pace figure was 4 points faster than the final time figure.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

When the surface of the track is very slow, the raw fractions will also be very slow.

Cheap claimers can run 21 and change at Turf Paradise because the surface is lightning fast.

Whenever you see a turf course get yielding, good horses can go 25 and change and 51 and change and easily get caught.

Like I said, the pace was a +4. That means the pace figure was 4 points faster than the final time figure.

All that is true but the track wasn't all that slow yesterday. If you look at all the times and all the fractions yesterday at Pimlico and compare them to all the times and all the fractions of past Preakness days, the track yesterday was hardly slower than normal. You had that one route race yesterday where they went the half in :51, but there is no reason to think that was anything other than an aberration. Look at all the other route races yesterday. Look at all the sprint fractions yesterday compared to the sprint fractions last year on Preakness day at Pimlico. They were faster yesterday. If the track was so slow yesterday then why were the sprint fractions so fast and why were the final times of those sprint races faster than last year?

The Preakness fractions were ridiculously slow yesterday. If you ran those same horses there 20 times under those exact conditions, that is the slowest half you would ever see. The average half (under those exact track conditions would be somewhere around :47 2/5. That would be the average. If everyone gunned, they might go :46 2/5 or :46 3/5. If they let someone crawl alone on the lead (like yesterday), they would go :48 3/5. That would probably happen 1 time out of 20.

Beyer obviously thinks the track was very slow yesterday. He gave Oxbow a 106. I think that number is way too high but we all have different opinions.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Beyer obviously thinks the track was very slow yesterday. He gave Oxbow a 106. I think that number is way too high but we all have different opinions.

A Beyer figure is a final time figure.

The spread between the pace figure and final time figure is computerized. Algorithms.

On a 100 point scale, the pace figure for the Preakness is 4 points faster than the final time figure.

It doesn't matter if you think the race should get a 106 Beyer or a 96 Beyer...the pace figure will be a little faster than the final time.

If you want to see what an actual slow pace going 9.5 furlongs at Pimlico looks like, here's a chart of Friday's Pimlico Special:

http://www1.drf.com/drfPDFChartRaces...20130517&RN=12

This race was a -15. The very good Eighttofasttocatch went 49.91 for a half mile.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

A Beyer figure is a final time figure.

The spread between the pace figure and final time figure is computerized. Algorithms.

On a 100 point scale, the pace figure for the Preakness is 4 points faster than the final time figure.

It doesn't matter if you think the race should get a 106 Beyer or a 96 Beyer...the pace figure will be a little faster than the final time.

If you want to see what an actual slow pace going 9.5 furlongs at Pimlico looks like, here's a chart of Friday's Pimlico Special:

http://www1.drf.com/drfPDFChartRaces...20130517&RN=12

This race was a -15. The very good Eighttofasttocatch went 49.91 for a half mile.

I know Richards Kid is not what he used to be but he keeps finding paceless races, if he can catch a pace he could win at a big number.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

A Beyer figure is a final time figure.

The spread between the pace figure and final time figure is computerized. Algorithms.

On a 100 point scale, the pace figure for the Preakness is 4 points faster than the final time figure.

It doesn't matter if you think the race should get a 106 Beyer or a 96 Beyer...the pace figure will be a little faster than the final time.

If you want to see what an actual slow pace going 9.5 furlongs at Pimlico looks like, here's a chart of Friday's Pimlico Special:

http://www1.drf.com/drfPDFChartRaces...20130517&RN=12

This race was a -15. The very good Eighttofasttocatch went 49.91 for a half mile.

I understand that. My point about the Beyer figure was simply that the final time was so slow (the slowest final Preakness time in 50 year), that you would expect the Beyer to be really slow, unless Beyer felt that the track was really slow, which he obviously did.

Pimlico is obviously a much slower track than many other tracks. There is no debate about that. A horse like Zee Bros runs 1:08 and change at Santa Anita. At Pimlico, he doesn't break 1:10. We know that Pimlico is a slow track. I'm not comparing Pimlico to other tracks. I'm comparing the Preakness this year to other years. We know the track was slower yesterday than some past years but how much slower? Was the track slower than last year? Maybe, but if it was I don't think it was by much, maybe a couple of ticks. I think the pace was slow yesterday, but I think the best horse still won. If Goldencents would have gunned out there in :47 3/5, I think Stevens would have stalked (3-5 lengths back) and I think Oxbow still wins.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think the pace was slow yesterday,

A database that takes years and years of Pimlico races into account VS someone in California who pays attention to Pimlico maybe one weekend a year.

Enjoy betting Mylute in the future, since he closed from dead last, 10+ lengths back, to run third beaten about two lengths against that slow pace.

I had quite the romance with Mylute earlier in the year, he will give you a thrill on the turn and break your heart inside the 1/16th pole if you bet on him.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

A database that takes years and years of Pimlico races into account VS someone in California who pays attention to Pimlico maybe one weekend a year.

Enjoy betting Mylute in the future, since he closed from dead last, 10+ lengths back, to run third beaten about two lengths against that slow pace.

I had quite the romance with Mylute earlier in the year, he will give you a thrill on the turn and break your heart inside the 1/16th pole if you bet on him.

I'm just comparing the race and the day to past Preaknesses and past Preakness days. This was the slowest Preakness in 50 years. And it was one of the slowest paces in 50 years. That's not debatable. The only thing that is debatable is how much slower the track was yesterday compared to past Preakness days. If the track was in fact much slower yesterday than every other year, then maybe the pace and the final time were much better than they appeared.

With regard to Mylute, I'm not a fan. I wasn't impressed with his Derby race and I wasn't impressed with his Preakness race.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I understand that. My point about the Beyer figure was simply that the final time was so slow (the slowest final Preakness time in 50 year), that you would expect the Beyer to be really slow, unless Beyer felt that the track was really slow, which he obviously did.

Pimlico is obviously a much slower track than many other tracks. There is no debate about that. A horse like Zee Bros runs 1:08 and change at Santa Anita. At Pimlico, he doesn't break 1:10. We know that Pimlico is a slow track. I'm not comparing Pimlico to other tracks. I'm comparing the Preakness this year to other years. We know the track was slower yesterday than some past years but how much slower? Was the track slower than last year? Maybe, but if it was I don't think it was by much, maybe a couple of ticks. I think the pace was slow yesterday, but I think the best horse still won. If Goldencents would have gunned out there in :47 3/5, I think Stevens would have stalked (3-5 lengths back) and I think Oxbow still wins.

No runup at 6F at Pimlico. You routinely see horses ship in from Parx, etc with :22 first quarters run :24 or worse. There's literally 5 feet of runup. Compare that to Churchill, which is damn near a 6.25F race when you factor in the runup.

The 45.16 half he set yesterday is maybe the fastest I've ever seen there. I'd have to think with as slow as the track was yesterday that would be a +30... and he still won relatively easily. He's a serious sprinter.