Hence has 3rd highest BSF of Derby horses

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by philcski

The problem with this is the edge if you thought the figure was too low (like me) is now gone, going into the biggest stage of the year. I appreciate the figuremaker admitting their error, but revising previous figures seems like it is not the original objective of the Beyer speed figures.

Phil the only objective is to make a good fig either 5 minutes after the card is done or 5 months later. It's Sunland how many 90+ races they get there a year

[Hickory Hill Hoff]

I liked him as a longshot before the fig change, this may make him the "now" horse in the derby

[Alabama Stakes]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Phil the only objective is to make a good fig either 5 minutes after the card is done or 5 months later. It's Sunland how many 90+ races they get there a year

How many months later are they gonna lower that 119
They gave send it in @ aqueduct for that 2:02 + race ?

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Alabama Stakes

How many months later are they gonna lower that 119
They gave send it in @ aqueduct for that 2:02 + race ?

Never.

[Alabama Stakes]

Nice to see he was able to get that last quarter 30 seconds more than frosted got a mile last year

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Alabama Stakes

Nice to see he was able to get that last quarter 30 seconds more than frosted got a mile last year

The only way to reasonably deal with your observation is to downplay everything that ran that day at that track, especially that race and the Wood.

[cakes44]

I'm with Phil here. Isn't one of Beyer's claims that the BSFs are not a predictor on future outcomes? If that is the case, then why would they be changed based on future outcomes?

[Port Conway Lane]

On 2/25 in the Risen Star Stakes Girvin got a 93 beyer ( 1:43.08 ) while Honorable Duty, winner of the Mineshaft got a 97 when running 1:43.03.
How does this figure?

[philcski]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Phil the only objective is to make a good fig either 5 minutes after the card is done or 5 months later. It's Sunland how many 90+ races they get there a year

Disagree- the number of 90+ races they have is irrelevant. Its just math. In fact it should be one of the easiest places to make figures since they run a lot of similar races at common distances. What happens in future starts should have no bearing on the number decided on at the time of printing.

[King Glorious]

Dunbar, Philski, and Cakes, I agree with you guys 100%.

I don't know how this really relates but I remember back in 2004 there were several 9f races run at Belmont Park over the course of several months. All finished in the same time and all got the same figure. Two of the horses were Ghostzapper and Oratory. I have been skeptical since.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Dunbar, Philski, and Cakes, I agree with you guys 100%.

I don't know how this really relates but I remember back in 2004 there were several 9f races run at Belmont Park over the course of several months. All finished in the same time and all got the same figure. Two of the horses were Ghostzapper and Oratory. I have been skeptical since.

KG, why would that would make you skeptical? Tracks play differently on different days, we all know that. On top of that, horses don't run the same every time.

My problem (and I think philski's and cakes's, too) with the new Hence fig is that I think a BSF should represent the best estimate of the horse's speed from info available at the time of that race. I can see where if the fig was extremely hard to make (e.g., fast changing weather conditions during the day, no other routes or no other sprints) you might want to revisit a number that seems out of whack. If there were issues like that with the Sunland Derby, I didn't see them mentioned. Revisiting the number primarily because 2 horses out of the race ran way bigger figs in subsequent races seems like blatant backfitting.

In general, I'm a big fan of the BSF's. I'm not a fan of adjusting previous figs based on subsequent performances.

[King Glorious]

I agree with you. I would actually look at it in a different way. Without getting into how much of a tool the figures should be when it comes to handicapping or how big an influence they should have on an individual in making choices, the reality is that they do play a part. With that in mind, publishing figures that they may change later based on subsequent performance could be seen in some ways as manipulating the market.

I think the process of changing figure stinks all the way around. I wish they would say here is what the figure is and leave it at that. If it comes out unusually high or low, so be it. Let the handicappers figure out why. Sort of like in track and field. You get times or marks made in strong winds or at altitudes. Records will show that but won't alter the times. Obviously not an apples to apples comparison but I'd rather that than being told from race to race that what I saw was better or worse than what you told me I saw last week.