Weekend Beyers: Blind Luck 104; Sidney's 100; AmLion 98

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Speed figures measure final time. However, on synthetics, final time is often irrelevant. The pace is so slow, especially in routes, that horses are never going to run figures like they do on dirt.

I posted this in another thread, but the figures for the 9F races at Aqueduct on Saturday seem too high, for the reason quoted above. Given the slow pace of each, the final time of both races seemed a little slow for how the track was overall playing Saturday.

Eskendereya was very impressive, especially in comparison to the slow come home time for the Excelsior, but both of these races were contested in the manner that we often see in turf/synthetic races and typically result in final figures slower than the actual performance may warrant.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I posted this in another thread, but the figures for the 9F races at Aqueduct on Saturday seem too high, for the reason quoted above. Given the slow pace of each, the final time of both races seemed a little slow for how the track was overall playing Saturday.

Eskendereya was very impressive, especially in comparison to the slow come home time for the Excelsior, but both of these races were contested in the manner that we often see in turf/synthetic races and typically result in final figures slower than the actual performance may warrant.

I would disagree because for the Excelsior, the pace was exactly what I would have predicted for the final time. I don't think it was slow at all for that track, just average.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I would disagree because for the Excelsior, the pace was exactly what I would have predicted for the final time. I don't think it was slow at all for that track, just average.

They were both paceless races on paper, and played that way out on the track. The Excelsior was particularly ugly through the stretch, as evidenced by what visually appeared to be Nite Light "coming again" when he was empty on the turn. To justify the Wood figure, it appears that projections were partly made off of what the Excelsior participants normally run - a tough to justify projection based on the way that race played out on the track.

There were two 7F races that were run in 1:21 and change, and NY-bred MSW horses cut a 44 and change half, so the track was not slow. The final time of the Wood was the third slowest in the past 14 years; that's largely a function of the early pace. Still, it gets a higher figure than either the Carter or Bay Shore, which were run in pretty representative time. Maybe, we'll have to agree to disagree but I don't think the figures for the two-turn races make sense.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

They were both paceless races on paper, and played that way out on the track. The Excelsior was particularly ugly through the stretch, as evidenced by what visually appeared to be Nite Light "coming again" when he was empty on the turn. To justify the Wood figure, it appears that projections were partly made off of what the Excelsior participants normally run - a tough to justify projection based on the way that race played out on the track.

There were two 7F races that were run in 1:21 and change, and NY-bred MSW horses cut a 44 and change half, so the track was not slow. The final time of the Wood was the third slowest in the past 14 years; that's largely a function of the early pace. Still, it gets a higher figure than either the Carter or Bay Shore, which were run in pretty representative time. Maybe, we'll have to agree to disagree but I don't think the figures for the two-turn races make sense.

Fair enough, but one thing I know is that both 9f routes, in relation to final time, were not paceless. The Wood was mildly slow on raw figures, and the older horses were exactly dead on.

On raw times, the Excelsior had a raw pace figure (Beyer Scale) of 92 and a raw speed figure of 92. The Wood had a raw pace figure of 95 and a speed figure of 105. I'm using the 6f time for the pace calls.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Fair enough, but one thing I know is that both 9f routes, in relation to final time, were not paceless. The Wood was mildly slow on raw figures, and the older horses were exactly dead on.

On raw times, the Excelsior had a raw pace figure (Beyer Scale) of 92 and a raw speed figure of 92. The Wood had a raw pace figure of 95 and a speed figure of 105. I'm using the 6f time for the pace calls.

I think part of it is people don't realize that the Aqueduct 6F timer at 9F is a little late and when 1:13 comes up on the screen it "feels" slow, especially compared to the 1-turn 9F at Belmont.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by philcski

I think part of it is people don't realize that the Aqueduct 6F timer at 9F is a little late and when 1:13 comes up on the screen it "feels" slow, especially compared to the 1-turn 9F at Belmont.

Huh??? I've never heard of timer problems at Aqueduct on the main track. The turf course - where races are hand-timed, yes, but never the main track.

The pace is what it is, no matter when it comes up on the screen. A half in 49.1 and 6F in 1:13+ is slow for a grade I dirt race, whether contested around one or two turns. If you don't believe me, listen to Mike Hushion who described the Excelsior in tomorrow's DRF as a "paceless race." The same article described the pace of the Wood as "excruciatingly slow."

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Huh??? I've never heard of timer problems at Aqueduct on the main track. The turf course - where races are hand-timed, yes, but never the main track.

The pace is what it is, no matter when it comes up on the screen. A half in 49.1 and 6F in 1:13+ is slow for a grade I dirt race, whether contested around one or two turns. If you don't believe me, listen to Mike Hushion who described the Excelsior in tomorrow's DRF as a "paceless race." The same article described the pace of the Wood as "excruciatingly slow."

I think I'd rather listen to people that bet. They are off base on this one. Ask them what the average winning pace time is for 9f at Aqueduct. I guarantee Mike Hushion doesn't have a clue. When you normalize the final time, the average final time for the winner of 9f races in New York are as follows:

Aqu-ID, 73.85
Bel, 74.09
Aqu, 74.69
Sar, 73.89

You think he, or the writer of the article, know that the 6f pace times for 9f races at Aqueduct are routinely the slowest in New York by an average of nearly 4/5ths of a second? I don't track half mile times in routes, but I know the difference would be even greater, more than a full second.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I would disagree because for the Excelsior, the pace was exactly what I would have predicted for the final time. I don't think it was slow at all for that track, just average.

The Excelsior was one FUNKY race. This was the, at least, 3rd time on Saturday that a horse made a late run on the inside to get 2nd, when it appeared hopelessly beaten earlier, and the outside horse appeared to be running on quick sand.