BSF 'Doldrums': Figure Dives

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Yet another reason why Thoros kick the snot out of BSF. Do thoros get adjusted---very rarely and when they are its a small amount....Someone was asleep at the wheel on this number or the powers that be would like a higher price on SD going forward.

Thoros get adjusted at least as often, if not more, than Beyers. The adjustments are smaller mostly because the scale is a lot tighter. However, this adjustment is gigantic.

I remember the 2yo filly race that the Beyer was adjusted even more from Belmont this summer, but that one made a lot more sense.

[The Bid]

If you are going to put that much weight into those figures you should learn how to make them yourself.

Its a joke that any trainer would use those numbers to dictate how they train, or where they point a horse. If these guys dont know what they have in the barn without a black and white number they dont need to be training.

[Hickory Hill Hoff]

Originally Posted by The Bid

If you are going to put that much weight into those figures you should learn how to make them yourself.

Its a joke that any trainer would use those numbers to dictate how they train, or where they point a horse. If these guys dont know what they have in the barn without a black and white number they dont need to be training.

Figures mean little...unless your talking about the "opposite" sex
But then again...with true love, looks shouldn't matter
With horses, they still have to run a winning race...no matter what their "figure" was last time.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by The Bid

If you are going to put that much weight into those figures you should learn how to make them yourself.

Its a joke that any trainer would use those numbers to dictate how they train, or where they point a horse. If these guys dont know what they have in the barn without a black and white number they dont need to be training.

wasnt that air lord or something like that, like 90 to 72.

[Linny]

I don't disagree Cannon Shell. As a horseman you know more than most that it's a fine line between undertraining and overtraining. I think that far too many horses are considered Derby material and are ruined trying for an unreachable grail. I agree that the two race method isn't the best but look at how many of the top Derby colts are doing it this year. These are not "off the beaten path" colts and in the case of Ravel, not horses with much 2yo foundation either.
From time to time I see horses in "Derby preps" who really don't look like strong Derby horses. As a handicapper, I assume that a race like the Florida Derby or the Lane's End (or whatever) IS their Derby. It's the big money race they want with this horse. While others are pointing for Churchill, they are pointin got that one race.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Linny

From time to time I see horses in "Derby preps" who really don't look like strong Derby horses. As a handicapper, I assume that a race like the Florida Derby or the Lane's End (or whatever) IS their Derby. It's the big money race they want with this horse. While others are pointing for Churchill, they are pointin got that one race.

Very true

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem with the plan is that only one guy is going to win and most of the rest of the horses are going to turn out to be finished by the first Sunday in May. If they worried more about winning the races at hand instead of worrying about "peaking" on Derby day, they would be much better off. It is impossible to keep a horse from peaking unless you undertrain them, which leads to injuries which is why the attrition rate is so high among three year olds after the Derby. The trend toward fewer preps is a bad one.

Good to read that!

Originally Posted by Linny

I don't disagree Cannon Shell. As a horseman you know more than most that it's a fine line between undertraining and overtraining. I think that far too many horses are considered Derby material and are ruined trying for an unreachable grail. I agree that the two race method isn't the best but look at how many of the top Derby colts are doing it this year. These are not "off the beaten path" colts and in the case of Ravel, not horses with much 2yo foundation either.

Just because several top colts are being handled that way this year doesn't mean it's a successful route to the Derby. To some degree, Barbaro legitimized the 2-prep route, even though if I remember correctly, he had a technical "3rd prep" just after the New Year. It's suddenly fashionable to go lightly into the Derby. It remains to be seen whether other horses can duplicate Barbaro's Derby result with that kind of light 3-yr-old racing. IMO, it will take another vastly superior horse to win going that route.

--Dunbar

[King Glorious]

I remember when they gave Smarty Jones a Preakness number that a lot of people thought was too low. But it "fit" with his previous numbers. Perhaps his previous numbers had been too low and it through everything out of wack. If u start wrong, u are going to end wrong. Right?

This whole revision based on next outs is extremely ridiculous. I've always been told that it's impossible to compare races from different days and run on different tracks and under different conditions and that's where speed figures come into play. But then when they look at a totally different race with tons of different variables involved to tell me how fast a PREVIOUS race was, that's too much for me. A system should be able to be used by anyone if they know the system and they should all be able to come up with the same number. I mean, all of us, if we add 2+2, should come up with 4. Now that's a system. This other stuff is not a system. I don't know what it is. The thing I've always tried to do is not look for a horse with high numbers because I don't know how they come about the numbers. What I look for is a consistency in the numbers, with the hope that whatever quacky way they come up with them, that they are consistent in their approach.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I remember when they gave Smarty Jones a Preakness number that a lot of people thought was too low. But it "fit" with his previous numbers. Perhaps his previous numbers had been too low and it through everything out of wack. If u start wrong, u are going to end wrong. Right?

This whole revision based on next outs is extremely ridiculous. I've always been told that it's impossible to compare races from different days and run on different tracks and under different conditions and that's where speed figures come into play. But then when they look at a totally different race with tons of different variables involved to tell me how fast a PREVIOUS race was, that's too much for me. A system should be able to be used by anyone if they know the system and they should all be able to come up with the same number. I mean, all of us, if we add 2+2, should come up with 4. Now that's a system. This other stuff is not a system. I don't know what it is. The thing I've always tried to do is not look for a horse with high numbers because I don't know how they come about the numbers. What I look for is a consistency in the numbers, with the hope that whatever quacky way they come up with them, that they are consistent in their approach.

I'm just curious as to how that makes any sense...

If you're questioning how they came up with the figures, how can you be concerned with the former but trust that they're consistent?

There are going to be errors and I'd rather they correct their errors then let them stay incorrect. Maybe that's just me...

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I remember when they gave Smarty Jones a Preakness number that a lot of people thought was too low. But it "fit" with his previous numbers. Perhaps his previous numbers had been too low and it through everything out of wack. If u start wrong, u are going to end wrong. Right?

This whole revision based on next outs is extremely ridiculous. I've always been told that it's impossible to compare races from different days and run on different tracks and under different conditions and that's where speed figures come into play. But then when they look at a totally different race with tons of different variables involved to tell me how fast a PREVIOUS race was, that's too much for me. A system should be able to be used by anyone if they know the system and they should all be able to come up with the same number. I mean, all of us, if we add 2+2, should come up with 4. Now that's a system. This other stuff is not a system. I don't know what it is. The thing I've always tried to do is not look for a horse with high numbers because I don't know how they come about the numbers. What I look for is a consistency in the numbers, with the hope that whatever quacky way they come up with them, that they are consistent in their approach.

First of all, the Smarty Jones Preakness number was a 118. Even delusional Smarty Jones fans didn't think that was too low ( not that most of them can read ).

But, more importantly, MAKE YOUR OWN FIGURES. Until you do so, and get at least some real life perspective on the difficulties involved in that, your continued bashing of Beyer figures carries absolutely zero weight. You only do yourself a disservice by criticizing ANYTHING from such an enormous position of weakness.

[ArlJim78]

First thought;

Originally Posted by King Glorious

A system should be able to be used by anyone if they know the system and they should all be able to come up with the same number. I mean, all of us, if we add 2+2, should come up with 4. Now that's a system. This other stuff is not a system. I don't know what it is.

Very next post;

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I think that overall, the system itself is a good one.

Just a suggestion, maybe you might want to be consistent in your own thoughts, and figure out what you're trying to say before posting.
Someone suggested trying to make your own figures. That would be a great idea because you would soon find out what the issues are that create these problems. Another suggestion I have is since you seem to like raw times so much, and since they are universally available, just use the raw times and let everyone else work with these quacky figure systems.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

This whole revision based on next outs is extremely ridiculous. I've always been told that it's impossible to compare races from different days and run on different tracks and under different conditions and that's where speed figures come into play. But then when they look at a totally different race with tons of different variables involved to tell me how fast a PREVIOUS race was, that's too much for me.

I agree that revising based on next outs is ridiculous, but perhaps for a different reason than you. Beyer figs have always used past races to get some kind of baseline for the expected performance in the next race. That's okay, IMO, because it is not based on a single horse's performance, but rather every horse in the race. What I don't like about the Summer Doldrum's revision is (1) it appears to be primarily due to the poor showing by a single horse in its next out, and (2) it smacks of backfitting, which makes all the figs more suspect.

In essense, revising that figure from a month ago downward based on how the horse ran this weekend is admitting that Beyer had no clue what kind of figure the horse ran 3 weeks ago. It would be far better to just admit that, instead of assigning it a number based on how it ran 4 (?) weeks later.

--Dunbar

[Thoroughbred Fan]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Thoros get adjusted at least as often, if not more, than Beyers. The adjustments are smaller mostly because the scale is a lot tighter. However, this adjustment is gigantic.

I remember the 2yo filly race that the Beyer was adjusted even more from Belmont this summer, but that one made a lot more sense.

The adjustment in question was to the Magical Ride race. I think it was originally a 102 and is now int he 80's.