Originally Posted by tector
I saw the other thread about the final time (2:04.45). In that thread this fact gave rise to the expectation that the BSF should be "low" (sub-100). Apparently that idea has bled over here.
Leading up to today's race ESPN Classic was showing various "classic" Derbies. I happened to watch the episode about 1989 (which was only the second Derby I was able to bet). You remember 1989...Sunday Silence over Easy Goer? You know...two of the horses enshrined in that place across the street from Saratoga?
The final time was 2:05.
Now, I have no idea if this 104 figure from today is reasonable. So far most of what I have read here, however, is complete, useless jerking off. This is just one instance where Drugs is sorely missed, since I could at least count on a sane (yes, sane) analysis of such a thing from him. But in lieu of that, let me make a couple of epistemological points.
Speed figures are created by a mix of art and science--and that mixture varies by how many variables change during the course of the data to be analyzed (i.e. the final times from the race card being "figured"). When Beyer declared speed figures to be "the way, the truth and the light" many years ago (early 70s), he basically had in mind analyzing times from fast dirt surfaces. Data derived from such races have the largest "science" component--you generally don't have to do much tinkering to the analysis.
But, alas, people want figures for races not run under such ideal conditions. So you have to derive figures for race cards where the dirt track undergoes substantial changes during the course of the card, most frequently due to weather--like today. And people want figures for turf races, which (i) usually offer smaller data sets and (ii) tend to be run substantially differently than dirt races. And now we have syn races, which (to varying degrees, depending on the specific artificial surface) also are not run like typical dirt-fast races.
My point is this: when you get way from fast dirt races, you are adding more variables which require comparatively more interpretative "art" and thus less "science". It can't be helped--tweaked, maybe, but essentially there has to be a wider range of discretion employed. It is as simple as that.
If you want absolute (and false) certainty, go to church, not a race track. Read the Bible, not the DRF. But it is childish to assume that people are deliberately "cooking" the figs for some nefarious reason--why would Beyer do this? He's already advanced the arguments that this a mediocre group of horses, and (many, many times) that American breeders have outsmarted themselves over the past 40 years or so, creating a breed that lacks the requisite stamina to compete at "classic" distances. I think he'd like figures that confirm his hypothesis, not over-inflated ones. Moreover, figures are not astrophysics--relatively average folks can make there own and expose obviously artificially inflated figs, at least if it happens on a regular basis. In modern terminology, figs are the product of an "open source" process that anyone can duplicate. Given that, there is only so much BS you can pull off every so often and still get away with it.
So if somebody--taking into account the obviously variable conditions affecting CD today--makes a good empirical case for fig inflation, I'll be happy to consider it. But I haven't seen anything like that here.
Personally, I pretty much toss all figs from race cards like today's at CD--the data set is just subject to too many variables. But that is not the same as questioning the good faith of those who try to make such figs. People do the best they can, and you can use it or not. I am much more likely to give more weight to my own visual impressions (also highly imprecise) and put a big asterisk next to the whole frigging mess.
Next race.
|
05-02-2010, 10:00 AM
Hybrid Mode
