Street Sense Derby Beyer: 110

[tector]

DrugS--I thought Sedgefield was a real surprise, since, while not nearly as impressively as HS, he was basically the "next horse" anywhere near the front that managed to stick around at the end. I don't know if the Preakness is the best move for him--I think if they pick their spots, he could be a nice horse. Coming back in 2 weeks against the top three, plus the new shooters, doesn't seem like a formula for success, however.

Originally Posted by philcski

They went 46 1/5 to the half. That is NOT favorable to frontrunners at a mile and a quarter.

The rest of the pace was beaten 37, 45, and 52 lengths. 'Nuff said.

I mentioned the early pace was fast in my original post; should have referenced that to the 1/2 mile time. But it was not brutal, such as 45+ would be. And that is why I asked him if he looked at pace differently that I.

Is the 1/2 mile time more important than the 3/4? Or vice versa? Or they both are? How do you look at this? That is why I asked it the way I did. Still not getting much of a response on this.

[jjf1031]

Originally Posted by sumitas

The pace was way fast enough to knock most of the horses out of the race in the stretch. It was a fearless run and ride. It's gonna take a lot of horse to beat SS the next two.

I agree. Believe Hard Spun might take a backward step after strong work Derby week and hard run in race itself. FFC will also make the pace lively in Preakness. SS will be tough to down and from a wagering standpoint while Chelokee intrigues me I feel he will be seriously overbet due to being a new face and the semi-tough trip in Florida derby.

I liked NBLS and see no excuse for his Derby run as if he had any horse he could have kept SS pinned down during his run near quarter pole. Is Tagg bringing him back for the Belimont? Likes the track and maybe pace scenario we usually get in Belmont will help him be a threat to SS

[cmorioles]

That was not a moderate pace by any means. Comparing fractions from year to year is futile, as the track can be vastly different. Sure, the Derby is usually run at a faster clip, but the horses in front usually finish way, way, way behind.

What was War Emblem's pace? That should give you an idea of the type pace needed to win up front.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by easy goer

I mentioned the early pace was fast in my original post; should have referenced that to the 1/2 mile time. But it was not brutal, such as 45+ would be. And that is why I asked him if he looked at pace differently that I.

Is the 1/2 mile time more important than the 3/4? Or vice versa? Or they both are? How do you look at this? That is why I asked it the way I did. Still not getting much of a response on this.

Both are obviously important, but it always seems like the no-hope frontrunners burn up after 4F (the most recent examples being Songandaprayer, Brancusi, and Keyed Entry.) It's more important to see what the other horses around him did than the ACTUAL time, b/c the track obviously differs from year to year. He was the only frontrunner still breathing at the end, and the other 3 in the top 4 came from wayyyyyyyy back.

Originally Posted by cmorioles

That was not a moderate pace by any means. Comparing fractions from year to year is futile, as the track can be vastly different. Sure, the Derby is usually run at a faster clip, but the horses in front usually finish way, way, way behind.

What was War Emblem's pace? That should give you an idea of the type pace needed to win up front.

:47 and change or something if I recall?

His beyers at Churchill are just much faster than anywhere else. May just be a Churchill loving horse. If he can run a big number elsewhere I will be a believer, but he has never done it. His 108 and a 110 were both at Churchill, where he appears to be a different horse.

[tector]

46 and 1 is a moderate pace in 1.25 mile race NOT run on the old asphalt tracks of SoCal? You're kidding, right?

Originally Posted by cmorioles

What was War Emblem's pace? That should give you an idea of the type pace needed to win up front.

47+, if memory serves. I think so, because I recall the Preakness went notably faster in like 45+. I think his derby 3/4 was 1.11 but just guessing. Its an easy look up obviously.

Only one front runner has won w/ a sub 1.10 that is Spend a Buck. There are a few that have won with 1.10+. From my recollection 1.11+ is just about ideal for a front runner.

If this pace was so torrid why did HS finish well? He finished up in 25.4 which is fairly strong for a front runner.

Part my thinking is that DrugS is right about one thing: This is a poor class. I mean, most of them died after going a mile under a pace that was fast-then moderate. Cowtown, Teuf, Liquidity....These horses obviously are not meant for 10f. So I think he's right about the overall crop in general.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by easy goer

47+, if memory serves. I think so, because I recall the Preakness went notably faster in like 45+. I think his derby 3/4 was 1.11 but just guessing. Its an easy look up obviously.

Only one front runner has won w/ a sub 1.10 that is Spend a Buck. There are a few that have won with 1.10+. From my recollection 1.11+ is just about ideal for a front runner.

If this pace was so torrid why did HS finish well? He finished up in 25.4 which is fairly strong for a front runner.

Part my thinking is that DrugS is right about one thing: This is a poor class. I mean, most of them died after going a mile under a pace that was fast-then moderate. Cowtown, Teuf, Liquidity....These horses obviously are not meant for 10f. So I think he's right about the overall crop in general.

Because he's a good horse that's built to go the distance.

If you broke down the fractions of all of the preps, he was the ONLY horse to run a :23 opening quarter AND get the final 3F in less than :38.

[ninetoone]

War Emblem: 47 flat & 1:11 & 3

Here's war emblems fractions:

23.25, 47.04, 1:11.75, 1:36.70, 2:01.13 [note: unofficial; a cut from the internet]

Hard Spun got the mile in what 1.37 flat? So you can see he's 2 length back of War Emblem here (assuming same surface, trip).

But the difference? War Emblem can flat out close under this pace. WE finished in 24.4 vs HS 25.4. I.e. WE can run as fast as SS from the front end of a moderate pace.

You can argue that this surface was different etc. ANd I wont dispute that you can. We all can till we're blue in the face. But one thing I think can be said, clearly a 1.11.75 pace was just fine for WE; no matter what you think of his fractions, he finished in 24.4 which is obviously extremely good for a front runner.

Therefore, undeniably a 1.11.75 pace was fine for War Emblem.

Originally Posted by philcski

Because he's a good horse that's built to go the distance.

If you broke down the fractions of all of the preps, he was the ONLY horse to run a :23 opening quarter AND get the final 3F in less than :38.

RIght so the questions remains, and may remain unresolvable:

a) Was the pace moderate and the rest of the front runners quite bad; OR

b) THe pace was hot, and HS was a superior horse to survive.

Right? Are those the two choices?

My armchair analysis, having never been around horses and seeing this stuff on tv and crunching numbers like a nerd is.....A.

But Im interested in what YOU think.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by easy goer

Here's war emblems fractions:

23.25, 47.04, 1:11.75, 1:36.70, 2:01.13 [note: unofficial; a cut from the internet]

Hard Spun got the mile in what 1.37 flat? So you can see he's 2 length back of War Emblem here (assuming same surface, trip).

But the difference? War Emblem can flat out close under this pace. WE finished in 24.4 vs HS 25.4. I.e. WE can run as fast as SS from the front end of a moderate pace.

You can argue that this surface was different etc. ANd I wont dispute that you can. We all can till we're blue in the face. But one thing I think can be said, clearly a 1.11.75 pace was just fine for WE; no matter what you think of his fractions, he finished in 24.4 which is obviously extremely good for a front runner.

Therefore, undeniably a 1.11.75 pace was fine for War Emblem.

Good analysis. I'd be lying if I said I have any idea how the track was playing Derby Day '02. I think you're understimating the difference between going 46 1/5 and 47 flat in a mile and a quarter race, however.

Originally Posted by easy goer

RIght so the questions remains, and may remain unresolvable:

a) Was the pace moderate and the rest of the front runners quite bad; OR

b) THe pace was hot, and HS was a superior horse to survive.

Right? Are those the two choices?

My armchair analysis, having never been around horses and seeing this stuff on tv and crunching numbers like a nerd is.....A.

But Im interested in what YOU think.

I vote B. That being said... Street Sense over Hard Spun had been my exacta for 6 weeks, so I was quite happy with the results.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by tector

DrugS--I thought Sedgefield was a real surprise, since, while not nearly as impressively as HS, he was basically the "next horse" anywhere near the front that managed to stick around at the end. I don't know if the Preakness is the best move for him--I think if they pick their spots, he could be a nice horse. Coming back in 2 weeks against the top three, plus the new shooters, doesn't seem like a formula for success, however.

he rode the rail the WHOLE way, I hate him next time he runs

[10 pnt move up]

the pace was quick early and then slowed down, pretty typical of the senario for a closer to win, hard spun ran very well, i think he is a pretty good horse. I dont think however that on the square he will beat street sense.

[tector]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

he rode the rail the WHOLE way, I hate him next time he runs

Well, as my comments indicate, I wouldn't use him either. I don't think, however, that the rail was as almighty as you suggest, turning a turdball into a horse that bested many much more highly touted horses. Curlin, unlike most, managed to finish well ahead of Sedgefield, and without the gift of The Great Rail--but he's likely a superiour animal. My point was that Sedgefield might be a nice horse--but not of the quality of the top three, and would likely be better off dodging them and the new shooters in 2 weeks.