Noble's Promise: Did Willie Cost him at least a placing?

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by philcski

The horse wasn't good enough at a mile and a quarter, plain and simple. No shame in that, he wasn't built for that trip. The trip he got wasn't materially different from that of the winner, they both moved at the same time from 3rd and 4th, and the winner beat him by six lengths over the last quarter mile. He staggered home the last quarter and got swallowed up by the closers... who encountered trip trouble or they might have run him down even earlier. Paddy and Ice Box both got stopped in the stretch.

I don't think this is a fair representation. NP was the only horse to run early (other than the speed), passing a number of horses to get into third, while SS was safely behind him. He also battled SS in the stretch before that one dropped him. Now, how many times is a horse supposed to run in a race? The pacesetters absolutely collapsed. This horse chased them, running into a fast 1st and 2nd split, then is used to run by them, then duels with the winner, who had a garden inside trip. And, the best you can offer is that Paddy, who was the benefit of all this got stopped in the stretch. Or that Ice Box got stopped? Consider this: what happens if Ice Box doesn't get stopped and is forced to make the same extended run that LaL and MMFM did? You think there's just a wee bit chance he levels off the way they did? Think about it: he's not that good. NP put in the best effort in the race given the setup. Give him SS' trip and he's right there.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Phil-

Is it fair to say that moving early changed the dynamics of the race to his detriment and to the benefit of the winner?

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Let me clarify what I mean by that last post. If he waits, lets say he drafts behind the speed for another 1/16th of a mile until the top of the stretch, he can wait for the rail to open up as the speed holds on a little longer. Does the winner have to wait then or go wide? Does he get into traffic problems and possibly get into a mucky situation with paddy oprado and the rest of the oncoming stampede all of the while giving Nobles promise a clear run on a track he clearly relished?

I don't think he beats ice box either way. My point is that the race would have most likely changed.

No.

The horse stopped late, plain and simple. He couldn't get a mile and a quarter. So what, it happens. Pedigree isn't an exact science but some inferences can be made on what horses will prefer to do. I don't know how anyone can argue that when a horse gets beat by 6-7 lengths in two furlongs without any trouble that it would have been different if he waited 6 more seconds to give him everything he's got.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I don't think this is a fair representation. NP was the only horse to run early (other than the speed), passing a number of horses to get into third, while SS was safely behind him. He also battled SS in the stretch before that one dropped him. Now, how many times is a horse supposed to run in a race? The pacesetters absolutely collapsed. This horse chased them, running into a fast 1st and 2nd split, then is used to run by them, then duels with the winner, who had a garden inside trip. And, the best you can offer is that Paddy, who was the benefit of all this got stopped in the stretch. Or that Ice Box got stopped? Consider this: what happens if Ice Box doesn't get stopped and is forced to make the same extended run that LaL and MMFM did? You think there's just a wee bit chance he levels off the way they did? Think about it: he's not that good. NP put in the best effort in the race given the setup. Give him SS' trip and he's right there.

Holy mother of God. Give it up. The horse I said would hit the board at 12-1 and you called a plug went by the horse I said wouldn't get the distance no matter what like he was standing still. Watch the overhead- which we have the benefit of like once a year- the trip between the 4 and the 3 was virtually identical. He was behind him by a length at MOST the whole race. You cannot make the argument that he was going to be any better than what he finished. You are nuts if you think that Ice Box actually benefited from getting stopped, that is the silliest argument of all.

Listen- you want this horse to be good. I get that. He is good. He just isn't a Derby horse, so what... it's a $10,000 buy by a sire that doesn't have stamina. It's a dream come true that they even made it this far. I hope for the sake of the horse they back him up and sprint.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by philcski

No.

The horse stopped late, plain and simple. He couldn't get a mile and a quarter. So what, it happens. Pedigree isn't an exact science but some inferences can be made on what horses will prefer to do. I don't know how anyone can argue that when a horse gets beat by 6-7 lengths in two furlongs without any trouble that it would have been different if he waited 6 more seconds to give him everything he's got.

I hear you and you may very well be right. I just think that in a race like the derby, especially the way this one set up, that the premature move could have had a huge impact on the way this race was run in the stretch. There is no denying that the winner got the ultimate trip. What if he has to check or hesitate on the turn? Does he still beat NP by 6-7 lengths?

[Danzig]

i don't think there's any way willie was staying in the top three with that horse. he's a good horse, but it was just too far for him. same finish position as in the arkansas derby.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I hear you and you may very well be right. I just think that in a race like the derby, especially the way this one set up, that the premature move could have had a huge impact on the way this race was run in the stretch. There is no denying that the winner got the ultimate trip. What if he has to check or hesitate on the turn? Does he still beat NP by 6-7 lengths?

No... only 5 1/2 lengths.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by philcski

No... only 5 1/2 lengths.

LOL

I'm giving up my hypothesis. On to Pimlico...and the crackheads.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

LOL

I'm giving up my hypothesis. On to Pimlico...and the crackheads.

LOL

Sorry for being a smartass.

I'm thinking about driving up. Would be the first missed Preakness since 1996 for me if I don't. Are you going?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by philcski

LOL

Sorry for being a smartass.

I'm thinking about driving up. Would be the first missed Preakness since 1996 for me if I don't. Are you going?

strongly considering. Probably 60-40 to go. Let me know if you decide to go.

Those pick 4's, none of which i hit, were quite hittable and quite large. Always depressing after the fact.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

strongly considering. Probably 60-40 to go. Let me know if you decide to go.

Those pick 4's, none of which i hit, were quite hittable and quite large. Always depressing after the fact.

Agreed. I bet one race all day, despite being at CD from the 8th on- it was a very hectic and not very enjoyable for most of the day. Don't know if I would have come up with General Quarters in the pick 4 though, even if I went thin in the Derby.

Trying to talk the wife into it. We will let you know.

[ateamstupid]

Approximate internal fractions, FWIW:

Super Saver: 23.53, 47.31, 1:11.64, 1:37.90, 2:04.45 (:26.55 last 1/4)
Noble's Promise: 23.57, 47.06, 1:11.15, 1:37.65, 2:05.43 (:27.78 last 1/4)

[philcski]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Approximate internal fractions, FWIW:

Super Saver: 23.53, 47.31, 1:11.64, 1:37.90, 2:04.45 (:26.55 last 1/4)
Noble's Promise: 23.57, 47.06, 1:11.15, 1:37.65, 2:05.43 (:27.78 last 1/4)

Time doesn't MATTER unless you're in JAIL.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by philcski

Time doesn't MATTER unless you're in JAIL.

Putting the Derby aside for a second, this is what I don't get about the dude's analysis. He talks about how so and so made "this run" and "that move" but if you completely ignore fractions, how the hell do you know if a horse was really accelerating or if the others were slowing down? For instance, sometimes in races (especially routes), a horse or two will separate from the field early, then three or four horses will catch up quickly down the backstretch. This doesn't make sense visually until you see that the fractions were something like :23 and :49. If horses get closer during a slow quarter after being far behind during a fast one, that doesn't mean they were making an early move, nor should they be given extra credit if they win with "another" move.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Look, the dude isn't much of a jock and I'm describing an advanced move. It just pains me to see this horse repeatedly ridden wrong and, as a result, typecast as a hanger or distance challenged.

"I was comfortable and moving nicely. The 10 horse (Paddy O’Prado) kind of stopped in front of me, then I gained the lead and he responded nicely for me. The rest was all (Calvin) Borel. He had the horse. Obviously distance is going to be the question with this horse. He’ll be a top 3-year-old and I’m sure (trainer) Kenny (McPeek) will spot him around correctly."-WILLIE MARTINEZ

Fat Boy has a confidently-condescending style (a popular choice,) but all the facts point away from his conclusions about the horse's ability to get 10f.

[brianwspencer]

In response to dala's subject line -- no, Cuvee did.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ibet2win

In the wrong hands? What a ridiculous thing to say. Lukas is a hall of famer who was leading money winner for like 10 years straight.....AND who do you think trained Todd Pletcher??????

This is a complete fallacy. Just because Pletcher worked for Lukas, that doesn't mean that Lukas taught him how to train. Pletcher was already a competent horseman and that is why Lukas hired him. I do give Lukas credit for having a good eye for talent and always hiring extremely competent assistants. When Lukas had strings all over the country, he almost always had excellent assistants that were capable of training the horses on their own.

Anyway, Pletcher trains nothing like Lukas. His philosophy is totally different from Lukas. They are polar opposites. If you listen to interviews with any of Lukas' former assistants, they are always asked what they learned from Lukas. You will notice that they never mentiong learning anything about training. When Kiaran McLaughlin was asked what he learned from Lukas, he said that he learned how to get owners and that type of thing. When Pletcher was asked the question, he said that he learned alot about organizational skills and how to run a big operation.

You will never hear any of those guys say that they learned anything about training from Lukas.

I totally agree with Ateam about Lukas. I know that you probably think Lukas' results speak for themselves but if you want to make that argument then you have to look at his results over the last 5 years also. He probably has the worst winning percentage in graded stakes races of any trainer in the country.

[pba1817]

His sprint influenced breeding got him the distance better than 15 others(most of whom were bred to go this far).

Willie has cost this horse multiple races with awful rides and I was amazed McPeek sought his services once again.. When was the last time a horse took the lead at that point in this race and won...?

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by pba1817

His sprint influenced breeding got him the distance better than 15 others(most of whom were bred to go this far).

Willie has cost this horse multiple races with awful rides and I was amazed McPeek sought his services once again.. When was the last time a horse took the lead at that point in this race and won...?

2 years ago.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

2 years ago.

... and 3 years ago, 4 years ago, 6 years ago...

sthop making thense!