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

[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 Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

I totally agree with everything above.

However ... I have a question.

cmorioles - War Pass finished 2nd and was a half length loser of the Wood Memorial a few years ago.

He dueled with a Bill Mott rabbit through fractions of 22.46 46.07 1:11.50 1:38.42 1:52.35 and just missed. Pretty hot fractions for 9f at AQU on a not-so fast main track.

My question is simply this ... did the hapless rabbit have an impact on the outcome of that race? Keep in mind those two put over 6 lengths on the rest of the field through that wicked 22.46 opening quarter.

[cmorioles]

Drugs, we can do this all day.

First, you ignored the 1st race.

The third, the horse was dropping from two poor races at 10k to 4k. He is in the hands of a very poor trainer after being claimed 3 back. If you want to believe he ran back to his good races, good luck.

The 4th was a brutal pace for those cheap fillies. Of course they are going to run slower. It was 20 points faster than the speed figure.

In the fifth, it could be possible the horse improved a little more, but did you look at the horses behind him? Also, the pace was about 8 points faster than the final time, and since the winner actually led from the 1/2 call home, the 75 is probably a little better than it looks. Giving him even higher would be unrealistic.

I agree the 9th is the toughest to judge. I think the runner up is the best horse to judge for the figure. He was given a lifetime top, basically a pair up, in his 19th career start while being beaten pretty easily.

As for the general "a lot of beaten horses made big backwards moves"...all I can say is no sh!t, that is why they were beaten. I realize the horses had a headwind coming home, but even after adjusting for this the paces of the routes were honest to fast. By far the slowest was the Illinios Derby in relation to final time. This causes lots of horses to move backwards when they are beaten.

R1: Fast 11
R3: Fast 3
R4: Fast 20
R5: Fast 8
R7: Slow 6
R9: Fast 8

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Drugs, we can do this all day.

I know.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I totally agree with everything above.

However ... I have a question.

cmorioles - War Pass finished 2nd and was a half length loser of the Wood Memorial a few years ago.

He dueled with a Bill Mott rabbit through fractions of 22.46 46.07 1:11.50 1:38.42 1:52.35 and just missed. Pretty hot fractions for 9f at AQU on a not-so fast main track.

My question is simply this ... did the hapless rabbit have an impact on the outcome of that race? Keep in mind those two put over 6 lengths on the rest of the field through that wicked 22.46 opening quarter.

I would assume he did, but War Pass was also the kind of horse that tended to go too fast anyway and tire late. We never learned if he was the type that could rate and go 9f or not, so there is no way to be sure. If I had to guess, I would say without the rabbit he slows down, but it is just a guess.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I would assume he did, but War Pass was also the kind of horse that tended to go too fast anyway and tire late. We never learned if he was the type that could rate and go 9f or not, so there is no way to be sure. If I had to guess, I would say without the rabbit he slows down, but it is just a guess.

You're way better than this.

Even I wouldn't still argue that on my most stubborn day.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

You're way better than this.

Even I wouldn't still argue that on my most stubborn day.

I honestly don't remember that much about it because I don't worry about races that happened two years ago. What was the point of the question? Since I didn't know I just gave a generic answer.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

Putting aside the question of whether Mike Hushion knows what he's doing (the numbers seem to suggest that he does), what are you basing these "averages" on, because the only 9F races at Aqueduct these days seem to be for NY-bred NW1X optional claimers or off-the-turf races, hardly a reasonable comparison. These are graded races that we are talking about. With that in mind, and recognizing that the track was faster than par for Bellamy Road's Wood, here are the fractional splits for the Wood and Excelsior from 2005-09:

2009 Wood: 24.2, 48.0, 1:12:1, 1:49.2
2009 Excelsior: 25.2, 50.3, 1:14.3, 1:50.4

2008 Wood: 22.2, 46.0, 1:11.2, 1:52.1
2009 Excelsior: 23.4, 48.2, 1:13.3, 1:51

2007 Wood: 23.1, 47.1, 1:10.4, 1:49.2
2008 Excelsior: 23.3, 46.3, 1:10.1, 1:48

2006 Wood: 23.0, 46.1, 1:11.0, 1:51.2
2006 Excelsior: 23.2, 46.1, 1:10.3, 1:48.1

2005 Wood: 23.0, 46.0, 1:09.4, 1:47
2005 Excelsior: 24.2, 48.1, 1:12.3, 1:50.2

Based on these splits, I don't know how one can argue that the pace for the races this past weekend were "average" relative to the class of the horses involved.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I honestly don't remember that much about it because I don't worry about races that happened two years ago. What was the point of the question? Since I didn't know I just gave a generic answer.

Huge dust-up.

You were one of a few different screen names who typed a lot mocking me when I said that the rabbit would hurt War Pass and probably cost him the race and it hurt my feelings considerably.

The rabbit was supposed to be way too slow and a poor choice of rabbit.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

With that in mind, and recognizing that the track was faster than par for Bellamy Road's Wood, here are the fractional splits for the Wood and Excelsior from 2005-09:

2009 Wood: 24.2, 48.0, 1:12:1
2009 Excelsior: 25.2, 50.3, 1:14.3

2008 Wood: 22.2, 46.0, 1:11.2
2009 Excelsior: 23.4, 48.2, 1:13.3

2007 Wood: 23.1, 47.1, 1:10.4
2008 Excelsior: 23.3, 46.3, 1:10.1

2006 Wood: 23.0, 46.1, 1:11.0
2006 Excelsior: 23.2, 46.1, 1:10.3

2005 Wood: 23.0, 46.0, 1:09.4
2005 Excelsior: 24.2, 48.1, 1:12.3

Based on these splits, I don't know how one can argue that the pace for the races this past weekend were "average" relative to the class of the horses involved.

Why not show the final times for each race as well?

[cmorioles]

I'm basing them on all the races at Aqueduct over the last several years. If what you say was a factor, the actual average pace time for Aqueduct would be even slower than what I reported because cheap, bad, and young horses always run faster pace times in relation to final time than classier fit horses do. If you took 100 races won by NW1 NY Breds at 9f that were won in a time of 1:51, and 100 races won be G1 horses with the same conditions and final time, the G1 horses would run slower to the 4f and 6f calls on average and finish faster.

How Mike Hushion trains horses has absolutely nothing to do with how he evaluates the pace of races that have already happened. Just because I know a lot about making figures (at least I think I do) doesn't mean I know how to prepare a horse for his first start or get him to break out of the gate.

As for all the past Wood's, I use figures, not raw times. These are what I have:

2005: 114 pace, 111 speed
2006: 116 pace, 93 speed
2007: 108 pace, 98 speed
2008: 122 pace, 94 speed
2009: 104 pace, 104 speed
2010: 103 pace, 109 speed

It looks to me like you have had a bunch of horses going too fast early and finishing like plow horses in the Wood. Perhaps that is why people are fooled into thinking the pace was so slow this year. It was a little slow, but hardly paceless. Maybe this year the winner of the Wood will actually accomplish something in the future in a dirt route. It would be a nice change.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Huge dust-up.

You were one of a few different screen names who typed a lot mocking me when I said that the rabbit would hurt War Pass and probably cost him the race and it hurt my feelings considerably.

The rabbit was supposed to be way too slow and a poor choice of rabbit.

Men shouldn't hold grudges. Especially ones who criticize a feminine throwing president.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Huge dust-up.

You were one of a few different screen names who typed a lot mocking me when I said that the rabbit would hurt War Pass and probably cost him the race and it hurt my feelings considerably.

The rabbit was supposed to be way too slow and a poor choice of rabbit.

Well I just said he probably did affect him. I was probably wrong, and I think I admitted as much after. I'm wrong a lot in this game. Since he never ran again though, I won't say it is 100% certain because he was a headstrong horse that was hard to handle early anyway.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Men shouldn't hold grudges. Especially ones who criticize a feminine throwing president.

Read a history book. It is perfectly acceptable for men to hold personal grudges. Wars are fought over such things.

I jerked off into a girls shampoo bottle because she hurt my feelings.

I would whip myself up into an inner fenzy and try to injure even my friends in gym class and make it look like acidents if they ever did or said anything I didn't like.

There is nothing even remotely feminine about having pride.

[randallscott35]

Getting back to the thread, I agree the 109 is too high and that AL 98 is too low.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Getting back to the thread, I agree the 109 is too high and that AL 98 is too low.

Why? Just guessing? Any insight?

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Why? Just guessing? Any insight?

I posted in the other thread on this and parisix sums up pretty much how I feel. AQ was not slow on Sat and that time for the Wood was avg, I think sometimes draw off performances simply get overrated....The HAW fig is tougher. That track was pretty slow so the raw final doesn't bother me.

Figs aren't always perfect. Remember that Arnold(I think) maiden a few years ago getting 20 subtracted from it? It does happen.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

I posted in the other thread on this and parisix sums up pretty much how I feel. AQ was not slow on Sat and that time for the Wood was avg, I think sometimes draw off performances simply get overrated....The HAW fig is tougher.

Figs aren't always perfect. Remember that Arnold(I think) maiden a few years ago getting 20 subtracted from it? It does happen.

You think that Eskendereya got a 109 because he drew off late?

He ran a very strong final time based on the pace of the race. Was it aided by the pace of the race? More than likely but when you take his time at face value stacked up against the Excelsior it was a strong effort.

If there was one horse in any of the stakes portion whose figure can be taken with a grain of salt (and not because it's wrong, I think it's right on) its Warrior's Reward who ran a fifth of a second faster for the 7/8ths in the Carter than Eightyfiveinafifty did in the Bay Shore despite the pace of the Carter being nearly a second slower. I think Warrior's Reward's effort was outstanding.

NT

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

You think that Eskendereya got a 109 because he drew off late?

He ran a very strong final time based on the pace of the race. Was it aided by the pace of the race? More than likely but when you take his time at face value stacked up against the Excelsior it was a strong effort.

If there was one horse in any of the stakes portion whose figure can be taken with a grain of salt (and not because it's wrong, I think it's right on) its Warrior's Reward who ran a fifth of a second faster for the 7/8ths in the Carter than Eightyfiveinafifty did in the Bay Shore despite the pace of the Carter being nearly a second slower. I think Warrior's Reward's effort was outstanding.

NT

Humans make these. They are not infallable. And yes I think there are times that fig makers fall in love with certain performances....and also downgrade horses based on previous races.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Why not show the final times for each race as well?

I had not done so, because we were discussing the pace of the race, but since you asked, I have edited the above post to include final times.

If you put the pace of the Wood in the context of other Derby preps, the pace in the Florida Derby (46.3, 1:10.3) was generally perceived as "hot," while Discreetly Mine was viewed as getting away with murder in a Risen Star that had fractions somewhat comparable (48.3, 1:13.2) to the Wood.

I have questioned the figure for the Wood because, to my way of thinking (and I think history bears this out), when the Wood winner has been perceived as a legitimate Derby threat, they have usually completed the race in the 1:47-48 range: Fusaichi Pegasus, 1:47.4; Congaree, 1:47.4; Buddha, 1:48.3; Empire Maker, 1:48.3; Bellamy Road, 1:47.0; I Want Revenge, 1:49.2. While I am not doubting the quality of Eskendereya's performance, the final time does not measure up, and I did not perceive the track as being 6 or 7 lengths slower than par on Saturday. That's why I questioned the figure, especially when the performances of Eightyfiveinafifty and Warrior's Reward, which I think were on par with their respective races, were given lower figures.