Preakness - I don't think I like anyone

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Do you really think Street Sense has little foundation?

It's not about foundation for me, but rather that he was trained to shoot his best shot in the Derby. That's not to say that he won't run another big one in the Preakness, but like I said, with that and other factors in mind, I'm not crazy about betting him at odds-on.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Yeah I see your point and it's a fair one since Nafzger has always said he was pointing to the Derby. Trust me, there were two times to bet Street Sense, BC Juvy and the Derby. I did, so of course I am going to defend him. Will I bet him Saturday, nope. Not at that price, but I also think he's the best horse and I hope he wins so I can see a chance at a TC at Belmont.

I'm with you on that front. The last two years, Belmont Day (in terms of racing) has been pretty boring.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Yeah I don't know if I've ever had a better time at the track, while losing as I did for Funny Cide's Belmont.

I stayed home that day because of the torrential rain, but I was at the '04 Belmont and it was a blast, even with the Smarty loss.

The last two years have been fun, but there just wasn't that suspense in the air.

[Danzig]

but when IS the last time street sense ran a bad race? pre-juvy i would think.

[Hickory Hill Hoff]

I can't get pass the first three Derby finishers..."slam" the tri and "key" those three in pick 3's & 4's every which way.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but when IS the last time street sense ran a bad race? pre-juvy i would think.

Depends on your definition of "bad." His Blue Grass race may not have been bad, but it certainly wasn't the kind of effort that would win the Preakness. Or are you throwing that out because of polytrack?

He really has never run any "bad" races, but he's only run two great races. The rest were good, but there are plenty of horses in this race who can run "good" races.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Depends on your definition of "bad." His Blue Grass race may not have been bad, but it certainly wasn't the kind of effort that would win the Preakness. Or are you throwing that out because of polytrack?

He really has never run any "bad" races, but he's only run two great races. The rest were good, but there are plenty of horses in this race who can run "good" races.

your just haten...lol..you dont like anyone then you like some ..but not really...huh..you have the blazing saddles frontier double speak down..sence could have won the blugrass is was clear to me borel and nafzger didnt want to go for it ..in the str he was taken up and coasted out.. in the derby he rolled .. he does the same vs these ..imo

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Depends on your definition of "bad." His Blue Grass race may not have been bad, but it certainly wasn't the kind of effort that would win the Preakness. Or are you throwing that out because of polytrack?

He really has never run any "bad" races, but he's only run two great races. The rest were good, but there are plenty of horses in this race who can run "good" races.

I would characterize the effort breaking the track record at Tampa Bay off a 100+ day layoff as a rather great race..

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I would characterize the effort breaking the track record at Tampa Bay off a 100+ day layoff as a rather great race..

He got a perfect trip and it's not like he beat a track record held by Spectacular Bid..

Fine. Two great races and a very good one. Happy?

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

your just haten...lol..you dont like anyone then you like some ..but not really...huh..you have the blazing saddles frontier double speak down..sence could have won the blugrass is was clear to me borel and nafzger didnt want to go for it ..in the str he was taken up and coasted out.. in the derby he rolled .. he does the same vs these ..imo

What? I never said I liked anybody. You can't write in english, but I thought you could read in it at least..

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

He got a perfect trip and it's not like he beat a track record held by Spectacular Bid.. Fine. Two great races and a very good one. Happy?

That track record had stood since 1989 (Sunny Prospector), and that in itself tells you something. And it's funny how many good, fast horses get 'perfect trips'... He also did it in flank-to-flank fashion the length of the stretch against a very good horse who had the benefit of a race over the track..

As I said tonight on the show, this horse isn't being managed by a trainer that worries about winning every start. Nafzger approaches campaigns with broader goals in mind, and starts along the way are a means to an end. While the supertrainers only want to start their horses in spots where they have a high percentage of winning, frequently facing small fields, Nafzger takes the long view.

That doesn't mean he's a lock on Saturday, as Nafzger was focused on the Derby.. the Derby.. and the Derby (as opposed to the Derby, Preakness and Belmont. Recall that Unbridled was 2nd in the Preakness and 4th in the Belmont..). But I would say that his career cannot be looked at the way we have all become used to looking at current racehorse careers. He's been managed the way John Nerud taught Nafzger to manage special horses, and it's been a long time since we've had a guy out there running his horses in spots designed to best position them for specific efforts later..

[GPK]

I see a future in the Hatton reading room for this here thread...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Depends on your definition of "bad." His Blue Grass race may not have been bad, but it certainly wasn't the kind of effort that would win the Preakness. Or are you throwing that out because of polytrack?

He really has never run any "bad" races, but he's only run two great races. The rest were good, but there are plenty of horses in this race who can run "good" races.

i'm not throwing out his bluegrass, i didn't think losing a head bob was a difference between good and bad.

i don't think the horse is used up, set up for a bounce, etc. he's run three times all year. a record setter in tampa, lost a weird bluegrass, and then won his 'easiest' race this year in kentucky. interesting the one race that many think street sense may have reached his bottom in is the one that he won by the largest margin this year--of course three starts isn't much to go on, but it is still just three starts this year. nafzger got him up for the derby, now he has to keep a horse who has run three times in six months up for a bit-how hard is it really to keep a horse who is in good shape, who has a few inches standing between himself and a four-race win streak, in that shape for a few weeks? i'm not being facetious with that question, i'm serious!

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm not throwing out his bluegrass, i didn't think losing a head bob was a difference between good and bad.

Even if he had won the head bob, it still wouldn't have been a great race.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Even if he had won the head bob, it still wouldn't have been a great race.

no, but it was not a bad one either.

to be honest tho, i think hard spun turns the tables this time.

and then on to the belmont, best two out of three!

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

It makes you cringe that I think Street Sense and Hard Spun won't be able to produce the same effort twice in two weeks? Sorry for thinking that these are animals and not robots..

ateam, let's make a hypo bet. You pick some race in the future for Street Sense and Hard Spun in which you think they will be less likely to "bounce". How about the first race they run after the Belmont? (whether or not they run in the Belmont, they should be well-rested in whatever race they run after the Belmont.) I'll take each horse's Preakness performance. You give me odds of 6-5, since you think they will bounce in the Preakness, and I think it's a coin flip whether they will run better or worse in the Preakness than in any given future race. If you'd rather have the next race after the Preakness, even if it's the Belmont, that's fine, too. I'm willing to take the Preakness performances over any random future race. (We could even leave the picking of the future race open, with the stipulation that it has to be in 2007! Of course, I'm liable to be obnoxiously reminding you to pick your race every time one of them is entered!)

So-called "bounce" is always much easier to "see" after the fact, as in "he bounced". If you believe a horse will bounce, you will sooner or later be correct, in the sense that sooner or later the horse will toss in a sub-par performance for some reason.

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

He really has never run any "bad" races, but he's only run two great races. The rest were good, but there are plenty of horses in this race who can run "good" races.

I agree with this completely. He is a deserving favorite in the Preakness, but hardly a lock. I have him between 2-1 and 5-2 in my line. He will of course go off lower than that.

--Dunbar