Re: Lots Of Stuff (414 Views)
Date: August 25, 2004 12:02PM
I agree that pace and bias are hugely important.
I just believe it is an error to try to incorporate them into a figure. I think it would be even worse if JB sold a product like that. IMO, he is doing the right thing. The only thing I would ask for is a seperate number without ground loss so I don't have to back it out and perhaps a few more pace comments.
I have also dabbled with adjusting speed figures with pace/final time formulas. I've also tried to quantify bias in terms of lengths of impact etc.. I've pretty much stopped.
Making pace figures that are as accurate as JB's speed figures is close to impossible. If you think you can, you probably don't understand all the problems. Second, IMO there is no formula that works for all horses. IMO, the impact of pace is dependent on things like stamina, brilliance and other individual qualities. So when you combine a "reasonably accurate" speed figure with a "somewhat inaccurate" pace figure and put them into a "somewhat inaccurate" formula you often get a mess. Same with bias.
IMO, what you want to do is look at the horse's figures and know the trips.
Using Beyers in an extreme example:
If a horse ran 100, 97, 101, 98, and 77 in his last 5 races and the 77 was in a very fast paced duel on a deal rail, you really don't have much of problem here. You can view him as a high 90s/100 horse. If you plug slightly innacurate pace and bias figures into a slightly inaccurate formula and all the errors are in the same direction, you might wind up with 90 or 110. IMO, that's worse.
I rate paces as neutral, fast, very fast, slow, or very slow (paying attention to specific 1/4s and using observation as well at fractions). Rate the bias as none, strong, very strong etc... and then get a "feel" for how a horse ran based on all evidence available.
Granted, not all horses have such clear and consistent figures. However, IMO, adding complexity to an evaluation with "suspect" formulas etc... is not a good solution. It may be better than ignoring the factor, but it is not a solution.
Post Edited (08-25-04 12:07)