Re: Questions about Figures (506 Views)
Date: April 25, 2005 05:51PM
TGJB,
I was just going for the laugh. Obviously, I can't prove it and neither can you in the other direction.
If you want my honest opinion, I am totally baffled by the race.
Before you get angry with me, please read the whole post. I acknowledge that much of this is just "my opinion" etc.... and don't want to debate it. It's just an explanation for my confusion.
When I first did the day using "Beyer speed figure inputs", I came up with a speed figure very similar to Beyer for the race based on the other routes - 103. However, 103 did not make much sense to me because it would mean that everyone else in the BG had run like crap - which I believe is very unlikely for G1 3YOs at this time of year. I agree with you on that point.
However, when I made the pace figure for the race it was fast. That suggested that Bandini had run better than a 103 (he was close enough to the pace to be impacted) and HL/CA had run similar races to their last efforts (according to my theory of course).
Spanish Chestnut is obviously also explained away by that pace figure. Only Consolidator's performance was a question mark. However, I was highly suspect of him going in because he earned his big figure on a wet rolled track. So using pace figures, the whole race made perfect sense to me.
Then you assigned the race a fast figure and said you didn't break the race out. That made no sense to me. I could see you giving it a big figure, but I thought you would have to break it out to get there. When you supplied your figures for the other routes to me (as per my request - thank you), your figures for the day made perfect sense to me.
So obviously there must be some huge discepancies between your inputs and Beyers for that day because you guys disagree on how fast the BG was by a lot. I am almost certain Beyer did not break out the BG and make it slower because he was afraid to give it a big figure. That's just the way it came up. (I haven't had a chance to study the issue further, but will before Derby day).
I am fairly certain the 6F call was fast and I am also highly confident in my pace theories even if I can't put them in an exact formula. (I often know beforehand when you are going to break a race out using my pace theories).
If you are correct that the BG was a very fast race and I am correct that the 6F pace was even faster than the final time (others have verfied my analysis), that would make some of these horses amazing according to my pace theories.
I can't reconcile this all.
I know you must believe that Beyer's figures are wrong and the pace didn't impact the final time, but I do not believe the 2nd part of that.
IMHO, the pace was fast enough to impact several horses. That opinion is based on many years of practical experience working with pace and final time figures and betting at the windows.
I do not know how to resolve this yet, but I will express my opinion at the windows after I get time to study the day further. :-)
Post Edited (04-25-05 20:18)