Re: Changing Track Speeds: A Derby Contender Case Study Perhaps (763 Views)
Posted by:
JimP (IP Logged)
Date: February 11, 2006 08:10PM
At the risk of getting lumped in with "the usual nut cases", I'm going to offer one more comment on the Strub figures. Note, I am NOT comparing High Limit with Bob And John. I'm simply looking at the Strub and the relative figures within that field. Here is a summary of the first 7 finishers. all the others were 25 or more lengths back and I'm ignoring trying tio make sense of those. The first number is the figure for the Strub. That is followed by the next most recent and so on. I have used the x.y format to avoid trying to use superscripts (which I am incapable of formatting in this medium). Otherwise I've used the TG nomenclature for the numbers.
HL 1.1- 2.1 -6.3 -8.2 3.2 24.1 1
TTAT 3 3 6 -7.3 -8 9.2 -10.2
G 1.2 6.2 0.2 0.2 4 5.2 5.1
GG 3.2 2.3 7.1 7.3 3.3 2- 4.3
HTG 3.2 7.1- 5.1 -8.1 -10 -17 -18
IC 6.2 3.2 11.3 -17.2 -10.3 -10.3 15.3
DM 5.1 3 3 5.3 -10.3 6 8.1
Comments:
HL - If you add 3 he gets a 2.3. Very much in line with his last and previous before that on dirt.
TTAT - If you add 3 he is at a 6 and runs back to pretty much the level he had established before he spiked that 3.
G - If you add 3, he gets a 4.2. Pretty much in line with his previous level except for those 2 big numbers last spring. Maybe those are the annomalies.
GG - If you add 3 he gets a 6.2. Hard to see a line on this one. He has been up and down between a 3 and 7 in general except for his one freak out race last spring. I don't see that a 6 is an unexpected result for this one.
HTG - If you add 3 he gets a 6.2 as well. His only other dirt race was a 5.1 and all his other grass races were worse than a 6. some much worse. So I don't see that a 6 is anything unusual for this one to run.
IC - If you add 3, he gets 9.2. And it would still be the second best figure he's run. Maybe he bounced off the 3 in his last.
DM - If you add 3, he gets an 8.1. This is the toughest one to explain. He had been running pretty consistently better than that.
The bottom line is that I can 3 to all these and get what I see as results that are very consistent with their recent history. The only exception is DM. So adding the 3, only requires me to have to assume that one of these regressed. And then there are the last 4 finishers who were 25 or more lengths back. Not much doubt that they regressed. And adding 3 to their figures really doesn't change that story.
Once again, I don't claim to be an expert in reading figures, and certainly not in making them. So I would welcome any comments regarding the "analysis" that I offered above.