Jimbo:

There’s another way to analyze the Preakness and that is to conclude that Barbaro hasn’t established his dominance yet. Barbaro is only “tons the best of this crop” if we focus solely on the result in the Kentucky Derby, a dangerous practice. The same Barbaro was life and death to win the Florida Derby over an undistinguished bunch. If you have any confidence in the Thorograph figs, and you assume that Barbaro ran as fast as he did in the Derby, then Brother Derek has already run 4 races in the zero range or better while Barbaro has run only one. In fact, if the trips were reversed in the Derby, Brother Derek may have won the race and instead we’re now talking about how impressive a horse Brother Derek is. So, while Barbaro’s performance in the Derby may be everything you say it was, there’s not enough evidence yet for me to conclude he’s tons the best of this generation.

And then there is the question of his short-term line coming into the Preakness. ANY new top in the Derby is probably not the ideal pattern coming into the Preakness, never mind a new top in negative territory. If you look in the Archives, there are ten Preakness contestants from 1992-2005 which had run new tops in the Derby. Of those ten, none went forward in the Preakness, 4 paired (including Giacomo last year), 3 ran off races, and the other 3 X’d out. On average, those horses bounced 3½ points in the Preakness. Also, Barbaro has developed a lot in a short period of time culminating in a negtive number -– probably in the range of at least five points -- another factor against him.

I’m not saying that Brother Derek is going to win the Preakness, but there is not nearly enough credit given to this horse for the remarkable race he ran in the Derby and the soundness of his line all spring long. If I told you the winner of the Preakness needs to run in the zero range, isn’t it more probable that BD runs that race than Barbaro, looking at their sheets and considering their respective short-term and long-term development?