105 Beyer

BlindLucky
Posts: 3314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:22 am
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:31 pm

katmandu wrote:From the mouth of Mr. Beyer himself:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/am ... story.html
Those are some ruthless comments on that article.
Photos from my racing travels: ThoroughbredJourney.com
User avatar
Sham
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:01 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:35 pm

katmandu wrote:From the mouth of Mr. Beyer himself:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/am ... story.html
That picture's funny -- after CC got stepped on last year, the image makes it look like the racing gods were clearing space for the anointed one. :P

Beyer the writer is also the official Debbie Downer of the thoroughbred circuit. I can't remember reading anything he wrote that was in any way enjoyable in ages.
Last edited by Sham on Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Soto, Suni, Sham, whichever.
Macaroni
Posts: 1172
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:52 am

Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:35 pm

BlindLucky wrote:
katmandu wrote:From the mouth of Mr. Beyer himself:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/am ... story.html
Those are some ruthless comments on that article.
Was about to comment this exact same thing
a Flying Brick
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:53 pm

Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:44 pm

Well, what amazes me from the comments which is probably a good reprsentation of people who either don't read clearly or hear clearly saying he had the second fastest Belmont in history. Amongst TC winners ... true. But years after this race is over people will say he had the second fastest Belmont without any exception. I guess if you repeat something often enough ... the public at large will believe it.
BlindLucky
Posts: 3314
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:22 am
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:50 pm

a Flying Brick wrote:Well, what amazes me from the comments which is probably a good reprsentation of people who either don't read clearly or hear clearly saying he had the second fastest Belmont in history. Amongst TC winners ... true. But years after this race is over people will say he had the second fastest Belmont without any exception. I guess if you repeat something often enough ... the public at large will believe it.
Out of all the comments, I only saw two mention this stat. One got it wrong (2nd fastest overall), one got it right (2nd fastest of the Triple Crown winners). I don't think this was the biggest takeaway from the comments.
Photos from my racing travels: ThoroughbredJourney.com
Tessablue
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:05 pm

Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:25 pm

Sham wrote:
Tessablue wrote:One thing I've wondered, perhaps someone else can clarify- aren't Beyers, by their very nature, much better at determining when a slow time is relatively fast, versus when a fast time is relatively slow? There comes a point at which a horse can't physically run any faster, no matter the track condition- is there any merit to the notion that the math can be compromised by an exceptionally fast track?

And I say all of this as someone who really enjoys speed figures. They are great fun and useful handicapping tools, and I was certainly an AP critic on the basis of times a few weeks ago, but allowing his figures to dim his achievement seems unfair if we don't even have a baseline for the previous winners.
I think there's a good amount of figure compression that occurs when a track is faster versus when a track is slower. Ie., I think higher figures will often follow slower tracks, while new track record performances aren't entirely likely to coincide with high speed figures. Think about Materiality's Florida Derby. The time for that race for 9f was 1:52 and change, and yet it got the highest prep figure of 110 because the track was dead. Mathematically there should be some compensation for this, but I don't know whether there is. So for example if a par for 9f at Aqueduct is 1:50 (12.2 sec/furlong) while the par for 9f at Santa Anita is 1:48 (12 sec/furlong) , I'd expect there to be some additional math around the difference baked into the figures. But I haven't done enough work around them on the whole to know if that follows actual performance.

And I echo the last paragraph completely.
It's good to see you posting on here again Sham, hope things are going well for you! Glad to hear that you don't think the idea is crazy- I'd also love to know if there's any compensation for that upper-end compression. I was initially thinking of Commentator's 2008 Whitney, in which he got a 120 for running 9f in 1:50 and change (compared to Lawyer Ron's very controversial 116), but Materiality is another great example. Meanwhile, for AP to break into the 110-115 zone on that track would have required, what, the second-fastest Belmont ever? Which would have necessitated a sub-24 final quarter? He already ran one of the fastest final quarters in Belmont history, there's only so much a horse can physically do.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: it is easily possible to accept the figure at face value while recognizing that it was a tremendous performance.

(incidentally, while looking up Lawyer Ron's Whitney I found the article that initially gave me pause RE: big race beyers- http://www.drf.com/news/story-behind-la ... -116-beyer. Note that Hopkins says the 2005 Whitney BSF was "probably wrong" because "Commentator has not been close to that figure since then. And Saint Liam, the 2005 Horse of the Year and a really good runner, was simply not a 123 horse." Commentator ran a 121 in his previous race which renders that first statement disingenuous, and he would hit 120 again the next year, but Saint Liam was the horse who ran Ghostzapper to a neck in 1:46 and 1. As I recall, that Woodward figure SHOULD have been astronomical [it sticks out like a sore thumb in Ghostzapper's PP's: 120-128-114-124-122], but was adjusted down... because they didn't think Saint Liam was the kind of horse who could run that fast. That sort of circular logic leads me to believe that over-thinking can be a real problem when it comes to figure-making in G1s, even when it's the best of the best making those figures. Not that it renders them useless or keeps me from utilizing them as handicapping tools.)
User avatar
Sham
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:01 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:51 pm

Tessablue wrote:It's good to see you posting on here again Sham, hope things are going well for you! Glad to hear that you don't think the idea is crazy- I'd also love to know if there's any compensation for that upper-end compression. I was initially thinking of Commentator's 2008 Whitney, in which he got a 120 for running 9f in 1:50 and change (compared to Lawyer Ron's very controversial 116), but Materiality is another great example. Meanwhile, for AP to break into the 110-115 zone on that track would have required, what, the second-fastest Belmont ever? Which would have necessitated a sub-24 final quarter? He already ran one of the fastest final quarters in Belmont history, there's only so much a horse can physically do.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: it is easily possible to accept the figure at face value while recognizing that it was a tremendous performance.

(incidentally, while looking up Lawyer Ron's Whitney I found the article that initially gave me pause RE: big race beyers- http://www.drf.com/news/story-behind-la ... -116-beyer. Note that Hopkins says the 2005 Whitney BSF was "probably wrong" because "Commentator has not been close to that figure since then. And Saint Liam, the 2005 Horse of the Year and a really good runner, was simply not a 123 horse." Commentator ran a 121 in his previous race which renders that first statement disingenuous, and he would hit 120 again the next year, but Saint Liam was the horse who ran Ghostzapper to a neck in 1:46 and 1. As I recall, that Woodward figure SHOULD have been astronomical [it sticks out like a sore thumb in Ghostzapper's PP's: 120-128-114-124-122], but was adjusted down... because they didn't think Saint Liam was the kind of horse who could run that fast. That sort of circular logic leads me to believe that over-thinking can be a real problem when it comes to figure-making in G1s, even when it's the best of the best making those figures. Not that it renders them useless or keeps me from utilizing them as handicapping tools.)
The tough part about AP's Belmont is that he very likely couldn't have run too much faster given the early pace. To be fair, the Brooklyn actually featured a sub-24 final quarter but after an even slower pace. So it's hypothetically possible if the track was exactly the same that he could have managed something in the low 2:26 range. But the pace wasn't conducive to much beyond that.

I'm not sure whether it's that the Beyer people lack imagination or if it's that they lack the balls to leave their numbers completely alone. Figures are compensated up or down with a bit more of an arbitrary hand than I'd like, but the truth is that these guys are doing this as a business. Every time they get another complaint about a horse being overbet for having the highest overall figure, I'm sure they get just a bit more conservative. I can imagine what sort of discussions they might have had around giving Bellamy Road a 120 in the Wood knowing it would almost automatically make the horse the favorite in that year's Derby (which I'm pretty sure he was). That one was pretty airtight, though. I can justify GZ/SL's 114 by the fact that they were bumping so damn much that they probably DID lower their overall figure by simple force of friction. Meanwhile to say that multiple horses in a race can't all have run a new top lacks imagination, and my pet hunch is that the plethora of huge figures in 1997 are indication that they are willing to overlook such things at the highest level with the right circumstances. I'd love to go through the charts for those races/race days sometime to see whether all of those figs really were justified. They very well could have been, but that that year was the fastest in recent memory by that much is a little tough for me to swallow.

As to the first line, glad to be back -- new job with (initially) long hours, moving, random other life stuff. Nothing like a Triple Crown and associated controversial figure to get back in the swing of it.
Soto, Suni, Sham, whichever.
User avatar
Ballerina
Posts: 3057
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:22 pm
Location: Chesapeake, VA & Saratoga, NY

Mon Jun 08, 2015 6:25 pm

BlindLucky wrote:
katmandu wrote:From the mouth of Mr. Beyer himself:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/am ... story.html
Those are some ruthless comments on that article.
He's just bitter cuz he bet against AP winning the Belmont.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/s ... ysis/1721/
User avatar
dustino140
Posts: 5206
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:51 pm

Mon Jun 08, 2015 9:53 pm

Ballerina wrote:
BlindLucky wrote:
katmandu wrote:From the mouth of Mr. Beyer himself:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/am ... story.html
Those are some ruthless comments on that article.
He's just bitter cuz he bet against AP winning the Belmont.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/s ... ysis/1721/
I think they meant the comments from the readers at the bottom of the column, not from Beyer himself. The article itself seemed pretty tame and more or less fair.
User avatar
Ballerina
Posts: 3057
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:22 pm
Location: Chesapeake, VA & Saratoga, NY

Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:02 pm

dustino140 wrote:
I think they meant the comments from the readers at the bottom of the column, not from Beyer himself. The article itself seemed pretty tame and more or less fair.
Didn't read the comments. Doesn't matter, he's still bitter. He's been a naysayer on this horse from the get go.
Admin
Posts: 1828
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:35 pm

Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:46 pm

I don't see any bitterness. Seems a fair commentary to me.
"This is how we roll in the Shire." -- Leonard
Horsebagger
Posts: 2158
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:20 pm

Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:49 pm

Admin wrote:I don't see any bitterness. Seems a fair commentary to me.
completely fair.
Admin
Posts: 1828
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:35 pm

Mon Jun 08, 2015 11:06 pm

Ragozin agrees, giving him a 3 3/4, which equalled his Derby number (and is his best to date).
"This is how we roll in the Shire." -- Leonard
User avatar
Oldowan
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:29 pm

Mon Jun 08, 2015 11:58 pm

Tessablue wrote: I guess what I'm trying to say is: it is easily possible to accept the figure at face value while recognizing that it was a tremendous performance.
This. What I was trying to say but much more succinct.
blamethewinner
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:08 pm

Tue Jun 09, 2015 7:20 pm

Ballerina wrote:
dustino140 wrote:
I think they meant the comments from the readers at the bottom of the column, not from Beyer himself. The article itself seemed pretty tame and more or less fair.
Didn't read the comments. Doesn't matter, he's still bitter. He's been a naysayer on this horse from the get go.
He probably aspires to be an objective analyst such as yourself.
User avatar
Ballerina
Posts: 3057
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:22 pm
Location: Chesapeake, VA & Saratoga, NY

Tue Jun 09, 2015 8:00 pm

Some say BSF don't matter. Some say they do. If they exist, they must matter. I just have a hard time understanding the inconsistencies.

An interesting comparison concerning Beyer Speed figures. American Pharoah was awarded a 105 after running the 6th fastest Belmont Stakes ever. A couple races earlier, Honor Code earned a 112 after running the 6th fastest Met Mile ever. They were at least equally rare performances in Grade-1 races, but I could argue that AP's performance was actually more rare and deserved an even higher number than the 112 awarded the Met Mile winner. In other words, horses that can run a mile in 1:33 and change come along a lot more often than horses that can run 1-1/2 miles in 2:26 and change.

Just discussing. No need for sarcasm. I'm tying really hard to understand and all I'm getting from a lot of you is "It doesn't matter." Sort of like when questioning a nun in parochial school. "It's a mystery. You just have to accept it."
User avatar
Kurenai
Site Admin
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:01 pm

Tue Jun 09, 2015 8:04 pm

I read the article and he doesn't sound bitter, it sounded fair.

Only thing I found funny was when he said "AP isn't Seattle Slew". Right now he's exactly like Seattle Slew was back then in Andy's mind. He didn't really think he was that good. :P :lol:

I prefer Timeform Ratings. They're not "speed ratings" but they usually get it right in the grand scheme of things. I wonder if he will pass Shared Belief in the ratings.
tcw
Posts: 1133
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:18 am

Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:34 am

What BSF figure did Easy Goer receive for running his Belmont a few ticks faster than AP, a 122? The track did seem to be playing pretty fast this past Belmont day, especially early on, but it would be interesting to compare the other races on the card with those on Belmont day '89. Btw, given Affirmed's final Belmont time, it would also be interesting to compare with the '78 Belmont card. I believe Beyer went back and estimated Secretariat's Belmont to be at an astronomical 139, but not sure if they've ever gone back and derived figures for Affirmed's and/or Seattle Slew's Belmont Stakes...
terpsichorist
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:10 pm

Wed Jun 10, 2015 3:36 am

tcw wrote:What BSF figure did Easy Goer receive for running his Belmont a few ticks faster than AP, a 122? The track did seem to be playing pretty fast this past Belmont day, especially early on, but it would be interesting to compare the other races on the card with those on Belmont day '89. Btw, given Affirmed's final Belmont time, it would also be interesting to compare with the '78 Belmont card. I believe Beyer went back and estimated Secretariat's Belmont to be at an astronomical 139, but not sure if they've ever gone back and derived figures for Affirmed's and/or Seattle Slew's Belmont Stakes...
Even if the surface was a little faster which I don't think it was that much faster Saturday .
You can't compare now to the 70's .

In the 70' the surface more had more hard clay in the mix . Due to Task Force on injury and breakdown .
There has been a lot of hard work put into the Belmont surface by those who are responsible to manage it . While it's not
perfect and unfortunately horses do get hurt .There certainly is more top layer of cushion . Can't imagine a horse that can
break that record from back then. It's not just the breeding and training , they are running on a different dirt .
peeptoad
Posts: 2846
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:53 pm

Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:27 pm

DRF plus article on this very subject. If it wasn't a plus article I wold quote a piece of it because it fits perfectly with this thread:

http://www.drf.com/news/premium/jerardi ... -indicates
Post Reply