Tomlinson Distance Ratings are an interesting tool that has been added to the DRF's version of Past Performances.
In a nutshell the Tomlinson Rating is meant to quantify a horses supposed proficiency at a certain distance based on the results of their sire and damsire's progeny. The higher the rating the better a horse is supposed to be suited to the conditions.
Tomlinson Distance ratings are calculated for 4 different categories of distance so it's not as if sprinters have a target range of 200-275 and routers higher than that. Every time you see the ratings listed in the Past Performances they are based on the distance the horse is currently contesting. Every horse therefore has 4 different Tomlinson Distance ratings, one for each category. You can read a more detailed explanation by visiting this page at the Daily Racing Form.
After determining that what they're measuring is useful my main concern with any figure is always how to make the best use out of them. I have long subscribed to the theory that breeding is a terribly overrated angle because it's rare for a horse to be an exact reproduction of their sire or damsire. Most horses are much worse than their sires and the type of horses that win Classics are usually better than their sires. Once you have a sufficient sample of races it's generally easy to tell what a horse is best at. You don't need to do a detailed lineage analysis to find out what they're supposed to be best at. The lone exception to this modus operandi is when assessing horses that are doing something new for the first time. The Belmont is one of those occasions.
Much is made about the fact that the Derby is a sophomore's first chance to go 10f and we never really know how they'll like it. But the Derby is only one furlong longer than a distance that the entire field has prepped at, with few exceptions. The Belmont is a full quarter mile further than any race a contestant has run. You will almost never find a race where no entrant has ever run within a quarter mile of the intended distance, except for first time starters. That makes bloodline stamina projection more important than ever and I would add that it's important for first time starters as well.
So how can you use Tomlinson Ratings to good effect in the Belmont? I always prefer averages to arbitrary lines because a horse does not need to beat some line in the sand or even runners from previous years. They only need to beat the horses they're facing. So the question changes from "Do they have enough stamina to win a 12f race?" to "Do they have enough stamina to beat the rest of this field at 12f?"
My attempt at answering the latter question looks like this. Take the Tomlinson Distance Rating for every horse in the field and come up with the average. Regard any horse with a rating lower than the average as one with suspect stamina. Horses that have an asterisk beside their rating should probably be given a pass since the asterisk denotes insufficient sample size.
Horses that did not have a Tomlinson Distance Rating that was equal to or great than the field average have gone 32-1-1-4 in the Belmont since 2000. Commendable was the only outlier but horses like Bob And John, Giacomo, Funny Cide, Invisible Ink and War Emblem could have been avoided.
Showing posts with label Triple Crown Stats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Triple Crown Stats. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Slow And Steady
How should someone approach the subject of speed in a race that is dominated by stamina? That's a question I've struggled with for weeks as I prepared a statistical profile for the Belmont stakes. The vast majority of my normal speed measurements don't seem to apply.
It has been a basic tenet of my statistical models to start with averaging the winning performances of all the entrants in similar and applicable races, then requiring that each horse equal or better that mark at least once in their lifetime. This approach simply does not work with the Belmont. If one were to take all the winning stakes route performances by Belmont contestants into account then apply them against the figures earned by the entire field you find that many winners were "too slow" to compete. 39 of the 85 Belmont contestants from 2000 to the present failed to achieve the field average route stakes winning Beyer Speed Figure. But those 39 horses combined for 4 wins and another 5 in the money placings. All the best longshots like Sarava, Da' Tara and Birdstone would have come up too slow.
My supposition is that the measurement does not work for this race because we don't have any relevant data. 12f is a long race and figures earned even in 10f races like the Derby may not be that applicable since we're talking about adding another quarter mile. I know that when looking at 9f races I'm not inclined to use Beyer Figures earned at 7f because the distances are too different to be comparable. Virtually no Belmont entrant has ever run more than 10f prior to the race and an extra quarter mile can produce a major difference in the level they are able to achieve.
Most horses run slower at 12f than they do at shorter distances so figures produced at shorter distances must carry less weight. The Belmont has failed to produce the highest winning Beyer Speed Figure among the three Triple Crown races in every year recorded aside from Lemon Drop Kid in 1999 and A.P. Indy in 1992. That means the Derby and Preakness are almost always faster races.
One can actually make money by simply betting the horse that earned the fields highest Beyer Speed Figure in their last race in the Derby and Preakness. Not so with the Belmont, you'd be down 50% from the year 2000 to now.
Some people have written about the fact that closers don't do well in the Belmont. This is a fact pulled out of thin air. The writers probably just wanted to sound interesting but it has no statistical relevance. For every front runner like Da' Tara and Commendable there is a closer like Jazil, Sarava or Victory Gallop. There is no statistical bias for or against tactical speed in the Belmont
So does speed have any place in the Belmont? I have to say that Form and Fitness are much bigger factors in my mind and speed (figures and tactical) are virtual non-factors. If there is any race where it would be wise to ignore the bolded figures in the center column of the past performances this would be it.
It has been a basic tenet of my statistical models to start with averaging the winning performances of all the entrants in similar and applicable races, then requiring that each horse equal or better that mark at least once in their lifetime. This approach simply does not work with the Belmont. If one were to take all the winning stakes route performances by Belmont contestants into account then apply them against the figures earned by the entire field you find that many winners were "too slow" to compete. 39 of the 85 Belmont contestants from 2000 to the present failed to achieve the field average route stakes winning Beyer Speed Figure. But those 39 horses combined for 4 wins and another 5 in the money placings. All the best longshots like Sarava, Da' Tara and Birdstone would have come up too slow.
My supposition is that the measurement does not work for this race because we don't have any relevant data. 12f is a long race and figures earned even in 10f races like the Derby may not be that applicable since we're talking about adding another quarter mile. I know that when looking at 9f races I'm not inclined to use Beyer Figures earned at 7f because the distances are too different to be comparable. Virtually no Belmont entrant has ever run more than 10f prior to the race and an extra quarter mile can produce a major difference in the level they are able to achieve.
Most horses run slower at 12f than they do at shorter distances so figures produced at shorter distances must carry less weight. The Belmont has failed to produce the highest winning Beyer Speed Figure among the three Triple Crown races in every year recorded aside from Lemon Drop Kid in 1999 and A.P. Indy in 1992. That means the Derby and Preakness are almost always faster races.
One can actually make money by simply betting the horse that earned the fields highest Beyer Speed Figure in their last race in the Derby and Preakness. Not so with the Belmont, you'd be down 50% from the year 2000 to now.
Some people have written about the fact that closers don't do well in the Belmont. This is a fact pulled out of thin air. The writers probably just wanted to sound interesting but it has no statistical relevance. For every front runner like Da' Tara and Commendable there is a closer like Jazil, Sarava or Victory Gallop. There is no statistical bias for or against tactical speed in the Belmont
So does speed have any place in the Belmont? I have to say that Form and Fitness are much bigger factors in my mind and speed (figures and tactical) are virtual non-factors. If there is any race where it would be wise to ignore the bolded figures in the center column of the past performances this would be it.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Fit For The Crown
The Belmont has been a very difficult race to unravel during the last decade. At first glance it seems as if inferior horses win this race all the time. Da' Tara, Birdstone, Sarava and Commendable are horses that some people can't even figure out years after the race.
In my own handicapping I've noticed a propensity to focus on the factors that I traditionally consider relevant. Stuff like speed, current form and race condition preferences. Unfortunately I usually lose because it seems as if the Belmont is less about those things and more about the fitness of the individual.
Fitness can be measured in many different ways. For the Derby the focus of fitness statistics is based on determining whether or not a horse has built up enough fitness to withstand the rigors of 10f. For the Belmont the focus shifts towards determining whether or not a horse still has enough left in the tank to go 12f. Many times the Triple Crown trail has left some of these horses jaded even if they weren't entrants in the Derby and Preakness.
From the year 2000 to the present there has been 85 starters in the Belmont. 21 of them entered the race having more than 5 races since their last layoff and none of them wound up as winners. They compiled a record of 21-0-2-2. Notable horses like War Emblem, Monarchos, Perfect Drift and Hard Spun were among them.
Even a normally positive angle like a bullet in their last workout could wind up being a negative. Horses with a last work bullet in the Derby have done extremely well but in the Belmont they're 17-2-0-1. The only horses that managed to run a bullet and still win were Afleet Alex and Point Given. Perhaps not coincidentally, they were also the most formful winners of the last decade. Others like Big Brown, Funny Cide, Perfect Drift and Bob and John were not able to achieve Belmont success after fast final workouts.
Normally I advise to simply play the big races like you play any other race but for the Belmont it's worth remembering that for a variety of reasons it's unlike most other stakes races. The keys to victory seem to be more about fitness and experience than speed, class or form. If you're anything like me speed, class and form are usually the first things you focus on.
In my own handicapping I've noticed a propensity to focus on the factors that I traditionally consider relevant. Stuff like speed, current form and race condition preferences. Unfortunately I usually lose because it seems as if the Belmont is less about those things and more about the fitness of the individual.
Fitness can be measured in many different ways. For the Derby the focus of fitness statistics is based on determining whether or not a horse has built up enough fitness to withstand the rigors of 10f. For the Belmont the focus shifts towards determining whether or not a horse still has enough left in the tank to go 12f. Many times the Triple Crown trail has left some of these horses jaded even if they weren't entrants in the Derby and Preakness.
From the year 2000 to the present there has been 85 starters in the Belmont. 21 of them entered the race having more than 5 races since their last layoff and none of them wound up as winners. They compiled a record of 21-0-2-2. Notable horses like War Emblem, Monarchos, Perfect Drift and Hard Spun were among them.
Even a normally positive angle like a bullet in their last workout could wind up being a negative. Horses with a last work bullet in the Derby have done extremely well but in the Belmont they're 17-2-0-1. The only horses that managed to run a bullet and still win were Afleet Alex and Point Given. Perhaps not coincidentally, they were also the most formful winners of the last decade. Others like Big Brown, Funny Cide, Perfect Drift and Bob and John were not able to achieve Belmont success after fast final workouts.
Normally I advise to simply play the big races like you play any other race but for the Belmont it's worth remembering that for a variety of reasons it's unlike most other stakes races. The keys to victory seem to be more about fitness and experience than speed, class or form. If you're anything like me speed, class and form are usually the first things you focus on.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Play Back In The Preakness
For those looking for an interesting Preakness angle you probably need not look any further than the favorite. No, I'm not simply suggesting that you bet the favorite in the Preakness although that would have netted you an $11 profit on equal $2 win bets since 1990. I would actually suggest that you consider playing the Derby favorite back in the Preakness.
The bettors in the Derby are rarely wrong about the quality of the horse they make the favorite. The horse may not show it that day but generally they have a decent record the rest of the spring.
From 1990 to the present there has been 13 Kentucky Derby favorites that have returned to run in the Preakness. 6 of them turned up winners and an amazing 11 of them were in the top 3. The only recent Derby favorites to run poorly in the Preakness were Harlan's Holiday (4th) and Excellent Meeting (DNF). Excellent Meeting is a bit of a special case because she was really only the Derby favorite because she was part of an entry with General Challenge. Harlan's Holiday managed to fill out the superfecta.
A $2 win bet on the returning Derby favorite in the Preakness during the last two decades would have cost you $26 and yielded $44.80. That a 72.31% return on investment from betting favorites, the only difference is that you're focusing on the last race favorite not the current one.
Whatever you happen to think of Friesan Fire's chances he might be worth a small win bet and include him on all your tickets. Derby favorites who were favored on their own merit have not missed the Preakness superfecta since Honest Pleasure in 1976.
The bettors in the Derby are rarely wrong about the quality of the horse they make the favorite. The horse may not show it that day but generally they have a decent record the rest of the spring.
From 1990 to the present there has been 13 Kentucky Derby favorites that have returned to run in the Preakness. 6 of them turned up winners and an amazing 11 of them were in the top 3. The only recent Derby favorites to run poorly in the Preakness were Harlan's Holiday (4th) and Excellent Meeting (DNF). Excellent Meeting is a bit of a special case because she was really only the Derby favorite because she was part of an entry with General Challenge. Harlan's Holiday managed to fill out the superfecta.
A $2 win bet on the returning Derby favorite in the Preakness during the last two decades would have cost you $26 and yielded $44.80. That a 72.31% return on investment from betting favorites, the only difference is that you're focusing on the last race favorite not the current one.
Whatever you happen to think of Friesan Fire's chances he might be worth a small win bet and include him on all your tickets. Derby favorites who were favored on their own merit have not missed the Preakness superfecta since Honest Pleasure in 1976.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
First Class
Class is one of those things that plenty of people believe in but very few can define. A horse seems to either have the requisite class or they don't and it one of those things that most observe with the naked eye rather than with actual numbers.
My thought or observation on the matter is that class is essentially the type of race a certain horse fits into. It's a tough thing to nail down because horses continually compete at various class levels and achieve mixed results because of many different reasons that go well beyond class. For instance a horse may be a G-1 quality sprinter but only a G-3 quality miler. It's hard to gather enough data to accurately classify horses because of brief campaigns.
It's a commonly held notion that the Preakness unlike the Derby is often won by the best horse. A look over the list of past winners reveals that the vast majority of them were extremely classy individuals, true G-1 horses. It then stands to reason that a secret to unlocking the Preakness puzzle beforehand would be to identify those horses who are classy enough. The trick is finding the tools to do that accurately.
I've often seen average earnings used as a benchmark for class. If you were to take the lifetime earnings of every Preakness starter and divide it by their career starts then compare it against the field average you'd find that 69 horses failed to better the field's average earnings mark. Those 69 horses combined for a 69-2-7-6 in the Preakness from 2000 to the present. Since there were only 96 Preakness starters during that era it means the remaining 27 horses achieved a record of 7-2-3. Sadly betting all those 27 horses would not have yielded a profit since the highest paying winner was Curlin ($8.80). You'd have lost $10.80 over 9 years but you'd have had 7 winners.
A far more simplistic class measurement is looking at whether or not a horse has been able to win a Graded Stakes race recently. One could divide the Preakness field into those that have won a Graded Stakes in the current season and those that have not. The "have nots" combined for a very poor 52-0-4-4 since 2000 while the "haves" went 44-9-5-5. Sadly this angle doesn't show a flat win bet profit either. Betting the 44 graded stakes winners would cost $88 and would only return $85.40. In a race where short priced winners are so common it's rare to find any cut and dried angle like this that would show a profit.
As always judgment needs to be applied, but class is still a major key. However you define it, handicappers will need to sort out the class levels of this Preakness field to decide who the true G-1 horses are.
It's an odd year because in most renewals of the Preakness there are two or three horses that look really good and the rest are up and comers. This year one must decide between Rachel Alexandra, Mine That Bird, Pioneerof the Nile, Friesan Fire, Papa Clem, Musket Man and maybe even Big Drama. All of them have either hinted at or outright confirmed G-1 class but they can't all win.
My thought or observation on the matter is that class is essentially the type of race a certain horse fits into. It's a tough thing to nail down because horses continually compete at various class levels and achieve mixed results because of many different reasons that go well beyond class. For instance a horse may be a G-1 quality sprinter but only a G-3 quality miler. It's hard to gather enough data to accurately classify horses because of brief campaigns.
It's a commonly held notion that the Preakness unlike the Derby is often won by the best horse. A look over the list of past winners reveals that the vast majority of them were extremely classy individuals, true G-1 horses. It then stands to reason that a secret to unlocking the Preakness puzzle beforehand would be to identify those horses who are classy enough. The trick is finding the tools to do that accurately.
I've often seen average earnings used as a benchmark for class. If you were to take the lifetime earnings of every Preakness starter and divide it by their career starts then compare it against the field average you'd find that 69 horses failed to better the field's average earnings mark. Those 69 horses combined for a 69-2-7-6 in the Preakness from 2000 to the present. Since there were only 96 Preakness starters during that era it means the remaining 27 horses achieved a record of 7-2-3. Sadly betting all those 27 horses would not have yielded a profit since the highest paying winner was Curlin ($8.80). You'd have lost $10.80 over 9 years but you'd have had 7 winners.
A far more simplistic class measurement is looking at whether or not a horse has been able to win a Graded Stakes race recently. One could divide the Preakness field into those that have won a Graded Stakes in the current season and those that have not. The "have nots" combined for a very poor 52-0-4-4 since 2000 while the "haves" went 44-9-5-5. Sadly this angle doesn't show a flat win bet profit either. Betting the 44 graded stakes winners would cost $88 and would only return $85.40. In a race where short priced winners are so common it's rare to find any cut and dried angle like this that would show a profit.
As always judgment needs to be applied, but class is still a major key. However you define it, handicappers will need to sort out the class levels of this Preakness field to decide who the true G-1 horses are.
It's an odd year because in most renewals of the Preakness there are two or three horses that look really good and the rest are up and comers. This year one must decide between Rachel Alexandra, Mine That Bird, Pioneerof the Nile, Friesan Fire, Papa Clem, Musket Man and maybe even Big Drama. All of them have either hinted at or outright confirmed G-1 class but they can't all win.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Moving On
I'm quite thankful that Jess Jackson has given us something to talk about other than the impossible upset of the Kentucky Derby. Not that I specifically care about who owns Rachel Alexandra. I'm happy as long as we get to see her on the track. The real benefit of this purchase is that it lures fans away from the sometimes morbid blow by blow reflection of the past and draws them into speculation about the future.
The future is where I like to keep my focus. I'm only interested in learning about the past when it can help shape my ability to predict the future. The immediate future of racing is the build up to the Preakness and that's where I've been focusing my energies in the last few days.
Although the Preakness is as old as the Derby it's heritage is not nearly as rich. Perhaps because it's not the first race in the Triple Crown sequence and maybe because it hasn't been such a difficult race to figure out. The Derby upsets may leave us flummoxed but ultimately they add to the allure of the race.
From 1980 to the present there have been only two Preakness winners that were even more than 10/1 at the off. Deputed Testimony and Bernardini were 14/1 and 12/1 respectively. A few big longshots have run second or third but the axiom of "the best horse wins the Preakness" has generally held. 11 of the last 12 Three Year Old Champions have won the Preakness, only 7 of the last 12 champions were also Kentucky Derby winners.
The Preakness, like many races, is continually dominated by speed. Not necessarily early speed but by horses with good tactical speed and the ability to run fast races. As with all major races I look for a potential cut off line for the speed figures by taking an average of every stakes winning Beyer Speed Figure earned by a member of the field in the current season. Horses that failed to equal or better the average for their specific running of the race went 37-0-3-3 in the Preakness from 2000 to the present.
This field is in it's early stages of development but obviously the presence of Rachel Alexandra makes it a much tougher race to win. The required speed figure will probably be in the area of 98 depending on who stays in. That's about average compared to the required speed figures in the recent history of this race. It looks like an intriguing race but not an exceptionally fast one.
The future is where I like to keep my focus. I'm only interested in learning about the past when it can help shape my ability to predict the future. The immediate future of racing is the build up to the Preakness and that's where I've been focusing my energies in the last few days.
Although the Preakness is as old as the Derby it's heritage is not nearly as rich. Perhaps because it's not the first race in the Triple Crown sequence and maybe because it hasn't been such a difficult race to figure out. The Derby upsets may leave us flummoxed but ultimately they add to the allure of the race.
From 1980 to the present there have been only two Preakness winners that were even more than 10/1 at the off. Deputed Testimony and Bernardini were 14/1 and 12/1 respectively. A few big longshots have run second or third but the axiom of "the best horse wins the Preakness" has generally held. 11 of the last 12 Three Year Old Champions have won the Preakness, only 7 of the last 12 champions were also Kentucky Derby winners.
The Preakness, like many races, is continually dominated by speed. Not necessarily early speed but by horses with good tactical speed and the ability to run fast races. As with all major races I look for a potential cut off line for the speed figures by taking an average of every stakes winning Beyer Speed Figure earned by a member of the field in the current season. Horses that failed to equal or better the average for their specific running of the race went 37-0-3-3 in the Preakness from 2000 to the present.
This field is in it's early stages of development but obviously the presence of Rachel Alexandra makes it a much tougher race to win. The required speed figure will probably be in the area of 98 depending on who stays in. That's about average compared to the required speed figures in the recent history of this race. It looks like an intriguing race but not an exceptionally fast one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)