My Derby Analysis #KyDerby

[Grindstone]

Agree if you like. Enjoy regardless.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0504-kentucky-derby-handicap,0,5791661.story

[afib]

That's great - thanks Liam. Good luck everybody.

[BottomLine]

Thanks for your input. I've liked Dullahan for a long time. I do see Bodemeister being in the picture too, but if Dullahan gets the right pace to chase, he will close like a freight train. I won't dismiss Take Charge Indy though, simply because Bo-rail loves Churchill. Went The Day Well is my longshot. Big Brown won after only having raced 3-4 times...so I wouldn't write Bodemeister off because of inexperience as a 2-year-old. He has Bob Baffert for a trainer, so I won't be letting my favorite trainer off my ticket for sure.

I do think your input is pretty spot on though, and thanks again for your input and time.

[jckuhn]

Liam,
When will your official picks be sent out for the Derby? I always look forward to receiving them in my email.

Thanks,
JC

[Grindstone]

I'm not doing a feature this year. The computer picks are posted in the normal location, in the free picks page. My personal opinion is that Dullahan will catch the speedy types in the stretch. Hansen is my computer pick, and I don't think he can get it done. But I do admit that his current odds are higher than they ought to be for a horse like Hansen. He's starting to look like value.

[jckuhn]

Liam,
My paypal account was charged for the feature. Your expertise and insight in the race and all the horses will be missed. I am glad I have your book to review every year.

Thanks,
JC

[Grindstone]

Liam,
My paypal account was charged for the feature. Your expertise and insight in the race and all the horses will be missed. I am glad I have your book to review every year.

Thanks,
JC

Sorry about that. I'll make sure you get a refund.

[BottomLine]

Speed seems to be holding up at the derby, so the closing style of Dullahan now worries me. Maybe Bodemeister will get the job done. I haven't really seen a closer win yet. Also, if Bo-rail hustles Take Charge Indy out of there, he just may shock the field..it's been done before, and he's run away with it.

[Grindstone]

It's been done before, but very rarely and never to my recollection against a field this strong. I'm sticking with my pick.

[Grindstone]

It's been done before, but very rarely and never to my recollection against a field this strong. I'm sticking with my pick.

Bodemeister ran a really great race. Some folks are already taking shots at Mike Smith. It does seem odd he sent that horse out so fast. It wasn't like he needed to worry about Trinninberg wiring it.

My guy Dullahan ran well. I believe he was wide in the final turn. Not sure he would have run down the winner but I think he would have caught Bodemeister.

[BottomLine]

I think Smith did send Bodemeister too fast. Trinninberg was absolutely no threat to win it. It messed up my ex. tri. and super.... I had Bode, Dullahan, and mentioned earlier my longshot play was Went The Day well....all three were there, but I didn't have the winner. I don't think we will see a triple crown winner this year...I think this horse is another Giacamo to be honest. A little bit longer race and Dullahan would have gotten both of them. Where in the heck did that I'll Have Another Come From...never on my radar, and certainly not with a first time rider in the Derby.

Oh well, I think right now I'll Have Another.

[BottomLine]

I also think Martin Garcia would have done a better job with Bodemeister, but instead Baffert sticks him on a horse without a chance. Maybe Baffert needs to take some of the blame himself.

[Grindstone]

I would never back a horse that has only raced in CA. Especially this year when there were so many better options. Dullahan was at least seven wide on the final turn.

[canleakid]

had the 5-6 there but thanks to I'll Have Another, "I will NOT have another" cause I lost it ALL!!!!!! LOL

[Grindstone]

Agree it does not look good for a triple crown. But I do like the fact that this horse stays closer to the pace. Could help him in the Preakness.

[arizonadave]

You guys are too funny.Where did this horse come from? He just won the Santa Anita Derby. I know the California races are later in the day for you old folks, but it shows how good the stock is over there.Bodemeister ran crazy fractions and almost won. If he comes out of the race healthy, he will be a strong favorite in the Preakness.

[Grindstone]

I didn't say anything like that. I knew where he came from. It says something about the quality of the field when the SA Derby winner ends up twelfth in the computer rankings. I would never have had him because he had never raced outside of CA. That is a disqualified for me in every Derby, especially this one. He ran a big race and I hope he can repeat in the Preakness.

[arizonadave]

One of the posters ahead of you said where did he come from.Thats the great thing about horse racing, theories do change. Bodemiester never ran as a two year old and came close. fun times

[canleakid]

NO "TCW" AGAIN!!!

[Grindstone]

You know what, those stupid theories are extremely hard to put down. I guarantee you that it will still be talked about next year and the next year and the next year until it is finally proven to be garbage. It ought to be enough that Bodemeister ran a very solid, very mature, very fast race but finished second. But it won't be. There will be plenty of morons who want to still act like there is some invisible barrier for horses that did not race as a two year old.

[TomG]

There will be plenty of morons who want to still act like there is some invisible barrier for horses that did not race as a two year old.

Morons, really? Why are they morons for stating a statistical fact?

[Grindstone]

They are not morons when they state facts. They become morons when they use those same facts and present them as an indicator of future events.

[funkymonkey]

They are not morons when they state facts. They become morons when they use those same facts and present them as an indicator of future events.

Completely disagree. History is the best (albeit imperfect) predictor of the future. And, keep in mind that statistical facts should be seen as probabilistic predictors of potential future states. They are not deterministic predictors.

With regard to KD winners needing to have raced as a 2 year old, the statistical fact is that it is a highly unlikely outcome for a horse with no races as a 2 year old to win the derby. It is a rare occurence. So, that does not mean it cannot happen or will never happen. In fact, it has happened...just not for a long time. People using this information are not morons at all. It should be a starting point from which you then evaluate the possibility about whether this year will be the year that an improbable event occurs.

People use statistical facts all the time to make decisions about the future: e.g. sun rose yesterday and the day before and the day before that...therefore it is likely that the sun will rise again tomorrow and the day after that...not a certainty but a likely occurence...other examples include the use of player statistics (e.g. era, rbis, hrs, batting average etc...) to make financial decisions about who to sign and for what amounts...once again no guarantees but probably the best they can do in trying to predict the future.

my 2 cents worth...and, by the way, in case you were wondering I did bet Bode in the top spot.

[collinwood_lauderdale]

Completely disagree. History is the best (albeit imperfect) predictor of the future. And, keep in mind that statistical facts should be seen as probabilistic predictors of potential future states. They are not deterministic predictors.

With regard to KD winners needing to have raced as a 2 year old, the statistical fact is that it is a highly unlikely outcome for a horse with no races as a 2 year old to win the derby. It is a rare occurence. So, that does not mean it cannot happen or will never happen. In fact, it has happened...just not for a long time. People using this information are not morons at all. It should be a starting point from which you then evaluate the possibility about whether this year will be the year that an improbable event occurs.

People use statistical facts all the time to make decisions about the future: e.g. sun rose yesterday and the day before and the day before that...therefore it is likely that the sun will rise again tomorrow and the day after that...not a certainty but a likely occurence...other examples include the use of player statistics (e.g. era, rbis, hrs, batting average etc...) to make financial decisions about who to sign and for what amounts...once again no guarantees but probably the best they can do in trying to predict the future.

my 2 cents worth...and, by th

e way, in case you were wondering I did bet Bode in the top spot.


For this outstanding work, I award you 10 pies:

OOOOOOOOOO

[TomG]

It is a rare occurence.

Thanks FM, rare indeed. How about it hasn't occured since 1882, only 7 years after Derby #1???? Use whatever statistically significant info you have on hand when deciding contenders and pretenders for A particular race. That and a little racing luck and you end up right.

[Grindstone]

Completely disagree. History is the best (albeit imperfect) predictor of the future. And, keep in mind that statistical facts should be seen as probabilistic predictors of potential future states. They are not deterministic predictors.

With regard to KD winners needing to have raced as a 2 year old, the statistical fact is that it is a highly unlikely outcome for a horse with no races as a 2 year old to win the derby. It is a rare occurence. So, that does not mean it cannot happen or will never happen. In fact, it has happened...just not for a long time. People using this information are not morons at all. It should be a starting point from which you then evaluate the possibility about whether this year will be the year that an improbable event occurs.

People use statistical facts all the time to make decisions about the future: e.g. sun rose yesterday and the day before and the day before that...therefore it is likely that the sun will rise again tomorrow and the day after that...not a certainty but a likely occurence...other examples include the use of player statistics (e.g. era, rbis, hrs, batting average etc...) to make financial decisions about who to sign and for what amounts...once again no guarantees but probably the best they can do in trying to predict the future.

my 2 cents worth...and, by the way, in case you were wondering I did bet Bode in the top spot.

Well researched and stated, but statistically completely false.

The reason why the sun rises one day and again the next is because the conditions that made it rise are THE SAME. Therefore the probability of it rising again is extremely high, because the conditions have not changed.

The same cannot be said for horse racing. Not even close. The fact of the matter is that for many, many years horses ran many races before the Derby. The average number of starts has dropped significantly over the past ten years, let alone the past one hundred years. So for a horse to have NOT raced as a two year old used to mean a lot. It meant that his competition had probably eight races under their belt while this horse had none. In Derby 138, several horses went to post with five or fewer starts under their belts. This is a much smaller disadvantage.

This is just one difference between the previous hundred years and today's Derby. There are changes to breeding practices and changes to training practices which make it no longer a valid comparison. So when a person says, "look at the past one hundred years... blah blah blah... and this is why Bodemeister did not win the Derby... " this is complete and utter garbage. He lost the race for some reasons which were similar to history and for some reasons which have nothing to do with the previous hundred years.

Is it hard to win the Derby without having raced as a two year old? Yes, of course it is. But is it statistically harder to do it than any other horse in the race? That is far from proven.

Did you know that no horse with both words "Invisible" and "Ink" in his name has ever won the Derby in the past 138 years? Isn't that something? So I guess next year if a horse is entered named "Mr. Ink Invisible" he has less of a chance than any other horse in the race? Of course we spot this premise as garbage but we accept as plausible equally statistically invalid comments such as not having raced as a two year old.

[funkymonkey]

Well researched and stated, but statistically completely false.

The reason why the sun rises one day and again the next is because the conditions that made it rise are THE SAME. Therefore the probability of it rising again is extremely high, because the conditions have not changed.

The same cannot be said for horse racing. Not even close. The fact of the matter is that for many, many years horses ran many races before the Derby. The average number of starts has dropped significantly over the past ten years, let alone the past one hundred years. So for a horse to have NOT raced as a two year old used to mean a lot. It meant that his competition had probably eight races under their belt while this horse had none. In Derby 138, several horses went to post with five or fewer starts under their belts. This is a much smaller disadvantage.

This is just one difference between the previous hundred years and today's Derby. There are changes to breeding practices and changes to training practices which make it no longer a valid comparison. So when a person says, "look at the past one hundred years... blah blah blah... and this is why Bodemeister did not win the Derby... " this is complete and utter garbage. He lost the race for some reasons which were similar to history and for some reasons which have nothing to do with the previous hundred years.

Is it hard to win the Derby without having raced as a two year old? Yes, of course it is. But is it statistically harder to do it than any other horse in the race? That is far from proven.

Did you know that no horse with both words "Invisible" and "Ink" in his name has ever won the Derby in the past 138 years? Isn't that something? So I guess next year if a horse is entered named "Mr. Ink Invisible" he has less of a chance than any other horse in the race? Of course we spot this premise as garbage but we accept as plausible equally statistically invalid comments such as not having raced as a two year old.

Liam,

Just so you know my intent is not to get into a pissing match. I respect your views and I think it is possible for two reasonable individuals to disagree about whether somebody is a moron for seriously considering not backing a derby entrant who has not raced as a 2 year old.

The fact that an unraced 2 year old has not won a derby in a very long time is indisputable. If I understand your argument correctly you are claiming that things have changed to such a significant degree so as to make the time series of observations that date beyond a certain year no longer relevant. Even if your contention is correct that in the "modern era" the relative disadvantage of being unraced at 2 has decreased, the simple fact remains that even with the smaller number of observations in this truncated time series of observations the event in question remains a low probability event (current probability of it occurring given the truncated time series is zero...it has not happened). I have no doubt that it will happen at some point...my simple point is that it will likely remain a low probability event and therefore one is likely justified in throwing out these horses for the win spot...more often than not you will be right.

To my thinking, the phenomena in question is analogous to wagering on a "rookie" to win the batting title in baseball or lead the nba in scoring. It has happened but the occurrence is such a rare one that I will be wrong only in a very small number of trials. Of course, the underlying dynamics that produce these observations across the sports noted are most likely different. And, of course, the observations in question are not explanations for the phenomena...they are at best useful devices that allow us to make best guesses as to future outcomes.

On a related note, does anybody know whether and how often unraced 2 year olds have won the preakness and/or the belmont? And, how many times we have had runners in these races that have not raced as 2 year olds? I don't have these numbers and think it would be interesting to know.

[collinwood_lauderdale]

Liam,

Just so you know my intent is not to get into a pissing match. I respect your views and I think it is possible for two reasonable individuals to disagree about whether somebody is a moron for seriously considering not backing a derby entrant who has not raced as a 2 year old.

The fact that an unraced 2 year old has not won a derby in a very long time is indisputable. If I understand your argument correctly you are claiming that things have changed to such a significant degree so as to make the time series of observations that date beyond a certain year no longer relevant. Even if your contention is correct that in the "modern era" the relative disadvantage of being unraced at 2 has decreased, the simple fact remains that even with the smaller number of observations in this truncated time series of observations the event in question remains a low probability event (current probability of it occurring given the truncated time series is zero...it has not happened). I have no doubt that it will happen at some point...my simple point is that it will likely remain a low probability event and therefore one is likely justified in throwing out these horses for the win spot...more often than not you will be right.

To my thinking, the phenomena in question is analogous to wagering on a "rookie" to win the batting title in baseball or lead the nba in scoring. It has happened but the occurrence is such a rare one that I will be wrong only in a very small number of trials. Of course, the underlying dynamics that produce these observations across the sports noted are most likely different. And, of course, the observations in question are not explanations for the phenomena...they are at best useful devices that allow us to make best guesses as to future outcomes.

On a related note, does anybody know whether and how often unraced 2 year olds have won the preakness and/or the belmont? And, how many times we have had runners in these races that have not raced as 2 year olds? I don't have these numbers and think it would be interesting to know.

Oh boy.


You had to go and ham it up with the pseudocerebral stuff.

Awful--5 frogs 4 u:




:l :l :l :l :l

[Grindstone]

My intention was not to suggest you are a moron. And you don't need to worry about a pissing match. I enjoy spirited debate.

My beef is with people who perpetuate these myths as is they have some sort of magical powers. People lose the ability to separate historical fact from useful handicapping info.

Between a horse that has four lifetime starts (two as a two year old and two as a three year old) and a horse with four starts as a three year old I would rather have the horse with four races this year, because they have more recent experience and have taken on the older horses more often.

But people who hear these myths might think that the horse with no starts as a two year old could not win and that is just ridiculous. Bodemeister beat nineteen horses that all had raced as two year olds.

[TomG]

Bodemeister beat nineteen horses that all had raced as two year olds.

Actually he only beat 18 others, one of those beat him. But the FACT remains that 100% of those that have attempted this feat since 1882 have ALL failed. I'm actually looking into how many horses have attempted this and failed. Is it 1 per year? 2? More? Less? Anyone know? For me, 100% failure rate for the past 130 years was enough to toss him from the win slot. I got lucky this year. Peace out.

[Grindstone]

Actually he only beat 18 others, one of those beat him. But the FACT remains that 100% of those that have attempted this feat since 1882 have ALL failed. I'm actually looking into how many horses have attempted this and failed. Is it 1 per year? 2? More? Less? Anyone know? For me, 100% failure rate for the past 130 years was enough to toss him from the win slot. I got lucky this year. Peace out.

Tom, you are someone who is being misled by the way the information is being presented. You got lucky. I'm glad for you.

[BottomLine]

And on an even more amazing note, my friend who is part owner of Rousing Sermon, told me he finished 8th (I believe)....which is good for a horse I thought would be crossing the line last with Trinninberg. I believe he even beat Union Rags if I'm not mistaken.