Juvenile Speedsters Tuesday, Dec 23 2008

Juvenile speedsters often seem the most likely to succeed at their age levels but fade as they age. There are three likely explanations for this phenomenon.

First, many sires of prodigal juveniles are speedsters themselves. Bold Ruler and Mr. Prospector are the best examples of this trend. BC Sprint Winner Speightstown was also a particularly proficient juvenile sire.

Most closers are also slow developers at two. Because of this, speedsters who duel off to a quick pace are less likely to have the race taken at the end by closers who take advantage of their fatigue.

Finally, as I discussed in April, pacesetters are at a disadvantage in the Kentucky Derby. The Derby is wrongly considered the major test for three-year olds, so the champions at two (often pacesetters because of the above two factors) rarely win the Derby.

Because the leading horses at two are so often pacesetters and such horses fail in the classic three-year-old race, these horses tend to be considered failures at three.

Leave a Response »

 

A Review of the Breeders’ Cup Friday, Dec 5 2008

The 25th Breeders’ Cup was one of the best, with the highlight being Curlin’s upset by Raven’s Pass in the BC Classic. But there were many other great moments, such as:

The Breeders’ Cup Juvenile Fillies: Stardom Bound wins with a move that recalled Arazi, sweeping from the back to first in about a quarter-mile.

The Breeders’ Cup Turf Sprint: Desert Code pays more than 31-1 in winning the inaugural Turf Sprint on Santa Anita’s downhill course in the final stride.

The Breeders’ Cup Distaff: Zenyatta gets her ninth win in as many starts with a great 7-wide last-to-first move.

The Breeders’ Cup Marathon: Muhannak wins the longest race in Breeders’ Cup history in a photo finish.

And, my pick as the best race of the weekend:

The Breeders’ Cup Mile: Goldikova just gets in at the rail at the furlong pole and bursts away to win. A really brilliant ride, and she looked beaten turning for home.

Leave a Response »

 

Analysis Reveals Commentator Strong Contender in Breeders’ Cup Classic Tuesday, Sep 30 2008

Commentator (right) bests St. Liam in the 2006 Whitney

Commentator (on the right) bests St. Liam in the 2006 Whitney Stakes

The 2008 Breeders’ Cup Classic has been billed as a showdown between three-year-old star Big Brown and Curlin. Big Brown dominated the Kentucky Derby and Preakness while Curlin is reigning BC Classic champion, Horse of the Year, and all-time leading money winner. But this analysis leaves out one of the three best horses in the country, Commentator. Considering that the seven-year-old veteran has never won a divisional championship, never finished in the top six in a Breeders’ Cup race, and has never even raced beyond 1 ¹/₈ miles, this ranking would seem laughable. These factors also indicate that Commentator would be a poor fit for the BC Classic at 1 ¼ miles against the best horses in the world. Commentator, however, has been the sport’s most underrated older male horse in the years from 2005-2008. My analysis predicts that if he were to run in the Classic, he would be a contender in the biggest race of the year.

Commentator’s Beyer Speed Figures indicate that he is one of the top horses in the country. Commentator has run twenty times in his career, and three times has run a Beyer above 120. Another three times he ran in the 110-120 range, and six other races he ran a 100 or better. Curlin’s career high is a 119 over a sloppy track (he normally runs about 110) while Big Brown consistently runs in the 100-110 range.

One of Commentator’s most notable characteristics is his affinity for longer distances. Two of his three best performances came at 1 ¹/₈ miles, one a thrilling defeat of eventual Horse of the Year St. Liam in the 2006 Whitney Stakes. In his next race, the Woodward at 1 ¹/₈, he was third against the very best horses in the country despite being pressured by “rabbits” into setting an extremely fast early pace. He earned an 82 in this race under unfair conditions. If we eliminate this race, he displays a pronounced tendency to favor long distances such as the Classic’s 1 ¼. In fact, my regression analysis predicts that he would run a 120.1 in the Classic, definitely good enough to beat Big Brown and Curlin.

graph1

The only factor that could deter Commentator from a dominating race in the Classic would be weight. In the Classic Commentator would carry 126 pounds. The only times in his career he has carried 126 pounds or more were an awful run in the BC Sprint at ¾ miles in which he earned a 75 Beyer and the pace-pressured Woodward against St. Liam in which he earned an 82. But we have already seen that Commentator would not appreciate the short distance of the Sprint and that no horse could have won the Woodward that year on the lead. Nevertheless, Commentator does have a negative correlation between performance and weight. If we extrapolate to compute his performance in the Classic considering both length and weight, we find that he would run an excellent 111.8.

graph11

This year has been Commentator’s best ever. He won the Massachusetts by an incredible 14 lengths, dominated by 4 ¾ in the Grade I Whitney, won the Richter Scale by 13 ¾, and finished a game second in the Metropolitan. The Whitney win earned him a trip to the BC Classic. If his owner decides to run him in the Classic, he will give Big Brown and Curlin a run for the Horse of the Year championship. If not, he will still be an underrated star who deserves a chance to run in a 1¼ mile race and show his distance ability. Either way, no horse since John Henry has done as well as Commentator at age six or older.

Commentator’s career past performances can be found at http://www.drf.com/bc/2008/pps/commentator.pdf

4 Responses »

 

Big Brown: Why the Failure in the Belmont? Monday, Aug 25 2008

Big Brown’s failure in the Belmont is probably the biggest surprise of the year in sports. ABC offered many explanations in its broadcast, from bleeding and the crack in his hoof to the heat and crowd noise. Later video seemed to indicate his shoe had been bumped by Guadacanal coming out of the gate. But the simplest explanation is that he simply didn’t want to run.  Coming into the Derby, a great deal of controversy surrounded the fact that he had only run three times. This probably placed him at a disadvantage in the race.

Out of the gate, Big Brown broke first but Kent Desormeaux quickly pulled him back and took him to the outside. At this point, Big Brown probably felt a little mad he had been restrained. In his previous three races, he had run opening quarter miles of 22 3/5, 23 2/5, and 24 seconds. In the Belmont, he ran in 24 3/5, much slower than his previous races. He broke at his regular speed and when his jockey tried to get him to run the slower pace of the Belmont, simply didn’t feel like running anymore. The new speed and the 91-degree heat in New York were the true causes of his suprising, but logical, defeat in the Belmont.

Leave a Response »

 

Big Brown: Up to Form in the Haskell Tuesday, Aug 5 2008

Big Brown has drawn criticism lately for his performance in the Haskell. He returned from an unsuccessful attempt at the Triple Crown, which he failed to win. He only won the Haskell by a length and a quarter, prompting the New York Times to call it “a successful return to racing, but not necessarily an overpowering one.” But Big Brown’s trainer, Rick Dutrow, was correct when he said:

“He showed up the right way today. He might not have looked like he did in his first five races when he destroyed the field, but the other horse ran a huge, huge race. That’s why maybe it looked like Brown didn’t look like himself. But, man, in the last eighth of a mile, he really got himself together. He showed us that he’s back in town.”

I recently used Beyer Speed figures to rank the top seven horses of the past decade. We can use the same method to analyze Big Brown. He ran a 109 in the Derby and a 100 in the Preakness before being pulled up in the Belmont. The winner in that race, Da’Tara, ran a 99, so Big Brown probably would have won had he been up to form in the Belmont. In the Haskell, he ran a 107. Big Brown has not declined. Dutrow is correct. Indeed, Cold Play ran a huge race, and Big Brown is back in town.

Leave a Response »

 

Seven Current Stars for Racing’s Pantheon of Greats Monday, Aug 4 2008

August 2008

Most sports quickly recognize their stars and place them among the all-time greats. Ten years ago, Ken Griffey Jr. was being compared to Willie Mays and baseball statistician Bill James ranked 33-year-old Craig Biggio as the 42^nd best player of all time. Ask a basketball fan to list the top players in NBA history and they will include current stars Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal. Ask a football fan to name the best quarterbacks ever and they will respond with Brett Favre and Peyton Manning. It seems that superstars today are often immediately compared to and ranked among players whose career has passed. But if this is so, why is horse racing, a sport where the quality of racing is higher then it has ever been before, slighting its current stars?

Have you ever heard Fusaichi Pegasus compared to War Admiral, Azeri to Ruffian, War Emblem to Man o’ War? Horse racing fans debate the present or the past, never the combination. Horses that raced fifteen years ago, like Cigar, Holy Bull, and Skip Away, are just now being compared to other stars. Before the recent statistical revolution, comparisons were largely subjective. But now, in an age where it is easier than ever to compare athletes, horse racing has yet to join the trend and recognize contemporary all-time greats. Identifying stars of the present that deserve to be ranked among the best ever, this column will rank the top seven horses of the past decade and compare them to the great stars of the past.

Beyer Speed Figures will be used to rank these current stars. Invented by handicapper Andrew Beyer in the 1970s, the method assigns a number to each horse in a race based on the final time of the race and the number of lengths that horse was behind the winner at the end of the race. Because most horses run more slowly when a track is wet or muddy, Beyer Speed Figures (or “Beyers”) adjust the final times for track conditions by comparing times for races to a par for that track, distance, and purse. Most horses run about an 80. Champions run around 105-115, and a Horse of the Year usually runs a high of about 117. By far the highest Beyer ever run is Secretariat’s 139 in the 1973 Belmont. Only one other horse has even run a 130.

The top seven horses of the past decade and their historical counterparts:

Number 7: Azeri

Azeri has been the best mare to race in the past ten years. She was Horse of the Year in 2002 and dominated her division for three straight years. Her figures are fantastic. She always ran a Beyer over 100 and even ran a 110, 110, and 111 in consecutive races. Although she was unsuccessful both times she raced against males, she came close in the 2004 Breeders’ Cup Classic and her other defeat came at Belmont, a track which she loathed. The quantity of the big races she ran, rather than a few brilliant ones, got her on this list.

Azeri is probably most similar to all-time great Dahlia, the star mare of the 1970s. Both raced primarily against other females but won awards that normally went to males. Though Dahlia raced on turf and Azeri on dirt, their running styles are similar. Their ability is also quite comparable-neither was quite the best horse in the world during her career, and both had some off-races interspersed with the high-quality ones.

Number 6: Curlin

Curlin, the only active horse on this list, made headlines in 2007 by winning the Preakness Stakes in his fifth career start. Curlin went on to win the Breeders’ Cup Classic, Dubai World Cup, Stephen Foster, and Jockey Club Gold Cup, with excellent Beyers. He earned a 119 in the Classic, but his other figures indicate that might have been a fluke, which is why he is only sixth. Curlin still has plenty of room to improve, however. He made his turf debut with a second in the Man o’ War. Watch for him on grass again later this fall.

With his come-from-behind style, Curlin resembles Alydar. Both debuted in a strong three-year-old class and came very close in Triple Crown races. While Curlin won the BC Classic and Alydar didn’t run in it (it didn’t exist in 1978), both had strong 4-year-old campaigns. Alydar is rarely ranked among the top 100 horses ever, but he was overshadowed by Affirmed despite being almost as good. Affirmed is usually ranked among the top twenty horses ever.

Number 5: Bernardini

Three-year-old Bernardini dominated other horses in 2006. He won the Preakness in a race that was marred by Kentucky Derby winner Barbaro’s breakdown coming out of the gate. Yet even if Barbaro had been able to run the race, Bernardini probably would have won anyway. Bernardini ran a 113 in the Preakness, while Barbaro had run a 103 and 111 in his previous two starts. Bernardini won five straight stakes races by a combined 32 lengths, and came within a length of Invasor in the Breeders’ Cup Classic. He won five Grade I stakes (the highest level), a Grade II, and a Grade III. He ran five straight Beyers that topped 113, including a 117. One length more in the Classic and he would be one or two spots higher.

Bernardini’s historical counterpart is Nashua, from the 1950s. Both won the Preakness while overshadowed by the absence of another star of their generation. Bernardini drew criticism because he didn’t defeat Barbaro, while Swaps returned to California after the Derby, leaving the Preakness to Nashua. Despite this, both were better three-year-olds than their rivals.

Number 4: Tiznow

Tiznow was the only horse to win two Breeders’ Cup Classics, with his victories coming in 2000 and 2001. He also compiled an astonishing statistic: in those two years, he never let the leader get more than three lengths in front of him at any point during a race. His Beyers are uniformly excellent, with a 114, 115, 116, two 117s, and a high of 119 in the Goodwood Breeders’ Cup Handicap.

Tiznow’s career bears a startling resemblance to that of Ferdinand, born in 1983. Both were successful three-year-olds and went into the BC Classic in their four-year-old campaigns as the underdog, overshadowed by the three-year-old star of that year. However, Ferdinand vanquished Derby winner Alysheba and Tiznow won the Classic over Arc de Triomphe winner Sakhee. Incidentally, both won in photo finishes.

Number 3: Mineshaft

2003 Horse of the Year Mineshaft didn’t run in the BC Classic but won four Grade I races, a Grade II and Grade III, and was second by a head in the Grade I Stephen Foster after being bumped at the start. He was consistently brilliant, with seven consecutive figures between 114 and 118. His   and dominance of his opponents placed him high on this list.

Mineshaft’s consistency is almost unequaled in racing. The best match is probably Citation, the winner of the 1948 Triple Crown. Though Citation may have been slightly better, he seemed to run the same race over and over again, just like Mineshaft. Citation’s record 16 straight victories and Triple Crown championship reflect to show how good Mineshaft was.

Number 2: Left Bank

By far the most underrated horse of the past decade, Left Bank showed brilliance that few other horses have been able to achieve. Primarily a miler, he didn’t run in any major races but his Beyers show his speed. In 2001, he ran two 118s in stakes races. The next year, he ran two 121s. If he were able to run now, he would have dominated last year’s inaugural Breeders’ Cup Dirt Mile.

Left Bank’s speed is matched by that of the great filly 1960s filly Ruffian. Both were at their best in sprints, though they were able to stretch out to longer distances. Like Left Bank, Ruffian dazzled a relatively weak group of horses in her races.

Number 1: Ghostzapper

Ghostzapper easily ran a 116 in the 2003 Vosburgh then won Horse of the Year in 2004 by virtue of his dominant win in the BC Classic. He is the only horse on this list to run a figure higher than 121 or to have three above 120. His Beyers of 114, 120, 124, and 128 are incredible. He defeated a Horse of the Year, a champion older horse, and many others in an unusually strong Classic field. The 2005 American Racing Manual called him “Simply the best horse to set foot on an American racetrack in 2004, and perhaps for many years.” He is clearly the best horse of the past decade.

Ghostzapper’s long career, ability in both sprints and longer races, and handicap dominance inspire the obvious comparison to Forego. Forego raced in the 1970’s, and though he was overshadowed by that decade’s Triple Crown winners, had his own great moments. Four years he was voted champion older horse. In three of those years, he was named Horse of the Year. Like Ghostzapper, he was equally capable of winning at seven furlongs or a mile and a quarter.

Despite being ignored by racing fans, Azeri, Curlin, Bernardini, Tiznow, Mineshaft, Left Bank, and Ghostzapper deserve places in racing’s list of all-time greats.

Leave a Response »

 

The Kentucky Derby: The Least Exciting Two Minutes in Sports? Monday, Aug 4 2008

April 2008

The Kentucky Derby claims to be the most important race in the world for assessing the abilities of three-year-old horses. But in recent years, it has done a dubious job of selecting champions. Last May, Street Sense won the Derby, but lost to Curlin in the Preakness and Breeders’ Cup Classic. The 2005 winner, Giacomo, was a 50-1 longshot who won little else that year. Funny Cide wore the roses in 2003, but was underwhelming as a four- and five-year-old. All these Derby champions had something else in common besides overachieving in the Derby. They all came off the pace after the leaders had run fast early fractions. Looking over the past fifteen Derbies, an unusual number of winners have rallied from behind. Only two horses led from start to finish. Most of the other early leaders faded to finish in the bottom half of the pack. Unique factors in the Derby, such as the size of the field, contribute to these closing wins and the number of victorious, yet mediocre, horses that win the race.

Closers can take advantage of fast early fractions by the pacesetters in a race. After running a quick opening half-mile, it is virtually impossible to run the rest of the race at the same pace. But come-from-behind horses can run at a constant speed or even speed up in the homestretch. In 1973, for instance, Secretariat ran each quarter of the Derby faster than the previous one! This is analogous to the difference between running a hundred-meter sprint and a one-mile race. If a track star could run at the world record for the sprint throughout the mile, they would set a new world record by a minute-and-a-half. Obviously, it is impossible to run at a very fast speed for a long distance.

Quick early fractions allow closers to swoop by the early leaders and win the race. This phenomenon has been especially pronounced in the Derby. The chart below contains the fractions of the previous fifteen Derbies (excepting the 1999 running, for which data is not available). The row labeled “Win” gives the type of victory. “On lead” is a victory from start to finish, like War Pass’s 2007 Juvenile victory. “Pounce” indicates a victory from three or four lengths back. El Gato Malo’s San Rafael typifies this type of win. Finally, Pyro’s Risen Star is a good example of a “Close”. A championship race should have equal numbers of each of these types of wins, but look at the numbers in the Derby:

	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	2000
¼	22 4/5	22 4/5	22 2/5	22 1/5	23 2/5	22 4/5	22 3/5
½	46 3/5	47 1/5	45 4/5	46	47 2/5	45 4/5	45 4/5
¾	1:11 1/5	1:11 4/5	1:10 1/5	1:10	1:12 2/5	1:10 3/5	1:09 4/5
Win	Close	On lead	Pounce	Close	On lead	Pounce	Close
	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
¼	N/A	23 1/5	22 4/5	22 4/5	22 1/5	22 3/5	22 4/5
½	44 4/5	47	46 1/5	46 3/5	45 1/5	46	46 1/5
¾	1:09 1/5	1:11 2/5	1:10 2/5	1:11 4/5	1:09 2/5	1:10 4/5	1:11 1/5
Win	Close	On lead	Pounce	Pounce	Close	Pounce	Close

Note that only three of these fourteen Derbies, or twenty-one percent, were won wire-to-wire. One of these, the 1994 running, was in the mud, a track condition that favors front-runners. Even more incredibly, the three slowest times for each ¼, ½, and ¾ mile split correspond to the three “on lead” victories. Two Derbies in particular stand out from this chart.

In 2001, Monarchos came from far back to win in 1:59 ⁴/_5, the second fastest Derby ever. He benefited from the fastest ½ and ¾ fractions in Derby history. The final time belied his true ability. Four years later, 50-1 longshot Giacomo won, rallying from eighteenth. Pacesetter Spanish Chestnut set the fastest ¼ and second-fastest ½ and ¾ during this period, and some of the fastest ever. He finished third in the Preakness and seventh in the Belmont. The Derby was a fluke, as he could not have rallied without the blistering early fractions.

It is now clear that poor horses win the Derby because of its fast pace. But why is the Derby especially subject to this phenomenon? One explanation is obvious. Up to twenty horses are allowed to start in the Derby. If there are so many horses in the field, there must be more speed horses. These speedsters all fight for the lead, and the pacesetters are forced into deadly early fractions.

Another contribution to a fast pace is the effect of “rabbits”. Rabbits are horses entered to force a fast pace and allow a closer stablemate to capitalize on the fast fractions. A famous example is the 1963 Woodward Stakes, in which Dr. Fager faced Buckpasser and Damascus. The trainers of both Damascus and Buckpasser entered rabbits to tire the speedy Dr. Fager. Indeed, the Doc ran the opening six furlongs in a scintillating 1:09 ¹/₅. Damascus blew past him to win by ten lengths. Dr. Fager was superior to his opponents, but the rabbits were able to keep him from winning. Rabbits are a common tactic in the Derby and contribute to the pace.

Pressure is often a decisive factor to front-runners. If horses are breathing down the leader’s neck, pacesetters must sprint the first fractions so as not to lose the lead. On the other hand, if no horses are close to them, they can slow down since they can keep the lead but not tire themselves. There is often a great deal of pressure in the Derby from other horses, because of the size of the field. In 2004 and 2007, the leaders finished second, but both set average-to-slow paces (for the Derby) and had two lengths on their pursuers in the backstretch. Their finishes were due to the amount of pressure from other horses. Normally, it is impossible for a horse to take the lead in the Derby without others close to him.

Finally, let’s consider what speed horses on the inside or outside must do. Horses with the inside post must either gun to the lead, fall far back and rally, or get stuck in the middle of a sea of horses. The latter is not an option, and it is usually fatal to go against a horse’s running style, so pacesetters on the inside typically run straight to the turn. If several horses like this are in inside positions, they can create a deadly pace and run each other into the ground. Similarly, horses on the outside risk going wide on the first turn if they do not drop back or run for the lead. Front-runners must angle to the turn and expend a great deal of energy to reach the lead. What appears as a 21 ⁴/₅ fraction from an outside horse may actually be equivalent to a 21 ²/₅. Therefore, horses from the outside fatigue quickly and allow closers to go by in the homestretch much more easily.

The Derby is intended to decide the three-year-old championship in one race. But if it eliminates the third of horses that are front-runners, it cannot achieve its goal. Closers win the derby at an astoundingly high rate, and skew the results of the race. The number of horses in the gate is the most important factor in determining the pace, and thus what horse wins the race. If the Derby reduced the number of starters to fourteen, like the Breeders’ Cup, the race would be fairer and less predictable. For now, however, the Derby remains a flawed and biased test of three-year-olds’ ability.

For videos of 2008 Triple Crown prep races, see http://www.kentuckyderby.com/2008/videos

See previous Derbies at http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=kentuckyderby&p=r

Leave a Response »

 

Secretariat’s Belmont: The Greatest Performance of All Time Monday, Aug 4 2008

August 2007

The oldest, most famous series of races in horse racing is the Triple Crown, consisting of the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness, and the Belmont. No horse has won the Triple Crown since 1978, a break of twenty-nine years. This is similar to what happened from 1949-1972, when for twenty-five years no horse won the Triple Crown. In 1973, however, Secretariat was considered a major candidate to win the three races. The year before, he was the first two year old ever to win the Horse of the Year award. He finished a weak third, though, in the Wood Memorial, his prep race for the Triple Crown. Secretariat then rebounded to win the Triple Crown, winning every race in track-record time. The most amazing race was the Belmont, in which he triumphed by thirty-one lengths while setting a world record. The performance immediately achieved great acclaim. For example, veteran trainer John Gaver called it “the greatest exhibition of speed and stamina I had ever seen.” The race is still recognized to be brilliant, as Secretariat’s record stands and his margin of victory has not been bettered. Because of the time of the race, the speed and stamina displayed, and the fatigue that Secretariat overcame to win, the race is the greatest performance in horse racing history.

The huge winning margin at Belmont can be partly explained by the fact that Secretariat was facing just five opponents. Ten lengths also separated the third and fourth place finishers, showing that perhaps Secretariat was just the best of a field with widely varying talents. The Santa Anita Derby winner Sham finished within three lengths of Secretariat in all of their previous meetings. This time he was last, forty-two and a quarter lengths behind the winner. Thus, it is likely that all of the other horses were better than Sham. Secretariat’s winning margin of thirty-one lengths is very impressive even though the field was small and talent may have differed widely.

In winning the one and a half mile long Belmont, Secretariat set a world record of 2:24. This broke the world record by two and one fifth seconds, a margin which has never been equaled. Normally when a horse crosses the finish line, his jockey pulls him up. Secretariat, though, actually ran past the finish at top speed, and his time for one and five-eighth’s miles also broke the world record. Even before he had crossed the finish line, Secretariat ran parts of the race faster than the Belmont track records. Secretariat ran one and three-sixteenths, one and a quarter, and one and three-eighths miles faster than the Belmont track records. Unfortunately, only the time at the finish counts for record purposes, but if times before and after counted, Secretariat would have set five track records in one race.

Obviously, one of the most incredible parts of the triumph was the huge gap between Secretariat and his opponents. The only other victory by more than thirty lengths in a stakes race was by Man o’ War in the 1920 Lawrence Realization, which he reportedly won by one hundred lengths. Thus, as trainer Lazaro Barrera said of Secretariat after the 1973 race, “The performance he put on in the Belmont – you have to go back to Man o’ War to compare it.” In many ways, though, Secretariat’s winning margin is a greater achievement than Man o’ War’s. Man o’ War’s one hundred lengths are almost certainly an overestimate. He was also facing just one opponent, while Secretariat faced five. Another astounding fact about the 1973 race is that Secretariat, who held the lead from the beginning, increased his winning margin throughout the race! This almost never happens unless the leader runs the first part of the race very slowly, or is not pressured during the beginning. Secretariat ran the opening six furlongs faster than four of the eight most recent running of the prestigious Tobbogan Handicap. It is amazing that Secretariat increased his lead even though he was close to other horses through fast opening fractions.

Secretariat’s closest opponent in both the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness was Sham. Sham battled with Secretariat for the first half of the Belmont but then finished last. The two had seemed fairly evenly matched in all of their previous meetings, but in this race, the quick pace did not seem to greatly affect Secretariat, while it destroyed Sham’s chances. The devastating pace that he set did not tire him.

Finally, the most notable part of the race was that Secretariat should have been very tired before the Belmont, but still ran a spectacular race. His time of 1:59 ²/₅ in the Derby broke several records, and according to the Daily Racing Form, he ran the Preakness in 1:53 ²/₅, a world record. In addition to these races, he had seven blindingly fast workouts in six weeks, several of those especially impressive because they were on sloppy surfaces. Most horses could not possibly run their best race after two great starts and an exhausting series of workouts. And Secretariat was certainly affected by the schedule, as he lost four hundred pounds, more than a quarter of his weight, during the Triple Crown. The Belmont, however, was by far the best race of his career. Although Secretariat had many grueling races and workouts before the Belmont, he still ran a brilliant race.

In 1973, Secretariat won the Belmont Stakes by thirty-one lengths in world-record time. His record has not been broken on dirt since, and he would have broken five track records if his times before and after the race had been official. Even though the opening of the race was brilliantly fast, Secretariat did not tire and increased his lead throughout the race. Also, he had run two great races and seven workouts in six weeks. However, he showed no signs of being fatigued in the race. Therefore, Secretariat’s race in the Belmont, which won the first Triple Crown in twenty-five years, was the greatest performance in horse racing history.

Thanks to the librarians at the Keeneland Library for their research help with this article. Major sources for this article included Charles Hatton’s analysis of Secretariat in the 1974 American Racing Manual (Daily Racing Form, 1974) and William H. Rudy’s “Reactions” article in the Blood-Horse (June 18, 1973). For more information, see www.secretariat.com.

2 Responses »

 

Adjusted Stats: Modern Techniques Applied to Sports Monday, Aug 4 2008

August 2006

Adjusted statistics are one of the newest and most helpful things to grace the world of sports statistics. These statistics correct flawed numbers to account for differences in era, league, and even games played.

To better understand, let’s compare Mark McGwire’s stellar 1998 season, in which he hit seventy homers, to Babe Ruth in 1919, who led the league with twenty-nine. Back then, in the dead ball era, home runs were still scarce, and Ruth didn’t even play full time, pitching seventeen games and going 9-5! After adjusting for this fact, assuming Ruth had 550 AB’s, we can make chart of their home runs:

Name	Adj. HR’s	League HR’s	Pct. of league	1998 HR’s
M. McGwire	70	2565	2.7%	70
B. Ruth	37	497 (adj.)	7.4%	190

First of all, the NL in 1998 hit 2,565 home runs, and the AL in 1919 hit 240. However, you see it in the chart as 497. Why is this? The NL had sixteen teams, and the AL had eight. Since we are calculating the percentage compared to the league, then the AL should be doubled. Next we calculate the percent compared to league, and then multiply by 2,565 to get the expected number of homers in 1998. Note that Ruth would have had almost three times as many homers! This example, if extreme, does show the power of adjusted statistics.

Although adjusted statistics can be used to account for era, they can also be used to correct for position. If we are comparing a corner outfielder to a third baseman, it becomes necessary to adjust for the fact that outfielders have much higher offensive expectations than third baseman. Seeing this, it becomes clear that since Mike Schmidt was a third baseman, his eight home run titles are one of the greatest achievements in baseball history.

Although adjusted statistics are only used in baseball, there is no reason why it should not be possible to use them for other sports like football. For example, which AFC leader was greater: Michael Strahan in 2003 with eighteen and a half sacks, or Dwight Freeney in 2004 with sixteen?

Name	Sacks	Conference Sacks	Pct. of conference	2004 Sacks
M. Strahan	18.5	544	3.4%	20
D. Freeney	16.0	583	2.4%	16

This time the adjusted statistics don’t reverse the margin, rather they augment it.

Of course, this is expected to happen half the time, and can even be helpful in making a statistical argument.

For a powerful example of this augmentation, take Babe Ruth in 1927 with sixty homers versus Roger Maris in 1961, with sixty-one, which broke Ruth’s record. This is obviously neck-and-neck, and so every factor must be taken into account. Both batted left-handed. Both were corner outfielders. Both played their home games at Yankee Stadium. Maris played in a few more games, and Ruth was walked more often. However, the time in which they played is undoubtedly the decisive factor.

Name	HR’s	Adj. League HR’s	Pct. of league	1961 HR’s
R. Maris	61	1086	5.6%	61
B. Ruth	60	549	10.9%	118

The 1927 league stats are adjusted for the fact that Maris’ league had ten teams, but Ruth’s had eight. After doing the necessary calculations, we find that Ruth would have hit almost twice as many homers as Maris in 1961. This resolves one of the greatest statistical arguments in all of baseball.

This method works very well for seasons, but when adjusting for careers we need to be more cautious. Say you are comparing Jackie Robinson to Pete Rose. Most ballplayers reach their prime around 26-28, and then tail off. However, Robinson entered the majors at age 29, and only then do we have close-to-full statistics of his performance. This obviously favors Rose, and the only ways to close the gap are to use Robinson’s Negro League statistics and slightly raise them for the war years that he missed, or do the same with his major league stats. Unfortunately, this method risks having misleading estimations and can give a distorted picture.

You also need to keep your data sets in mind. Say you are comparing two top level equine sprinter’s six-furlong times. If you did the usual solution of averaging the year’s times, your statistics would be incorrect. Since two far apart years will have different ratios of low level claimers to higher class allowances and stakes, you will end up with times skewed in one direction or the other. Because of this, since these are first rate horses, the obvious solution is to just use stakes races. Still, this is a common error and one that can have a large effect.

For adjusted baseball statistics using the method outlined in this column, I find the book “Leveling The Field” by G. Scott Thomas to be a very complete resource. It uses these statistics to simulate playoffs, answer questions like “What was the greatest baseball team of all time” and even compute what players’ salaries would be like in today’s world. It also includes career adjusted statistics for more than 400 of the greatest players of all time.

If used correctly, adjusted statistics can give a sizeable boost to the knowledgeable fan’s position. They are one of the most dangerous and most satisfying tools in today’s world of sports statistics.

Leave a Response »