HANDICAPPING INSIGHTS
MAY 20, 2011
by Dick Powell
Bob Baffert tells a lot of funny jokes, but I like the one he told about
MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE (War Chant) the other day. His Santa Anita Derby (G1) winner
finished 16th in the Kentucky Derby (G1) and Baffert expected an improved
performance in the Preakness S. (G1). Why, you might ask? Because the Preakness
field is limited to 14 starters, so he has to improve on his final position.
LOL!
But behind Baffert’s humor is actually a handicapping lesson that many of us
do not pay enough attention to. On the far right-hand side of your past
performances is a number that stands alone. It is the number of horses that
started in the race. For the Derby, the number was a seldom seen “19.” But for
many other races, the number is a lot lower and an overlooked factor in
analyzing a race.
With all the rain that we have been receiving this week, off-the-turf races
have been the norm. When these horses run back, some of them will look better
than they are since they raced in scratch-depleted fields. Pay attention to how
many horses were left in the field. At Keeneland, off-the-turf races usually
hold up and have few scratches. In New York, the field sizes are much smaller
unless there are a bunch of main-track-only horses drawing in.
What might look like a normal allowance race run on a fast main track that
was originally intended to be run on the turf might be a weak running because
the field size is greatly reduced. Closer inspection might reveal that a few of
those starters were turf horses that stayed in the race to just get some
conditioning out of it. But, it is the field size number that makes all the
difference.
When analyzing sprint races, a large field size can actually help a speed
horse. The bigger the field, the greater chance that the horses without top-end
gate speed will get caught up in traffic. This was Wesley Ward’s theory when he
went to Royal Ascot two years ago. He knew that his horses would fly out of the
starting gate and how big an advantage that would be against gigantic fields of
British horses that are not well-trained to break like our sprinters are.
In route races, a small field can affect the race two ways. First, it can
help the front runner since he/she will likely get an easier lead with fewer
horses to apply pressure. But, second, it can help the deep closer since he/she
can wait and make their late move when they want without any traffic and have
fewer horses to go around.
When a horse exits a series of short field races and then takes on a big
field, red flags should go up and it’s worth it to pay closer attention to how
those races actually developed.
***
Last week I wrote about how this year’s Derby was a tale of two racetracks,
and how the horses that raced on the outside had a distinct advantage. Now, I
offer you empirical proof.
I have access to Trakus data and the amount of feet covered by the field is
an object lesson on why it paid to be on the outside at Churchill Downs on the
first Saturday in May. Here are the 19 horses in post-position order and the
distance they ran in feet:
Archarcharch — 6752
Brilliant Speed — 6795
Twice the Appeal — 6733
Stay Thirsty — 6727
Decisive Moment — 6715
Comma to the Top — 6813
Pants on Fire — 6784
Dialed In — 6771
Derby Kitten — 6748
Twinspired — 6712
Master of Hounds — 6749
Santiva — 6759
Mucho Macho Man — 6774
Shackleford — 6770
Midnight Interlude — 6808
Animal Kingdom — 6857
Soldat — 6831
Nehro — 6861
Watch Me Go — 6848
The amazing thing about this year’s Derby is that the two horses that ran the
farthest, ANIMAL KINGDOM (Leroidesanimaux [Brz]) and NEHRO (Mineshaft), and lost
the most ground, finished first and second. Usually, a pedestrian pace forces
the horses behind to bunch up and lose even more ground than if the field were
stretched out. Not this year. The wide closers did the best on a track that was
biased towards wide closers. The dirt races before the Derby showed this trend
as many winners rallied down the middle of the track.
Trakus shows that being on the better footing on the outside was far more
important than losing ground. Normally, you would look at this data and say that
if Animal Kingdom won the race despite running farther than any other horse
coming out of the Derby, he would be even better with a ground-saving trip. But
that is not how the main track races were run on Derby Day.
The key to analyzing this year’s Preakness is deciding whether Animal Kingdom
was a wide closer on a wide closers track, or was his first start on dirt a true
indication how he will continue to run over it?