For those well-versed in Internet drama at it relates to the horse racing community, I have sparred a time or two with Patrick Patten regarding how (if at all) racing could potentially use standings in determining year-end award winners.
I'm not sold on the mechanism the Thoroughbred Bloggers Alliance currently uses, but I'm definitely warming up to the idea of standings (or rankings) determined not by vote or panels but by Mathematics.
I say "Mathematics" because I don't think a simple scoring mechanism is enough. I don't want to get all Bowl Championship Series on Thoroughbred racing, but not all races are created equal, and if the standings/rankings were to mean anything, than a more scientific approach than assigning integers to certain placings in certain races needs to be in place.
In Ohio high school football, a computer program assigns first- and second-tier points based not only on who each team beats but also which teams each team beat beats. E.g., The Mother Goose Stakes grows in stature as the year progresses because the horses behind Rachel Alexandra came back to win graded stakes.
The Jockey Club's Performance Rates, which are published exclusively in Thoroughbred Times, do this to some level, but do not take into account the prestige of each race. I'm not sure Performance Rates is the best model, though, considering Zenyatta ranks 13th among older females this year.
A race like the Presque Isle Masters Stakes is a good example of one that would benefit from awarding second- and even third-tier points. It's a Grade 3 on paper, but the field assembled was easily among the best for a female sprint this year outside of the Breeders' Cup. The idea that Cat Moves deserves more credit for winning the "Grade 1" Prioress than Informed Decision does for winning the Master Stakes is about as silly as ranking Zenyatta 13th among older females!
In the scoring model Patrick pushes, all graded stakes earn points. I'm not against this if there were fewer graded stakes. One of the reasons I'm coming around to a scoring mechanism is because Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta did not face each other this year. Had they run, Horse of the Year would be obvious. Now granted, we wouldn't need a score to know who won the race, but putting such a system in place will give owners the extra push to enter races against top competition, which is why we need fewer graded stakes. There are just way too many opportunities for horses to get blacktype without having to face other top competition. On the other hand, the second- and third-tier points mechanism allows horses to be rewarded for winning races that may not have looked like much at the time, but turned out to be decent (such as the Mother Goose).
The Triple Crown and Kentucky Derby in particular have a pretty good model already with graded stakes earnings deciding who gets into the Derby starting gate and plenty of publicity starting in February discussing who's in, who's out, and who needs to do what to stay in or get in. There are plenty of regional opportunities to net graded earnings (i.e. score points), but all roads lead to Louisville where those who get in get to compete for the ultimate prize.
Patrick seized on this in a commentary he wrote for Thoroughbred Times, and he's absolutely right that the Breeders' Cup would do well to adapt that formula for its own event. Standings/rankings can help it do that as well as give owners added incentive for entering their horses in the event.
The Thoroughbred Times Racing Commentary will be a weekly feature in Thoroughbred Times TODAY and online, and the staff looks forward to hearing from fans on all topics, but I'm keenly interested in this one. The former Math major in me really would like to see a rankings system work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Excellent - treating horse racing like a real sport, how creative.
ReplyDeleteTrue championships won on the track . . . What would the @Derby Listers do for conversation?
A simple starting point could be something like earning 12 points for a G1 win, 9 for a G2, 6 for a G3 . . . whatever.
At the second level, a G1 winner would, get 6 points for every G1 win that horses he beat gets.
I beat you in a G1 race = 12 points for me
You win a G1 race later = 12 points for you and 6 points for me
There would have to be a minimum number of races and the totals would have to be averaged since each horse would not run the same number of times.
This would revolutionize horse racing (think fantasy stables, etc). Could generate interest because there would be standings that the average Joe could follow.
Gib that 12 points / 6 points scenario sounds interesting. Have you, or Patrick tried out a year's worth of standings based upon Graded Stakes results?
ReplyDeleteI'm all for anything that brings the horses on the track to race in the afternoons. If this is what it takes to get the best out of the barns, let it be !
Not me. I can't imagine the time and resources that it would take to do it manually. I do most of my best work in theory - it is much more dificult to disprove.
ReplyDeleteFor me the bottom line is that any formula that determines champions would be better than the one that we don't have today.
Gib,
ReplyDeleteWhat you described was similar to the point system that's in place for the Road to the Roses contest:
(numeric values are points)
G.1 - 1st = 15; 2nd = 7; 3rd = 4
G.2 - 1st = 12; 2nd = 5; 3rd = 3
G.3 - 1st = 8; 2nd = 3; 3rd = 2
Listed - 1st = 4; 2nd = 2; 3rd = 1
I disagree that the system should be weighted depending on the later results of horses with minor placings. Then it's the BCS all over again and we know how lousy that system has been. We want to make it easier for casual fans to follow...don't alienate them because they can't figure out the point system that ranks the horses.
Eddie D. lists the earnings of the Kentucky Derby eligibility as being
"pretty good", but I beg to differ. That system is so poor...how can TERRAIN, who won the G.3 Delta Jackpot be assured of a place because
that race carried a $750 million purse? No disrespect to Mrs. Dilschneider or Al Stall, Jr., I like him and benefited by the double
DQ in the Arl-Wash Futurity, but that bullring win has no business being graded just because of the slot money they generate. No way is it now, nor will it ever be, the equal of the Florida Derby, SA Derby, Wood Memorial, or Blue Grass...all G.1's, which carry the same $750k purse.
Also, no way the $1 million G.2 Arkansas Derby should weigh more than the four aforementioned preps...elevate it to a G.1 thanks to CURLIN, AFLEET ALEX and SMARTY JONES all winning Triple Crown races and do the same for the Fantasy S. because of past winners RACHEL ALEXANDRA, EIGHT BELLES, and ROUND POND.
The reason I like the Kentucky Derby system is because it rewards horses based on graded dollars rather than only grades, which gives all racetracks a chance to compete for a meaningful race on the Derby trail.
ReplyDeleteThe Sunland Derby will be graded in 2010, which gives West Coast trainers another regional option to qualifying for the Derby rather than shipping across the country.
I do agree that it seems unfair that the Delta Jackpot is worth as much as the Santa Anita Derby in terms of Derby qualifying, but the Breeders' Cup Juvenile Fillies means more than any other race besides the Juvenile itself, so there are more incongruities than just slots money.