Ultimate Eagle backed up his 34-1 win in the Oak Tree Derby with a 14-1 win in the Hollywood Derby on Sunday. This brings up a pet theory of mine, which is that surprise winners are often discounted, and then return to give the same effort and achieve the same result next time. Call it the Birdonthewire theory: I remember picking him in a graded stake at Saratoga at good odds after he won one at Belmont (equibase horse search shows the races in question were the '93 Tom Fool and Forego). It would be one thing if Ultimate Eagle had looked flukish in the Oak Tree Derby, but I don't believe that that was the case. The bettors just didn't think he could do it again and got diverted by other interesting choices.
I liked the field for the race, believing it a deserving grade I, but it is a little hard to justify runner-up Imagining at 13-1 and Ultimate Eagle at 14-1, when Imagining was just coming off a 5th in a nw1x allowance. I mean, I like Shug McGaughey as much as the next person, and I like Giant's Causeways stretching out, but a lower price for Imagining is basing an awful lot on projections. Certainly, it has to be acknowledged that Imagining didn't perform as an underlay, though; Ultimate Eagle performed as an overlay.
You also had Venomous, runner-up to Ultimate Eagle last time, going off at 3-1, and even Oak Tree Derby 3rd-place finisher Cozy Kitten going off at lower odds than Ultimate Eagle at 12-1.
Ultimate Eagle should have been particularly appealing at his odds because he is a speed horse. Never sell quality speed on the turf short. Horses who fit that bill will win races they shouldn't. In my opinion, the same doesn't happen nearly as often on dirt.
Ultimate Eagle had also set an honest pace in the Oak Tree Derby, going 1:10 2/5 en route to 1:47 for a mile and an eighth. A 1:14 first 6f in the Hollywood Derby was all the help that he needed -- in fact, more help than he needed.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Monday, November 21, 2011
You live with some things to get a brother to Pyro
One fact I didn't mention in the post below is that Jerry Hollendorfer is the trainer who kept risking Spirit Seeker in those claiming races, and had the initiative to take her to Delta Downs. Perhaps no horse has ever said "Jerry Hollendorfer" to me more than the 3rd-place finisher in the Delta Downs Jackpot, Longview Drive. From all indications, he can really run. He came into the Jackpot with only one loss in four starts, and that in his first race. He won a pair of minor stakes in Northern California (actually, are there any other kind of stakes in No. Cal?) after having broken his maiden by 5 lengths. He doesn't appear to be a world beater, but he has past performances that jump out to me a bit.
Because he set the fair circuit on fire, you might guess that he's an off-bred horse, but if you guessed that, you don't know Jerry Hollendorfer. He is, in fact, bred in the purple, and a full brother to Pyro.
He's not off-bred, but he didn't cost a lot of money to have the pedigree he has, and be running like he is. He was a $175,000 yearling. Hollendorfer's stable is filled with well-bred horses bought at middle-class (in the world of racing, anyway) prices. They are generally by very good sires. I'm not sure he emphasizes female family as much, but the breeding is unmistakably there. Hollendorfer has obviously had his fair share of success, so his approach to selecting horses deserves a look.
Because he set the fair circuit on fire, you might guess that he's an off-bred horse, but if you guessed that, you don't know Jerry Hollendorfer. He is, in fact, bred in the purple, and a full brother to Pyro.
He's not off-bred, but he didn't cost a lot of money to have the pedigree he has, and be running like he is. He was a $175,000 yearling. Hollendorfer's stable is filled with well-bred horses bought at middle-class (in the world of racing, anyway) prices. They are generally by very good sires. I'm not sure he emphasizes female family as much, but the breeding is unmistakably there. Hollendorfer has obviously had his fair share of success, so his approach to selecting horses deserves a look.
Spirit Seeker: ignored in California, worshipped in Louisiana
I've long had the idea that fans do not respect the quality of racing at smaller tracks. It makes us feel good to believe that any race endowed with black type status has creditability, but when bettors place their money at risk, we see that they really have very little respect for the competition at smaller tracks. There is probably an equivalency chart of Beyers, and another one floating around inside handicappers' heads, to address comparisons between tracks. Looking at the betting for Delta Down's $125,000, open-company Treasure Chest Stakes on Saturday, the adjustment may be greater than I realized.
We know there are easy marks out of town, and that minting a new stakes winnner can have as much to do with being willing to pay for the transport as having a horse that measures up. But the situation in the Treasury Chest shows just how far this can go. The mare Spirit Seeker had run for a claiming price in her last three outings. She ran for $40,000 on October 27, $20,000 on October 13, and $16,000 on July 3. She won all three of the races, by 2-3 lengths each time. She was not claimed in any. The last two races were at Santa Anita; the July 3 last race was at Pleasanton.
In the Treasure Chest, Spirit Seeker was the 9-10 favorite of six. She finished a distant 3rd, meaning that the decision to send her to Louisiana probably didn't wholly work out. Still, I have to wonder if the trainers deciding not to claim her on October 13 understood they were looking at an odds-on favorite for a $125,000 stake in the next month. The numbers just seem out of whack. It's like the currency in Southern California, "the Southern California dollar", goes a very long way out of state, and those with the energy to take advantage are seizing an opportunity.
As a claim goes, Spirit Seeker isn't really my type, from the little I know of her. That is, if one is only thinking about future breeding success. She's a router, not a sprinter; it took her eight starts to break her maiden, and they were all in maiden claiming events. But the sheer level of ability here for a $16,000 claimer is not to be cast aside. She once ran a 103 Beyer, a huge number for a female. She was 5th by 4 1/2 in the 2010 grade II El Encino behind Pretty Unusual, Stardom Bound, Freedom Star, and Justwhistledixie. She was only 6-1 in that race, in a field of 10.
We know there are easy marks out of town, and that minting a new stakes winnner can have as much to do with being willing to pay for the transport as having a horse that measures up. But the situation in the Treasury Chest shows just how far this can go. The mare Spirit Seeker had run for a claiming price in her last three outings. She ran for $40,000 on October 27, $20,000 on October 13, and $16,000 on July 3. She won all three of the races, by 2-3 lengths each time. She was not claimed in any. The last two races were at Santa Anita; the July 3 last race was at Pleasanton.
In the Treasure Chest, Spirit Seeker was the 9-10 favorite of six. She finished a distant 3rd, meaning that the decision to send her to Louisiana probably didn't wholly work out. Still, I have to wonder if the trainers deciding not to claim her on October 13 understood they were looking at an odds-on favorite for a $125,000 stake in the next month. The numbers just seem out of whack. It's like the currency in Southern California, "the Southern California dollar", goes a very long way out of state, and those with the energy to take advantage are seizing an opportunity.
As a claim goes, Spirit Seeker isn't really my type, from the little I know of her. That is, if one is only thinking about future breeding success. She's a router, not a sprinter; it took her eight starts to break her maiden, and they were all in maiden claiming events. But the sheer level of ability here for a $16,000 claimer is not to be cast aside. She once ran a 103 Beyer, a huge number for a female. She was 5th by 4 1/2 in the 2010 grade II El Encino behind Pretty Unusual, Stardom Bound, Freedom Star, and Justwhistledixie. She was only 6-1 in that race, in a field of 10.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
A different betting pattern in the UK, courtesy of Sea Moon
I'm not sure how I feel about having to wade through European horses' past performances for the Breeders' Cup. Most of the horses are so good, I relatively enjoy it, and I also fool myself into thinking I have something of a handle on what I'm digesting. (I don't.) In practical terms, there probably is more of an opportunity for me to learn than just looking at North American past performances. I have a learning curve when it comes to European racing, while with North Anerican racing, I don't. I do run across things that are really different, that couldn't happen in America.
Take this, for example. Remember how I told you that in over 700 races with 12 horses running in America, I didn't see one favorite more pronounced than 1-2 odds? Well, BC Turf starter Sea Moon blew that out of the water when he broke his maiden. He was 1-5....and in a 14-horse field! On heavy ground, no less, that knocked the time for the mile of the race over 1:50. Like Hammer's Terror, the horse I saw who went off at 2/5 in a 12-horse field, and set a "new record" of sorts for favoritism, Sea Moon was coming off a 2nd by a nose in his debut. He was coming from a $11,100 maiden at Leicester to a $7,200 one at Yarmouth, so you all can be tell me whether the track shift represented an "Oh my God" drop.
The fact that any horse could be 1-5 in a 14-horse field in England precipitates any number of questions. Was this pari-mutuel betting, like we have in North America, or some other form of betting, like someone's line? Maybe the takeout was especially high at the track? On the latter score, I bet the odds for all of the horses could be looked up from the Racing Post, and the takeout calculated. (Again, it was Sea Moon's 2nd race, his maiden win, and on 10/26/10.) The story could also be ruined if Sea Moon was in fact part of an entry, and that wasn't recorded in The Racing Form. The mystery would then be solved in a very boring way. Sarafina, however, was listed as an entry in the 2010 Arc, so the Racing Form is, presumably, in the habit of marking entries in European races.
I suppose the 14-horse field in Sea Moon's race also doesn't mean there were 14 betting interests, just 14 horses. The 700+ sample I cited contaned only cases with 12 betting interests. But as long as Sea Moon wasn't part of the entry, I wouldn't think his odds would be affected by whether or how the other entrants were grouped in the betting. He was still competing against 13 other horses people could bet, and drawing whatever percentage of the money.
The most interesting answer would just be if Sea Moon really was more heavily bet in this large field than any North American horse ever is. It would be doubly interesting if what happened with him wasn't extraordinary. Then I'd want to know if Europeans have a basis for what they're doing: do the heaviest favorites in large fields in Europe, at shorter odds than the heaviest favorites in large fields in the U.S., actually win more? So many questions. (I should say "so many questions, so little time," but I suspect "so much time" is more appropriate for these kinds of questions. Except, however, when dinner is looming. The latter imperative certainly makes proper punctuation suffer.)
Take this, for example. Remember how I told you that in over 700 races with 12 horses running in America, I didn't see one favorite more pronounced than 1-2 odds? Well, BC Turf starter Sea Moon blew that out of the water when he broke his maiden. He was 1-5....and in a 14-horse field! On heavy ground, no less, that knocked the time for the mile of the race over 1:50. Like Hammer's Terror, the horse I saw who went off at 2/5 in a 12-horse field, and set a "new record" of sorts for favoritism, Sea Moon was coming off a 2nd by a nose in his debut. He was coming from a $11,100 maiden at Leicester to a $7,200 one at Yarmouth, so you all can be tell me whether the track shift represented an "Oh my God" drop.
The fact that any horse could be 1-5 in a 14-horse field in England precipitates any number of questions. Was this pari-mutuel betting, like we have in North America, or some other form of betting, like someone's line? Maybe the takeout was especially high at the track? On the latter score, I bet the odds for all of the horses could be looked up from the Racing Post, and the takeout calculated. (Again, it was Sea Moon's 2nd race, his maiden win, and on 10/26/10.) The story could also be ruined if Sea Moon was in fact part of an entry, and that wasn't recorded in The Racing Form. The mystery would then be solved in a very boring way. Sarafina, however, was listed as an entry in the 2010 Arc, so the Racing Form is, presumably, in the habit of marking entries in European races.
I suppose the 14-horse field in Sea Moon's race also doesn't mean there were 14 betting interests, just 14 horses. The 700+ sample I cited contaned only cases with 12 betting interests. But as long as Sea Moon wasn't part of the entry, I wouldn't think his odds would be affected by whether or how the other entrants were grouped in the betting. He was still competing against 13 other horses people could bet, and drawing whatever percentage of the money.
The most interesting answer would just be if Sea Moon really was more heavily bet in this large field than any North American horse ever is. It would be doubly interesting if what happened with him wasn't extraordinary. Then I'd want to know if Europeans have a basis for what they're doing: do the heaviest favorites in large fields in Europe, at shorter odds than the heaviest favorites in large fields in the U.S., actually win more? So many questions. (I should say "so many questions, so little time," but I suspect "so much time" is more appropriate for these kinds of questions. Except, however, when dinner is looming. The latter imperative certainly makes proper punctuation suffer.)
BC Dirt Mile: an unusual "good betting race"
A good betting race is typically one where many horses have a reasonable chance of winning. Superstar horses typically ruin good betting races. Championship-level races will sometimes be interesting betting contests when they draw multiple superstars, such as when Damascus, Buckpasser, and Dr. Fager squared off, and everything considered, these are the best races. But even in cases like that, the betting is salvaged by the presence of multiple superstars, but not necessarily as interesting as it is in a race where six, seven, eight horses have a realistic chance of winning.
The BC Turf Sprint is a classic good betting race. It features many very good horses, but no great horses. No Hall of Famers, horses approaching the Hall of Fame level, or even horses among the top 30 in training in North America. Only one of the 14 has won as many as half of his career starts (Regally Ready). California Flag and Chamberlain Bridge are past winners of the race, but I don't think you could say that either was dominant at the time that he won it, never mind now.
The BC Dirt Mile also strikes me as an excellent betting race, despite being a little low in its number of entrants (9) as far as excellent betting races go. This field, however, does not lack for brilliance. The Factor set a Santa Anita track record for 6f in just his second start, and has been odds-on in grade Is in two of his last three starts. Shackleford won the Preakness and dares horses to catch him. Caleb's Posse beat Uncle Mo in the King's Bishop. Trappe Shot cost $850,000 as a 2-year-old, has won races by 10 1/4, 12 3/4, and 8 1/2 lengths, and has Beyers of 111 and 112. Even Jersey Town will take a lot of beating if he can run back to his Cigar Mile win from last year. The problem, however, is that all of these horses are coming into the race off losses: indeed, only Shackleford did as well as 2nd in his last start, and Trappe Shot was the closest to winning lengths wise, and still came up 2 1/2 lengths short. So the question isn't if these horses are worthy of winning a Breeders' Cup race, and how they compare, but if they will fire. The handicapping is complicated because the horses' capability at the distance is conjecture: among races showing in the past performances, I believe only Jersey Town has ever run a one-turn mile. I know I would be more bullish on The Factor, Caleb's Posse, and Trappe Shot at 7f than 8f.
I actually still have a rather strong opinion in here: Trappe Shot. Aside from his Travers, he's never really run a bad race. I think his 97 Beyer in the Vosburgh was undershot by a good 5 points. Seven furlongs might be his best distance, but he's been forced into running 6f, and I don't think that's his best, either. Velazquez can be patient from the outside post. And at bottom, after saying that this race is really about who will be best Saturday, not who is really best overall, I do think he is the class of the race: the true standout.
The BC Turf Sprint is a classic good betting race. It features many very good horses, but no great horses. No Hall of Famers, horses approaching the Hall of Fame level, or even horses among the top 30 in training in North America. Only one of the 14 has won as many as half of his career starts (Regally Ready). California Flag and Chamberlain Bridge are past winners of the race, but I don't think you could say that either was dominant at the time that he won it, never mind now.
The BC Dirt Mile also strikes me as an excellent betting race, despite being a little low in its number of entrants (9) as far as excellent betting races go. This field, however, does not lack for brilliance. The Factor set a Santa Anita track record for 6f in just his second start, and has been odds-on in grade Is in two of his last three starts. Shackleford won the Preakness and dares horses to catch him. Caleb's Posse beat Uncle Mo in the King's Bishop. Trappe Shot cost $850,000 as a 2-year-old, has won races by 10 1/4, 12 3/4, and 8 1/2 lengths, and has Beyers of 111 and 112. Even Jersey Town will take a lot of beating if he can run back to his Cigar Mile win from last year. The problem, however, is that all of these horses are coming into the race off losses: indeed, only Shackleford did as well as 2nd in his last start, and Trappe Shot was the closest to winning lengths wise, and still came up 2 1/2 lengths short. So the question isn't if these horses are worthy of winning a Breeders' Cup race, and how they compare, but if they will fire. The handicapping is complicated because the horses' capability at the distance is conjecture: among races showing in the past performances, I believe only Jersey Town has ever run a one-turn mile. I know I would be more bullish on The Factor, Caleb's Posse, and Trappe Shot at 7f than 8f.
I actually still have a rather strong opinion in here: Trappe Shot. Aside from his Travers, he's never really run a bad race. I think his 97 Beyer in the Vosburgh was undershot by a good 5 points. Seven furlongs might be his best distance, but he's been forced into running 6f, and I don't think that's his best, either. Velazquez can be patient from the outside post. And at bottom, after saying that this race is really about who will be best Saturday, not who is really best overall, I do think he is the class of the race: the true standout.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Another Desert Classic
I just saw that, in addition to Ultra Blend, BC Juvenile Turf entrant Wrote has a Desert Classic in his two-generation, DRF provided pedigree. His dam is the English Desert Classic, by Green Desert. You may remember that I was exclaiming what a lowly runner the Desert Classic who is Ultra Blend's broodmare sire is. How odd to have this name doubly represented in the Breeders' Cup.
Are there any other examples of this? In this or any other Breeders' Cup? I'll be floored if you pull out such an overlap from the 1992 Breeders' Cup or something. Even with some comprehensive Breeders' Cup index of pedigrees, it would be a hard thing to track down. Presumably, sires, sire of sires, dams, and broodmare sires wouldn't all be in the same index.
Are there any other examples of this? In this or any other Breeders' Cup? I'll be floored if you pull out such an overlap from the 1992 Breeders' Cup or something. Even with some comprehensive Breeders' Cup index of pedigrees, it would be a hard thing to track down. Presumably, sires, sire of sires, dams, and broodmare sires wouldn't all be in the same index.
Medaglia d'Oros: all shapes and sizes
Not only do the Medaglia d'Oros Plum Pretty, Medaglia d'Amour, and Super Espresso start right next to each other in posts 8, 9, and 10 in the Ladies' Classic, but they could not havehad more different sales prices: Plum Pretty was a $130,000 2-year-old; Medaglia d'Amour, a $3,000 yearling; and Super Espresso a $1,100,000 yearling.
O.k., o.k., this was officially a stupid post, the sin of which I am now compounding by not leaving it as short as possible. It's a stupid post because all stallions have prices that run the gamut. I suppose the variation could differ by stallion, however, or the success rate in different ranges. For instance, I've noted that Cherokee Run's best horses tend to have been expensive. The question vis-a-vis the relevance of this post is if the variation and universal success in all ranges for these three Medaglia d'Oros shows much of anything, other than, I guess, that there was some hope in 2007 if you bought your Medaglia d'Oro yearling for $3,000. But this was supposed to be a cute post, anyway, and not a smart one.
O.k., o.k., this was officially a stupid post, the sin of which I am now compounding by not leaving it as short as possible. It's a stupid post because all stallions have prices that run the gamut. I suppose the variation could differ by stallion, however, or the success rate in different ranges. For instance, I've noted that Cherokee Run's best horses tend to have been expensive. The question vis-a-vis the relevance of this post is if the variation and universal success in all ranges for these three Medaglia d'Oros shows much of anything, other than, I guess, that there was some hope in 2007 if you bought your Medaglia d'Oro yearling for $3,000. But this was supposed to be a cute post, anyway, and not a smart one.
Just how off-bred is Ultra Blend?
My assumptions about the horse racing conversance of my audience probably vary widely. In the last post, for instance, I was expecting you to know Bayou's Lassie (in truth, I vaguely remember her), and in this one, I'm telling you that the very fine Ultra Blend is one of the horses in the...ummm...Ladies' Classic.
She is by Richly Blended, who was a good horse, but of the brilliant variety, and of an even shorter preferring sire, Rizzi. So I wondered where she got her stamina and targeted the (to me) anonymous broodmare sire, Desert Classic.
After looking up Desert Classic, I quickly lost interest in the stamina question for Ultra Blend. I don't think stamina counts for much when the horse just can't run, and Desert Classic couldn't. Running from 1986-89, he started 28 times, won 5 races, and earned just $87,000. He tried one stake, the Harvest Handicap at Fresno in 1988, and ran 3rd. While a half brother to Derby 4th Classic Go Go, he hardly had the record of a sire, let alone a likely presence in the pedigree of a Breeders' Cup starter.
His daughter, the 1996 filly Ankha, is Ultra Blend's dam. She placed but never made it to the winner's circle in 7 starts. Her first race was for maiden claiming 12.5 at Golden Gate, and her last for state-bred $8,000 at Stockton. She ran 10th in the early stages in both before finishing mid-pack, so she had something of the style of Ultra Blend.
Ankha did get a shot as a broodmare, or at least a career, and some of her mates were even more obscure than Desert Classic. The 2002 filly Lil Nugget was by Mining for Money, a Mining who looked good as an early 2-year-old, but ended his career with just one win, one small stakes 2nd, and $22,000 in earnings. Lil Nugget was a pleasant surprise on the track, at least, winning four claimers in Southern California, and eaning $66,000 in 14 starts.
Lil Nugget was followed by Free Throw, by the stallion From Down Town. From Down Town's stud career is really hard to figure: he made $15,000 in his career in 10 starts. A Cal-bred, he won one time, by a nose, in the final race of his career, for maiden claiming $8,000. He was 5 years old and running at Sacramento. We can have honest disagreement about the extent to which mares should be held accountable for their results when bred to "bad" stallions; I would say bad is a relative term, and most stallions give their mares a chance. But I would not hold Free Throw's winless record against Ankha.
Ultra Blend herself started for maiden claiming $25,000 at Stockton, running 2nd, and then rattled off four wins in a row. Anyone looking at her pedigree had to be scared off of claiming her from that debut.
She is by Richly Blended, who was a good horse, but of the brilliant variety, and of an even shorter preferring sire, Rizzi. So I wondered where she got her stamina and targeted the (to me) anonymous broodmare sire, Desert Classic.
After looking up Desert Classic, I quickly lost interest in the stamina question for Ultra Blend. I don't think stamina counts for much when the horse just can't run, and Desert Classic couldn't. Running from 1986-89, he started 28 times, won 5 races, and earned just $87,000. He tried one stake, the Harvest Handicap at Fresno in 1988, and ran 3rd. While a half brother to Derby 4th Classic Go Go, he hardly had the record of a sire, let alone a likely presence in the pedigree of a Breeders' Cup starter.
His daughter, the 1996 filly Ankha, is Ultra Blend's dam. She placed but never made it to the winner's circle in 7 starts. Her first race was for maiden claiming 12.5 at Golden Gate, and her last for state-bred $8,000 at Stockton. She ran 10th in the early stages in both before finishing mid-pack, so she had something of the style of Ultra Blend.
Ankha did get a shot as a broodmare, or at least a career, and some of her mates were even more obscure than Desert Classic. The 2002 filly Lil Nugget was by Mining for Money, a Mining who looked good as an early 2-year-old, but ended his career with just one win, one small stakes 2nd, and $22,000 in earnings. Lil Nugget was a pleasant surprise on the track, at least, winning four claimers in Southern California, and eaning $66,000 in 14 starts.
Lil Nugget was followed by Free Throw, by the stallion From Down Town. From Down Town's stud career is really hard to figure: he made $15,000 in his career in 10 starts. A Cal-bred, he won one time, by a nose, in the final race of his career, for maiden claiming $8,000. He was 5 years old and running at Sacramento. We can have honest disagreement about the extent to which mares should be held accountable for their results when bred to "bad" stallions; I would say bad is a relative term, and most stallions give their mares a chance. But I would not hold Free Throw's winless record against Ankha.
Ultra Blend herself started for maiden claiming $25,000 at Stockton, running 2nd, and then rattled off four wins in a row. Anyone looking at her pedigree had to be scared off of claiming her from that debut.
Awesome of Course
This has to be one of the more interesting stallions out there. With stakes horses Honey Honey Honey and Heaven's Awesome in his first crop, I think I noticed him, but then he was kind of quiet until Awesome Feather. In fact, while this can certainly be excused given his small crops, his highest year for earnings before 2010 was just $212,918 in 2007. He was so quiet that, after noting he was the sire of 2011 Breeders' Cup starters Awesome Belle and Fort Loudon, I had to check and see who Awesome Feather was by. When I saw she was also by Awesome of Course, and that he has had only 28 starters lifetime, I was floored. There are two additional stakes winners and two more stakes horses among teh 28 starters. All of the stakes winner are legitimate -- got in through the front door.
One thing that's interesting about Awesome of Course: all of his stakes winners are out of stakes winners. Awesome Feather is out of Precious Feather, a daughter of Gone West who won $257,000. Awesome Belle, the Breeders' Cup Juvenile Fillies starter, is out of Bayou Plans. She was an Illinois-bred who won $308,000, but with Midas Eyes and Bayou's Lassie to her credit, has been a much better producer. A super producer, really. Fort Loudon, who swept the In Reality series this year and starts in the Juvenile, is out of millionaire Lottsa Talc. I'll spare you the details on Honey Honey Honey and Redbud Road: their dams are less impressive, but still stakes winners. All of these breedings were cases of Jacks or Better Farm supporting Awesome of Course. Awesome of Course's Comparable Index is just 1.31, suggesting that his mares have had stronger race than produce records.
How much should we mark down Awesome of Course for the good mares that have produced his stakes winners? Granted, with just 28 starters, all pronouncements must be qualified, but should we still consider him a good sire? A very good sire?
I think we should absolutely consider him a very good sire. I think the choice of his mares has been judicious. I think they've been good mares for what they were worth (which would pale in comparison to the mares top stallions are bred to). But I don't care how good the mares have been. They certainly haven't been the mares sent to Bernardini. There just is no way to truly discount or explain this kind of success without giving the stallion a great deal of credit.
With three of the four wins in the 1 1/16 Florida Stallion races the last two years, the Awesome of Courses will be respected and thought capable of handling that distance for as long as he sires horses. Ironically, his five wins as a race horse were at 4.5 furlongs, 5.5 furlongs, 5.5 furlongs, 6 furlongs, and 6 furlongs. His average-winning distance as a sire actually isn't long (6.40 furlongs), and equally significantly, it's not longer than his average distance raced (6.52 furlongs). But the Awesome Again in his pedigree may be coming out for his better horses.
So this is the second Awesome Again stallion born in 2000 I've profiled. Yes, that description fits Ghostzapper as well. Awesome of Course and Ghostzapper weren't too far from crossing paths: Awesome of Course set the pace in Valid Video's Carry Back win, which that horse followed up with a win over Ghostzapper in the King's Bishop.
Even though I defended Ghostzapper, of course it will be ironic and incredibly unlikely if Awesome of Course outperforms him at stud. Not only would one not think Awesome of Course would be much of a sire with an absence of graded stakes success on the track -- not only did he not get the greatest of mares -- but his 2012 foal crop, his 8th, will probably be the first one that features a double-digit number of foals!
One thing that's interesting about Awesome of Course: all of his stakes winners are out of stakes winners. Awesome Feather is out of Precious Feather, a daughter of Gone West who won $257,000. Awesome Belle, the Breeders' Cup Juvenile Fillies starter, is out of Bayou Plans. She was an Illinois-bred who won $308,000, but with Midas Eyes and Bayou's Lassie to her credit, has been a much better producer. A super producer, really. Fort Loudon, who swept the In Reality series this year and starts in the Juvenile, is out of millionaire Lottsa Talc. I'll spare you the details on Honey Honey Honey and Redbud Road: their dams are less impressive, but still stakes winners. All of these breedings were cases of Jacks or Better Farm supporting Awesome of Course. Awesome of Course's Comparable Index is just 1.31, suggesting that his mares have had stronger race than produce records.
How much should we mark down Awesome of Course for the good mares that have produced his stakes winners? Granted, with just 28 starters, all pronouncements must be qualified, but should we still consider him a good sire? A very good sire?
I think we should absolutely consider him a very good sire. I think the choice of his mares has been judicious. I think they've been good mares for what they were worth (which would pale in comparison to the mares top stallions are bred to). But I don't care how good the mares have been. They certainly haven't been the mares sent to Bernardini. There just is no way to truly discount or explain this kind of success without giving the stallion a great deal of credit.
With three of the four wins in the 1 1/16 Florida Stallion races the last two years, the Awesome of Courses will be respected and thought capable of handling that distance for as long as he sires horses. Ironically, his five wins as a race horse were at 4.5 furlongs, 5.5 furlongs, 5.5 furlongs, 6 furlongs, and 6 furlongs. His average-winning distance as a sire actually isn't long (6.40 furlongs), and equally significantly, it's not longer than his average distance raced (6.52 furlongs). But the Awesome Again in his pedigree may be coming out for his better horses.
So this is the second Awesome Again stallion born in 2000 I've profiled. Yes, that description fits Ghostzapper as well. Awesome of Course and Ghostzapper weren't too far from crossing paths: Awesome of Course set the pace in Valid Video's Carry Back win, which that horse followed up with a win over Ghostzapper in the King's Bishop.
Even though I defended Ghostzapper, of course it will be ironic and incredibly unlikely if Awesome of Course outperforms him at stud. Not only would one not think Awesome of Course would be much of a sire with an absence of graded stakes success on the track -- not only did he not get the greatest of mares -- but his 2012 foal crop, his 8th, will probably be the first one that features a double-digit number of foals!
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Before notes on BC F+M Sprint
I have to say that I was shocked to see that Champagne d'Oro, taking another crack at the race this year, was the 4.40-1 favorite last year. That must have been the very height of her stock. She was 36-1 in the Kentucky Oaks, 39-1 when winning the Acorn, and then added the Test two starts later. I guess her 4th in the Thoroughbred Club of America before the BC was dismissed as part of the usual polytrack nonsense. (You can see how helpful that line of thinking was.) Only a small-field 3rd in the Honorable Miss this year saves Champagne d'Oro from eight straight out-of-the-money finishes. On the surface, it's just odd to have a horse with a 20-3-3-2 record having been a favorite in a Breeders' Cup championship race, and in a race with older horses, no less. (I'm sure sometimes we get it really wrong with 2-year-olds, with the little we have to go on going into the Breeders' Cup.) Champagne d'Oro has had a fine year in the pedigree department, with Ruler On Ice having won the Belmont. My basic belief about her isn't I don't think she was ever good enough to have won a Breeders' Cup race. I don't think this is a filly who went terribly off form. Understood or even underrated for much of her career, I think she was overrated for that Breeders' Cup. And identifying false favorites is valuable, even when they're of the lukewarm variety, as Champagne d'Oro was last year. Now, if I could only accomplish this before the fact....
I like looking at old results and identifying diamonds in the rough, like Jamie K., who came a neck short of Native Dancer in the Preakness and Belmont. If Havre de Grace wins the Classic, and follows up Zenyatta as Horse of the Year, some assiduous racing historian will probably fall in love with Switch as his personal discovery, noting that she gave both distaffers fabulous races. I can even see Switch fan clubs in the year 2100. When we note the Zenyatta/Switch kinds of battles, we're always seeing the runner-up at her best, however. There's a reason we remember Native Dancer and not Jamie K., and the championing of the forgotten horse can underestimate the better horse's superiority.
If Switch takes this race on Friday, she might end up being than a reference point. Her last two or three have left me wondering if she's lost a step, but she's certainly been one of the more admirable runners these last couple of years.
I like looking at old results and identifying diamonds in the rough, like Jamie K., who came a neck short of Native Dancer in the Preakness and Belmont. If Havre de Grace wins the Classic, and follows up Zenyatta as Horse of the Year, some assiduous racing historian will probably fall in love with Switch as his personal discovery, noting that she gave both distaffers fabulous races. I can even see Switch fan clubs in the year 2100. When we note the Zenyatta/Switch kinds of battles, we're always seeing the runner-up at her best, however. There's a reason we remember Native Dancer and not Jamie K., and the championing of the forgotten horse can underestimate the better horse's superiority.
If Switch takes this race on Friday, she might end up being than a reference point. Her last two or three have left me wondering if she's lost a step, but she's certainly been one of the more admirable runners these last couple of years.
Before notes on BC Juvenile Fillies Turf
Now, this one is on the grade I path. I wonder, actually, when the last time we've had such a great grade II has been? Perhaps the Royal Heroine when it was a Cashcall race. We see what happens with the quality when the main-track race isn't run on synthetic, and doesn't siphon off much of the field.
From the rail out, Stopshoppingmaria, Stephanie's Kitten, European group I winner Elusive Kate, and the two Lemon Drop Kids (Customer Base and Somali Lemonade) seem to highlight it. There's also Pure Gossip and her 87 Beyer in the Miss Grillo, but I'm not convinced she is as good as the 6+ length margin of victory and Beyer would suggest. I'd like to be a bit adventurous and take Stephanie's Kitten, who looked quite good in the Alcibiades, but how can I pick against Somali Lemonade?
From the rail out, Stopshoppingmaria, Stephanie's Kitten, European group I winner Elusive Kate, and the two Lemon Drop Kids (Customer Base and Somali Lemonade) seem to highlight it. There's also Pure Gossip and her 87 Beyer in the Miss Grillo, but I'm not convinced she is as good as the 6+ length margin of victory and Beyer would suggest. I'd like to be a bit adventurous and take Stephanie's Kitten, who looked quite good in the Alcibiades, but how can I pick against Somali Lemonade?
Before notes on BC Juvenile Sprint
So the Marathon ISN'T the first BC race; or it is, but on Saturday. The BC races get off with the Juvenile Sprint. I think Secret Circle could be any kind, but overall the race is kind of disappointing. It drew one filly; since there isn't an equivalent race for fillies, I think some people thought it might draw more. The filly is the English Shumoos, but she's American in the sense of being by Distorted Humor, out of Wile Cat by Storm Cat out of dirt grade I winner Strategic Maneuver. She has a strong dirt pedigree. She also has good European form, although two of her last three haven't been good.
Seeker is another horse who appears to have upside, with that 95 Beyer at Saratoga. Maybe the Nashua was just a throwout.
Trinniberg is certainly a speedball. At $21,000, he was a bargain buy this April. He worked in 10 1/5. They went as fast as 9 4/5, so that didn't stand out, but makes you think the buyers did get a look at his speed.
So if you take an optimistic view of all of the horses in here, the field could produce some talent, but really the race doesn't look to be on the grade I path. If Secret Circle becomes one of the sport's stars, that will compensate for a lot of sins, though. I remember his last was thunderous, and from his debut, I was surprised the 97 Beyer wasn't higher. He also seems to have pedigree to stretch out. I guess I can't stop talking about him. If only he weren't trained by Baffert.
Seeker is another horse who appears to have upside, with that 95 Beyer at Saratoga. Maybe the Nashua was just a throwout.
Trinniberg is certainly a speedball. At $21,000, he was a bargain buy this April. He worked in 10 1/5. They went as fast as 9 4/5, so that didn't stand out, but makes you think the buyers did get a look at his speed.
So if you take an optimistic view of all of the horses in here, the field could produce some talent, but really the race doesn't look to be on the grade I path. If Secret Circle becomes one of the sport's stars, that will compensate for a lot of sins, though. I remember his last was thunderous, and from his debut, I was surprised the 97 Beyer wasn't higher. He also seems to have pedigree to stretch out. I guess I can't stop talking about him. If only he weren't trained by Baffert.
Before notes on the BC Marathon
Starting with it because it is the first Breeders' Cup race....don't necessarily expect comments on all 15, however.
My knowledge of racing outside this continent is woefully lacking. That the Gold Cup at Ascot is 2 1/2 miles never sunk in before. BC Marathon entrant Brigantin ran 3rd in it this year. 2 1/2 miles -- that's longer than the steeplechase races at Saratoga, which seem to be 2 1/16 miles, or 2 3/8 miles. In my mind, flat races are one category, and steeplechase are another, and necessarily longer. You would never see a steeplechase race at a mile or a mile and a quarter, for instance, would you? Yet here the categories cross.
Looking at the Gold Cup, no wonder some people make fun of the "marathon" name for the distance Breeders' Cup race. Heck, it is on dirt, so that's something. You might think of dirt racing, turf racing, and steeplechase racing as three categories, each generally getting longer in distance. The BC Marathon does have novelty appeal (yes, I know starter races in particular are sometimes run at 2 miles or longer on dirt, but the BC Marathon hardly blends in with normal races).
Baryshnikov is really the only American turf horse taking a shot in here. He could certainly like the Marathon distance, but his last 12 races have all been a mile to a mile and an eighth. It's interesting to me that none of the entrants are long-distance, American turf horses, since the purse in here is as healthy as it is.
Two of the three European animals (Brigantin and Meeznah) look strong, but at a glance, their pedigrees are a real turn-off for dirt. Maybe Churchill Downs' more turf-horse-friendly sdirt urface will save them. I'm not sure how long Team Valor has had Brigantin, but I have a certain amount of faith they would not have bought a horse with the BC Marathon in mind without some solid reason to think the horse could run on dirt.
The third European horse, Harrison's Cave, only broke his maiden on September 25. Coolmore's Man of Iron didn't have any black type before he won the Marathon two years ago, but I think he had been more impressive than Harrison's Cave. Harrison's Cave also has European breeding.
Cease was only about a month before Harrison's Cave in breaking his maiden. I liked him at Saratoga, although I thought at least one of his Beyers there was inflated. It sure appeara he ended up on the dirt by accident, as when he broke his maiden, it was in his 4th start, and in an off-the-turf event. He could have been a main-track-only entrant; he broke from the #5 post in a 6-horse field, so I can't eliminate the possibility.
My knowledge of racing outside this continent is woefully lacking. That the Gold Cup at Ascot is 2 1/2 miles never sunk in before. BC Marathon entrant Brigantin ran 3rd in it this year. 2 1/2 miles -- that's longer than the steeplechase races at Saratoga, which seem to be 2 1/16 miles, or 2 3/8 miles. In my mind, flat races are one category, and steeplechase are another, and necessarily longer. You would never see a steeplechase race at a mile or a mile and a quarter, for instance, would you? Yet here the categories cross.
Looking at the Gold Cup, no wonder some people make fun of the "marathon" name for the distance Breeders' Cup race. Heck, it is on dirt, so that's something. You might think of dirt racing, turf racing, and steeplechase racing as three categories, each generally getting longer in distance. The BC Marathon does have novelty appeal (yes, I know starter races in particular are sometimes run at 2 miles or longer on dirt, but the BC Marathon hardly blends in with normal races).
Baryshnikov is really the only American turf horse taking a shot in here. He could certainly like the Marathon distance, but his last 12 races have all been a mile to a mile and an eighth. It's interesting to me that none of the entrants are long-distance, American turf horses, since the purse in here is as healthy as it is.
Two of the three European animals (Brigantin and Meeznah) look strong, but at a glance, their pedigrees are a real turn-off for dirt. Maybe Churchill Downs' more turf-horse-friendly sdirt urface will save them. I'm not sure how long Team Valor has had Brigantin, but I have a certain amount of faith they would not have bought a horse with the BC Marathon in mind without some solid reason to think the horse could run on dirt.
The third European horse, Harrison's Cave, only broke his maiden on September 25. Coolmore's Man of Iron didn't have any black type before he won the Marathon two years ago, but I think he had been more impressive than Harrison's Cave. Harrison's Cave also has European breeding.
Cease was only about a month before Harrison's Cave in breaking his maiden. I liked him at Saratoga, although I thought at least one of his Beyers there was inflated. It sure appeara he ended up on the dirt by accident, as when he broke his maiden, it was in his 4th start, and in an off-the-turf event. He could have been a main-track-only entrant; he broke from the #5 post in a 6-horse field, so I can't eliminate the possibility.
The mystery of Ioya Bigtime's odds in the Fayette
I was struggling for an adequate title for this post, and try as I might, I couldn't get past the word "mystery," having looked up Ioya Bigtime's pedigree, and seeing he is a close relative of the million-dollar-winning Mystery Giver. Anyway, the title may not be artful, but conveys the idea, the subject. (Probably not an unfamiliar one to readers, unfortunately.)
In the race, this colt rallied to be 2nd behind the dominant Wise Dan. He went off the 6-1 3rd choice of 10. On the morning line, he was 20-1. Only Anak Nakal was similarly dismissed on the morning line, and he ended up going off at 54-1.
Ioya Bigtime comes from the Illinois-bred ranks, where he won three of his first five starts. His start previous to the Fayette looks his best, with a length and a half win in a nw3x allowance at Keeneland, and a 91 Beyer, which easily topped anything he had done before. I watched the race; there was nothing spectacular about it. If a horse with these kinds of figures and record is going off at 6-1 in a grade II, the race either isn't much of a grade II, or he's drawing surprising support.
Future Prospect(13-1) and General Quarters (7-1) went off at longer odds than Ioya Bigtime. Running 1-2 in their last start in the grade II Kentucky Cup on synthetic, Future Prospect had the same 91 Beyer there as Ioya Bigtime had in his Keeneland win. I would have thought the Kentucky Cup would have counted for something however. Basically, neither the Kentcuky Cup horses or Ioya Bigtime had an impressive Beyer last time. The difference is that there wasn't anything particularly impressive about Ioya Bigtime that I could find. He had Calvin Borel up, but Borel had only won four races at the meet, while Ioya Bigtime's last jockey, Leparoux, switched to Wise Dan. Chris Block, trainer of Ioya Bigtime, is successful, but doesn't draw blind support the way that some of the more national names do.
The upshot, however, is that Ioya Bigtime made good on the support, running 2nd, and establishing himself as a graded stakes horse. Did the stable bet heavily? Did "they know something," underscored by Ioya Bigtime's bullet 58 4/5 work? Can there even be impactful word of mouth in a stakes race for older horses, where the win/place/show pool approaches $500,000? Can anyone unravel the mystery on more concrete grounds? Whatever the source of the betting was, it eluded me and the oddsmaker.
In the race, this colt rallied to be 2nd behind the dominant Wise Dan. He went off the 6-1 3rd choice of 10. On the morning line, he was 20-1. Only Anak Nakal was similarly dismissed on the morning line, and he ended up going off at 54-1.
Ioya Bigtime comes from the Illinois-bred ranks, where he won three of his first five starts. His start previous to the Fayette looks his best, with a length and a half win in a nw3x allowance at Keeneland, and a 91 Beyer, which easily topped anything he had done before. I watched the race; there was nothing spectacular about it. If a horse with these kinds of figures and record is going off at 6-1 in a grade II, the race either isn't much of a grade II, or he's drawing surprising support.
Future Prospect(13-1) and General Quarters (7-1) went off at longer odds than Ioya Bigtime. Running 1-2 in their last start in the grade II Kentucky Cup on synthetic, Future Prospect had the same 91 Beyer there as Ioya Bigtime had in his Keeneland win. I would have thought the Kentucky Cup would have counted for something however. Basically, neither the Kentcuky Cup horses or Ioya Bigtime had an impressive Beyer last time. The difference is that there wasn't anything particularly impressive about Ioya Bigtime that I could find. He had Calvin Borel up, but Borel had only won four races at the meet, while Ioya Bigtime's last jockey, Leparoux, switched to Wise Dan. Chris Block, trainer of Ioya Bigtime, is successful, but doesn't draw blind support the way that some of the more national names do.
The upshot, however, is that Ioya Bigtime made good on the support, running 2nd, and establishing himself as a graded stakes horse. Did the stable bet heavily? Did "they know something," underscored by Ioya Bigtime's bullet 58 4/5 work? Can there even be impactful word of mouth in a stakes race for older horses, where the win/place/show pool approaches $500,000? Can anyone unravel the mystery on more concrete grounds? Whatever the source of the betting was, it eluded me and the oddsmaker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)