The Baltimore Bounce

Horses don’t bounce.

At least that’s the position I’ve always taken when arguing with speed-figure handicappers and others who believe that a single race can “gut” a horse — à la Rachel Alexandra in the 2010 Woodward.

Frankly, I feel the same way about “bouncing” that I do about global warming. I don’t doubt the phenomenon — thoroughbred racehorses clearly have good and bad days (just ask Itsmyluckyday) and statistics show that the Earth’s temperature is, in fact, rising slightly — but I am very dubious of the conclusions that many draw from this data.

No, I do not think that man (in the general sense) controls the fate of the planet. To paraphrase a line from my favorite holiday movie “It’s a Wonderful Life”: In the whole vast configuration of things, I'd say man is nothing but a scurvy little spider.

We can’t prevent earthquakes, tornadoes, monsoons or even the occasional afternoon sprinkle, but somehow we have the power to destroy the planet? Please. (The power to destroy ourselves is another matter, of course.)

Likewise, I think it is generally foolhardy to say, as followers of The Sheets and other speed rating services often do, that a certain pattern of numbers indicates a horse that is “over the top,” or due to run a poor race. And I think it is particularly foolish to assert that there is an optimum number of days between races that allows these “gutted” animals to recover — or not.

The fact is, when one is dealing with a finite data series, which, for the most part, speed figures are — horses can only go so fast or so slow — what we see from animals that regress after a particularly impressive performance is more often a return to the mean than it is a reaction to a hard race.

Did pitcher Philip Humber of the Chicago White Sox “bounce” when he gave up nine earned runs in five innings on April 26, 2012 — a mere five days after he became just the 21^st player in the 135-year history of Major League Baseball to throw a perfect game?

Few of sound mind and body would argue that he did.

Through May 11, Humber has a 5.34 career earned run average and is 0-8 this year. What happened on April 26, 2012 was simply a return to the norm; in Humber’s case, a return to mediocrity.

Now, having said this, I think it is equally obvious that greatness, at least as it relates to sports, can be defined as an athlete (or team) that consistently produces outstanding results. Most people know that Wilt Chamberlain is the only player in NBA history to score 100 points in a game, but how many people know that Chamberlain scored 60 or more 32 times (yes, that’s a three followed by a two)?

I can already hear the grumbling: Fine, fine… thanks for the sports history lesson, Poindexter. But what do Humber and Chamberlain have to do with horseracing and bouncing?

Everything, as it turns out.

I doubt many racing fans would disagree with me when I say that winning the Triple Crown is among the toughest achievements in all of sports. After all, only 11 horses have pulled off the coveted Kentucky Derby-Preakness-Belmont Stakes trifecta and it’s been 35 years since the last one (Affirmed in 1978).

What all 11 of those horses had in common was consistent brilliance — at least during their Triple Crown run. At no point was this more evident than in 1973, when Secretariat set a track record in each of the Triple Crown contests (I don’t care what Pimlico officials say).

Similarly, Sir Barton (1919), the first Triple Crown champion, set a track record in the Belmont Stakes; Citation (1948) destroyed the track record at Garden State in the Jersey Derby, a prep for the Belmont (Citation also raced six times in 61 days prior to his 8-length score in the “Test of Champions”); and Whirlaway (1941) set a track record in the Run for the Roses.

The other greats that won the Triple Crown also showed remarkable consistency. 

This got me to thinking: Could one use this factor to determine whether or not a horse is a viable Triple Crown contender?

My gut feeling is that Derby winners possessing recent speed figures within a fairly restricted range probably outperform those that show a greater variance of performance. Hence, I came up with the following chart:

(Click on image to enlarge)

It appears that my hypothesis may be correct (the sample is far too small to be definitive). Horses that improved their Brisnet speed figure by more than five points in the Kentucky Derby (compared to their previous start) are just 1-for-7 in Maryland since 1992. All other Derby winners are 7-of-13. (Using the Beyer numbers produces a 1-for-9 and 7-for-11 ledger, respectively.)

This begs the question: Are Triple Crown winners the exception to the rule? Based on the following chart, not so much:

(Click on image to enlarge)

Of course, I had to use the old Daily Racing Form speed ratings for this one, but even utilizing that simple formula (100 minus the fifths of a second the winner’s time was off the track record minus beaten lengths) — and without using track variants — it is clear that even Triple Crown champs tend to record consistent speed figs. In fact, Secretariat, one of the chart “exceptions” actually set a track record in his race prior to the Wood, which was arguably the worst race of his career (explaining his 20-point ascension in Louisville).

So where does this leave Orb? Well, honestly, it makes him a bit vulnerable — especially if any of the other Preakness contenders improve.

Will Orb, like Secretariat, be the exception to the "greatness rule"? Believers will get even odds or less to find out.

Weekend Wagers

Coming soon.