Point Encounter joins the club

Point Encounter is the most promising Triple Crown prospect in California. And that would still be true if Midshipman had remained in Bob Baffert’s barn.

The West Coast youngsters have been conspicuously underwhelming. Midshipman’s victory in the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile stood out as one of the few impressive efforts given by a 2-year-old colt this year in California largely because he led for most of the 1 1/16 miles over a surface that wasn’t especially kind to speed. But even it was a slow race. And subsequent efforts by the Juvenile cast (e.g., West Side Bernie ran second and Terrain fourth in the Delta Jackpot) have only confirmed the impression that the youngsters who converged on the Breeders’ Cup were rather pedestrian. Yes, Pioneerof The Nile subsequently won the CashCall Futurity, but it, too, was, quite simply, a slow race that produced a winner who was more opportunistic than assertive.

And then Point Encounter won his debut on opening day at Santa Anita. A strikingly handsome chestnut son of Point Given, Point Encounter battled between horses through an opening half-mile in 44.54 and then drew clear in the stretch to win by nearly two lengths, completing the 6 1/2 furlongs in 1:14.81.

“I didn’t expect him to show that much speed,” said his trainer, Carla Gaines, the psychologist-sociologist whose passion for horses led her to training and whose intelligence and patience had led to success. “But we would have been very disappointed if he hadn’t run well.”

That same day at Santa Anita, All Saint won the California Breeders’ Champion Stakes in 1:22.07 for the seven furlongs. And that provides some perspective, for Point Encounter’s effort was superior by a few lengths. And, again, that was his debut.

And so Point Encounter joins the list of Ten for the Triple Crown. Gaines said she hasn’t made any definite plans for the colt’s next start, but she pointed out that he’s nominated to the stakes that lead up to the Santa Anita Derby.

Here are Ten for the Triple Crown. It’s highly personal, with more emphasis on potential than accomplishment, and it’s consistent with the philosophy that cats are more intriguingly and rewardingly observed when still in the bag. The annual Triple Crown preview, with a complete top 20, is coming soon.

Ten for the Triple Crown

1. Old Fashioned
2. Break Water Edison
3. Hello Broadway
4. Quality Road
5. Point Encounter
6. Giant Oak
7. Well Positioned
8. Pioneerof The Nile
9. Imperial Council
10. Indygo Mountain

Comments

[LH]

For fans of speed numbers, Point Encounter recorded a 94 Beyer and a 93 BRIS fig. Kiaran McLaughlin sent out an impressive firster, Mr. Fantasy, at Aqueduct on Sunday and he posted a 97 Beyer and a 107 BRIS, with the latter being one of the highest recorded by any 2yo male all year.

[rd]

Getting off the subject, put Aitcho in your stablemail. He is about to turn 4, but will be a major stakes winner. Trained by John Shirreffs, just broke his maiden in 3rd try.

[Gary West]

LH, I heard about Mr. Fantasy from a good friend, but, sorry to say, I didn't see his debut. It was, I know, extremely fast, and I have the highest respect for McLauglin, who seems to be loaded with talented young horses. I could have included Mr. Fantasy on this list, but I try to stick with horses I've seen. No doubt I'll include him when I expand the list to 20. But he's a late foal, May I believe, and his pedigree, by E Dubai, is a little speed-heavy. I'll be curious to see if he goes to Fla. or remains in New York.

Since you refer to "fans of speed numbers," I assume you don't emphasize such numbers. Good. I make my own, and so I'd like to think I understand them, their value and their limitations, but too many people overemphasized numbers without even understanding what they are, how they're made or how subjective and fallible they can be, which remainds me of a story.

Years ago, some turf writer of note, straining to sound informed or smart or both, told Bob Baffert that a certain horse, Point Given as I recall, was good because he had gotten this Beyer number and that Beyer number. To which Baffert said, "Numbers are for people who don't know how to watch races."

Brilliant. And, of course, it's amusing that anybody would need a number to tell him Point Given was a good horse.

RD, thanks for the headsup on Aitcho. As I recall, he's Silent Valor's big brother. I look forward to seeing your prediction prove true.

[LH]

Gary,

Since you make your own speed figs, I would like to know if you have ever felt a need to alter a prior one after a subsequent race? I see this all too often with Beyer numbers and occasionally with the BRIS figs. They post numbers and then modify them later, sometimes after a horse runs again.

I recall that Summer Doldrums recorded a huge Beyer a couple of years ago while being pointed to the Triple Crown trail. That number was significantly lowered later, I believe after he raced again. I don't understand the point of publishing figures if the accuracy of those cannot be assured. Thoughts?

[Gary West]

Yes, it’s frustrating to see numbers changed, and that emphasizes the point I was trying to make about not placing too much importance on them. But before answering the question, I think I should speak a little bit, if you don’t mind, about how I view numbers.

Speed figures attempt to measure and describe a reality, specifically a performance in a race, that’s too complex for simple measurement or succinct description. And so the numbers – and I mean all of them -- are flawed, imprecise and inadequate. But people have been using numbers for many years, going back at least to Pittsburgh Phil, because however inadequate they might be they still contribute to understanding.

And so we have Beyer numbers, BRIS numbers, Ragozin and Thorograph and on and on. I have my numbers, my friend David Longinotti at Oaklawn has his and you may have yours. To see how subjective they are, just look at the variance. As you point out, LH, Point Encounter’s BRIS number isn’t quite as impressive as his Beyer number. And so whom do you believe? That’s why I make my own. Making the numbers is a large part of analyzing a race, a large part of handicapping.

Their use has become so pervasive that some handicappers, even some so-called experts, simply digest numbers as though they’re all part of a simple equation with a right or wrong answer. These mathematicians may know little about horses or racing, but they know the numbers, which, of course, somebody else made or some computer generated. It’s amusing really, their blind faith in numbers. That’s why Baffert said numbers are for people who don’t know how to watch races.

Anyway, the numbers are very subjective. I gave Point Encounter a 96; so I liked the race a little more than the Beyer boys. And we both liked it more than the BRIS computer. There is no right or wrong answer here. Assigning the number is handicapping.

Sometimes I disagree strongly with a Beyer or BRIS number or with a Rag or Thorograph assessment. But generally the different numbers reflect a difference of opinon.

As for changing numbers, I think that’s an honest reevaluation. I change my opinion, just as everyone does, and sometimes that change means looking at a number I’ve made differently. Of course, my numbers are personal; I don’t invite people to use them to bet. If I did, I’d identify those numbers about which I’m not entirely confident.

The real problem, I think, is not in changing numbers, but it’s in failing to distinguish between solid numbers and projections, or tentative numbers. Sometimes the running times are so consistent that making numbers is easy. The numbers are solid, and I’m very confident that my number measures a performance as well as a number can.

But there are days when the times are all over the place, days when the races make little sense. For those days, my numbers – like the Beyers, BRIS, Rag and Thorograph numbers, too – are more fragile. And those more tentative numbers, I think, should be identified, lest the people “who don’t know how to watch races” think they’re biblical.