dan herman's stat blog.

Proud to be Tumblrblog number one one one zero two two. Beyond my work in internet radio/podcast, I have an assortment of outside interests. These include handicapping, audio feeds from my radio show and field recordings) and more. Mainly I'd like to focus on scientific explanations of events through biorhythms and other formulas. Biorhythms measure potential in various life-cycles. All charts generated through the free service by www.facade.com [email protected] Dan _uacct = "UA-3387339-1"; urchinTracker();

[cblue456-blog]

New blog locale

I've rebuilt the blog at WordPress.It's under construction but the building blocks are in place. Introducing: https://idealisticstats.wordpress.com  My challenge is to post daily (and twice on Sunday) about my take on sports, an insight into stats from various sports, what I'm watching and listening to, and much more. I'm raring to get started! 

[cblue456-blog]

blog moving!!

I've strongly considered moving this blog to my Wordpress presence where my radio website is. I am not liking that I cannot easily post images as I once did before via html.  Also I've experienced inconsistencies in the layout of the text no matter what I do.  I will still turn out stats and ideas but I really don't know if I can keep up with Tumblr's policies.   Watch for a new blog page very shortly.

[cblue456-blog]

Sports: Where and why do you place your attention? A survey

The point of this survey is to see which sports you will care about giving your attention to. In light of Baltimore Ravens footballer Bernard Pollard's foreboding statement about the NFL's unsightly future, I want to gauge my readers and those in the greater Internet who care about their sports, their games. First, my take: I love sports, nearly as much as I love radio, my New Age work, and other passions. My interests in sports are quite varied, despite never having played most of those games. It's a welcome distraction from stuff like job hunting, tho that's a time-argument that I prefer to have by myself. Pollard openly worries about the on-field death of a player to cause further drastic change to the game, possibly leading to its very banishment. It can certainly happen. So far we've witnessed players losing limbs and livelihoods. Can we tolerate the loss of American football as a whole? Will you care? I am sure that you will, as it is indeed the top attraction in gambling, legal or otherwise, as well as in the fantasy aspect of the game.

As an idealistic supporter of sports, I present a survey for you to complete and return via email. I want to gather a definite amount of responses before posting results. You will be asked to consider your attention to 30 forms of sports. I plan to draw correlations between the different answers and present the results of what's on your sports minds.

1: on a simple scale of 1 to 5, how violent are these sports, most violent at 5, safest at 1?

2: Which sports are or have made the biggest changes in the name of safety? 5 for most changes, 1 for little to none.

3 Which sports are most competitive (5 strongest, 1 least)? 5 for highest competition, 1 for lowest.

4: which sports have the bigger following in gambling? 5 for biggest, 1 for hardly to no change.

5: which sports have the bigger fantasy aspect? 5 for biggest, 1 for little to none.

6: Which sports will change most significantly in 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? Most changes = 5. Fewest changes = 1.

7: Which sports excites/bores you the most? 5 for most excitement, 1 for most boredom

8: Put each of the sports in the order of which you will WATCH (TV) or LISTEN to (radio) or both,s or otherwise at least FOLLOW (Internet, social media), etc. Pretend each of those devices, TV, radio, Internet were on in front of you right now. You have access to all 25 sports? Which get your attention first? Which ones hold your attention? Which gets your attention only because there's 'nothing else on'?

9: Which of these sports do you feel are endangered? Which should be outlawed?

Here are the sports to include in your answers:

baseball

football

basketball

hockey

soccer

rugby

water polo

cricket

lacrosse

curling

tennis

golf

fishing

cycling

track/field

road running

boxing

figure skating

fencing

martial arts

horse racing

auto racing

xgames

sailing

skiing

poker

chess

billiards

Darts

Bowling

[cblue456-blog]

2013 Australian Open women's final

Li Na's biorhythm cycles: http://www.facade.com/biorhythm/biogif.fac?2+7+1+26+2013+2+26+1982+0+0+0

    Victoria Azarenka;

http://www.facade.com/biorhythm/biogif.fac?2+7+1+26+2013+7+31+1989+0+0+0

Prediction: Li Na in 3

[cblue456-blog]

2013 Australian Open women's semifinals in biorhythms

Viktoria Azarenka:  Surge in energy and athleticism along with focus. Will continue to feed off the emotions of the crowd tho not as much as prior matches. All approaching a brief triple high. Still an uphill climb.  Sloane Stephens:

Sloane's got better strength, and she's beginning to get the internal confidence boost, especially after defeating her hero Serena (remember that triple low that kicked off that day?)...but she must deal with her decision making while relying on power.  Should be close but I give it Azarenka in 3.  ********  Maria Sharapova 

Sharapova at the top of her game.  Li Na

All cycles pointing up at least and I would give a generally favorable outlook.  But weak in strength, not finding it when she needs it most.  She has finesse today in spades, and that will have to be her strength today against world #1.  Thing is, she's more of a hard hitter that is adept near the net, and doesn't often use topspin or slice. A tough ask. But this will still be an exciting match. Sharapova in 3 sets to push the HTH rivalry lead to 9-4  

[cblue456-blog]

2013 Australian Open men's round of 16 (lower half)

Jeremy Chardy 

Brief triple high is over, on an emotional critical day, still under effect of mental critical. Not a good look. Going to lose some shots and challenges but his game is pretty strong otherwise. #21 Andreas Seppi

You can't get into any better situation than this one. Triple high with all cycles on the up and up.  Straight set win for Seppi #14 Gilles Simon

Absolutely weak here, challenges lost and errors by the dozen. Will have to rely on heart.  #3 Andy Murray

Cycles are mixed, improving in all phases of the game, with triple high in 2 days.  Murray in straight sets.  *********** #7 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga

See Andy Murray's cycles. Few errors, few double faults, brainpower at peak.  #9 Richard Gasquet

Pure athletic ability very strong, might get a lift from the crowd but not terribly responsive.  Best matchup of the 4 today. Tsonga in 5 sets.  ************** #13 Milos Raonic General weakness here along with a looming physical critical day. Should have enough athletical ability to match shot for shot, even if stamina isn't there. 

#2 Roger Federer  

 Physical critical day today, of all days. Blood on the court? Medical timeouts? For sure. Coming out of triple high, it will be at a minimum. Overall game still very strong, will surely out think his opponent.  Federer in straight sets.  

[cblue456-blog]

2013 Australian Open women's round of 16 (upper half)

Went 1-for-4 in my projections, so I can only improve from here! Here's a look at today's 4 matches:  #! Victoria Azarenka

Athletic ability at a pure low here, but has a lot of heart. 

Elena Vesnina  

Very brief triple high, quite willing to see this match through. Vesnina in 2 sets. This is the best of the 4 matches on the women's side today. **** #10 Caroline Wozniacki

Things looking positive again from earlier days, but a long way to climb.  Svetlana Kuznetsova

She seems almost ready to quit but her strength is increasing.    Both have to outthink the other..there'll be a lot of errors on each side. Wozniacki 2 upward-pointing cycles give a very slight edge.  She'll prevail in 3. 

****** #3 Serena Williams

Cycles pointing down to a triple low in 4 days. She might do well but feeling much weaker with each further match.   #14 Maria Kirilenko

Kirilenko in better spirits, just out of a triple low but very weak physically still.  Another ugly match, with Kirilenko to prevail in 3.  ******** Bojana Jovanovski

Bojana with good athletic strength but not feeling the audience's love today. #29 Sloane Stephens 

Cycles are pretty decent but just coming out of triple low will make her share of errors. Not a great match this one. Jovanovski in 3    Back later with the remaining men's singles matches of the round of 16. 

[cblue456-blog]

2013 Australian Open women's round of 16 (lower half)

Now to see the rest of the matches for 1/20, Day 7, using biorhythms:  #5 Angelique Kerber

#19 Ekaterina Makarova

Good matchup, this one. I give the edge to Kerber in a 2-set fight. She's got 2 strong cycles near their peak and rising. Makarova is staring at an unfortunate double-critical day, the time where can be accident prone, maybe even meltdown prone. No doubt as to her passion and drive tho.  

****** Kirsten Flipkens

#2 Maria Sharapova  

Well, well. Very good match on tap here. Both are in great pure athletic form, yet is is Sharapova with all 3 cycles strongly higher; Maria has to be careful of her emotions, as this is a critical day for her.  Sharapova in 3 sets.   **********

#13 Ana Ivanovic

#4 Agnieszka Radwanska  

Decent match here as well that may go 3. Radwanka with the triple high that will end after today. Emotional level is positive but a bit lacking.  Ivanovic has to rely on sheer power which is on the wane. Further, she's got a critical mental day ahead, suggesting a lot of unforced errors, won't really understand her own strength and could get down on herself quite easily.  Ivanovic in 3. 

#6 Na Li  #18 Julia Goerges   

2 ladies coming out of tough cycle periods, both with weak strokes. They will have to rely on their brain power and use the entire court. Na Li comes out of a brief triple low period and residual critical days but still fuzzy mentally today.  Goerges had double critical day yesterday and likewise still feels that effect.  Ugly match this one, Narrow edge to Goerges in 3.  *********** As for the trends through the week: both Sharapova and Kerber should meet in the QF with declining cycles; Sharapova with the edge here. I predict Radwanska to combat Goerges, who is now strongly on the upswing and may prove to be the best of the 8 ladies by the time the semifinals are done.   

[cblue456-blog]

2013 Australian Open men's round of 16 (upper half)

Giving you a look at the 8 players in the upper half of the Men's round of 16 via the magic of biorhythms.  #1 Novak Djokovic:

#15 Stanislas Wawrinka:    

Both sides really weak, a match that should go 4, maybe even 5, but I see Djokovic avoiding an upset from the Swiss, making much more intelligent shots and fewer unforced errors. Ugly game to watch.  Kevin Anderson:

#5 Tomas Berdych:

All Tomas really has is sheer power. He's just awful at making proper decisions on court and rather mediocre in the rest of his game currently. Anderson on critical day emotionally...so watch out for a meltdownfeeling terribly sure of himself, maybe overconfident in comparison to Berdych.  All the same, this should be a straight set winner for Anderson, giving the unseeded Czech a spot against the Djokovic/Wawrinka winner.    #4  David Ferrer:

#16 Kei Nishikori:  

Looking forward to this one! Both players in top physical form. Nishikori has the strength and focus to win here. However, all of Ferrer's cycles are pointing up, starting to feel more assured of himself. I see Nishikori winning a thrilling 5-setter. #10 Nicholas Almagro

#8 Janko Tipsaveric 

Almagro's cycles sharply heading down, sucking the life out of his game. He's got some strength remaining tho.  Tipsaveric not much better, frankly lacking enough passion to see this through.  Both players really weak. Another ugly match should result in a straight set win for Tipsaveric, as at least he's starting to feel the strength coming back to him.    ******** In the quarters I currently see Anderson prevailing over the defending champion, and Nishikori likewise over Tipsaveric, the latter having played a ton of games in this event. Nishikori is the strongest of the 8 players remaining in this upper half.  Back a bit later with the women's lower half of the round of 16.  

[cblue456-blog]

Baseball Hall of Fame & Museum 2013 vote aftermath, and a look at 2014

It was heart-rendering to learn that no living ballplayers on the BBWAA list got elected.  Frankly I'm angry.  The mass reaction between analysts, bloggers and fans generally feel a sense of emptiness along with this same anger.  There ought to be at least one, someone, that gets in. Electing zero players does NOT necessarily reflect the high standard. If anything, it's a vote of non-confidence by the writers (some of which haven't watched games in years, as it's been reported) that there really is a steroid era, and the lofty stats don't count.  On Twitter (@radiocblue)  I made my reaction very clear. Here it is again in a nutshell: If Madame Tussaud's, the venerable wax figure museum, can have sports stars in it (Jeter is the one baseball figure there), would we still obsess over their selection process? Should we?   I stress the importance of this institution, the HOF as a museum FIRST. That means, every scar, every nick and tear, every negative, must be weighed with the positive. Hey, Pete Rose is already in the museum. The plaque for him wouldn't add much.  But DO you know what it would add? The spectre of a tarnished reputation standing before an audience of fans and HOF'ers in Cooperstown giving a speech.  Most of those inducted wouldn't attend such a spectacle. And the museum DOES NOT want that.  And the sportswriters charged with voting must keep that aesthetic in mind as well.   It's been well documented about the numbers of cheaters and malcontents that have been elected to the Hall and Museum and they remain in place. No one has had their plaque removed. Yet.   To this end, I stress further that the prize of induction to do with on-field conduct and sportsmanship, and NOT about what took place behind the scenes.  There is no behind the scenes with a museum. The game is the game. Even when batters and pitchers juice, they still have to have the primal batter-pitcher contact, and that ball has to find it's way past fielders, over a wall, or otherwise in the glove quickly enough. The physical act still has to be exercised. Some players, even if everyone juices, will naturally have an advantage, be it in DNA, or old-fashioned iron-pumping.  Further I hate the politicking of the sportswriters, punishing a player who is not a 'lock' by simply refusing to check 'yes' to a first-timer.   Also I hate that a sportswriter can't (ergo, won't) vote for 10 players. I think the 10 should be mandatory.

As for 2014...here's my early prediction on who gets in, after crunching numbers: Bonds Clemens Maddux Piazza Frank Thomas Bagwell. And 4 of these 5: Schilling, Walker, Palmeiro, Mussina, Glavine.  Others who are in serious consideration but no chance: McGwire, Sosa, Trammell (best of this list), Biggio, Morris, Raines, Lee Smith, Edgar Martinez. Mattingly and McGriff are totally out of the picture with the strength of this year's and next year's classes. Of the 9 categories studied, the Black Ink test (points for leading in categories) had little change to the top-10 threshold.  I choose candidates based on the top 10 in 9 categories (see my prior post). The JAWS stats and similarity comparatives also moved up incrementally.

[cblue456-blog]

my Eclipse Awards 2013 vote

I'm very happy that fans can vote their favorites in. You can, too, if you go to DRF.com   I judged the contenders based on available stats, sticking to who had best average rank in the available categories.   I kept the top 3 in each category and looked at who had defeated who in head-to-head matches.   Horse Of The Year: Wise Dan (Fort Larned outpointed him, but I'm judging on Wise Dan based on the head to head matchup) Older Male: Wise Dan (outpointing Fort Larned, with Game On Dude still 3rd)  Older Female: Royal Delta, who finished better than Groupie Doll in the Sabin Stakes. 3YO Male: I'll Have Another 3YO Female: Questing 2YO Male:Shanghai Bobby, just ahead of Uncaptured. 2YO Female: There's a real neat sort of rivalry between Executiveprivilege and Beholder. I'll take the former here, and looking forward to their future duels. Male Turf Horse: Wise Dan.  Underneath, best of the best include Point Of Entry and Little Mike.  Female Turf: Tapitsfly, tho very closely matched with Zagora. and Lady Of Shamrock. Male Sprinter: Shackleford, narrowly over Trinniberg. No one else really a contender. Steeplechase: Pierrot Lunaire, given head-to-head win over Demonstrative. Trainer: Todd Pletcher  Jockey: Ramon Dominguez, just ahead of Javier Castellano  Apprentice Jockey: Jose Montano  Owner: Godolphin Racing LLC Breeder: Adena Springs   

[cblue456-blog]

Evaluating 2013 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot

I think Bill James had said it best, and I'm paraphrasing, that the Baseball Hall of Fame is a museum, first and foremost. It isn't some school you get hopefully chosen into or graduate from. It's just a museum with plaques and exhibits and film and events and such like any other. This museum has such a political effect to all of us, to the degree that we , to a man, woman or child, argue daily over who are true immortals of such a mystical, wonderful game. Each year I've presented my ideas on who belongs and, based almost totally on stats and sabermetric studies, who doesn't. I continue the thread this year upon the release of names who are on this year's most contentious of ballots. Here's my official position: I will absolutely consider, on the strength of the stats, and not on the relative mythical strength of any drug or enhancer, which players belong. The dangerous thinking is that only in recent times was the playing field so different between the juicers and those who don't. Amphetamines have been around the game for pretty much its duration. How are we to believe the field was never level? Is it any different today? If one player on either side had so much as half a cup of coffee just before practice, or perhaps a big meal the night before, does this suggest a hidden advantage? It's difficult to tell. We may never really know. Therefore, I will grant the benefit of doubt that the stats are legit and they count. Those players, in those bodies, hit those homers, struck out those batters, made insanely great plays. And, Major League Baseball never passed any laws outright banning such substances before until recently. Still, are the greenies finding their way to players? Who knows what evil lurks in the trainer's room or nearby hospitals, or what the greater media knows but doesn't tell us? Everything funnels down to the sportswriters, some loved, some hated, to decide immortality for all of us. Granted, they may know the game from being up close for a numbers, but how many played it, or even understood the game from more than behind a typewriter or laptop? No, we can't keep such writers from exercising their true opinions or maintaining their grudges, but there may be a way to get around this. I personally hate how the Hall of Fame politics are evolving. How players such as Mark McGwire are accused of juicing or other such means of gaining an edge, and withhold votes just because. How players such as Jim Rice are punished so severely that he gets elected only in the last year of prime eligibility, and by a dozen votes at that. How more executives and other personnel are not more recognized for their contributions. How some writers have turned in blank ballots. I won't go into the well-worn topic that is the old Veterans Committee and their period of nepotism. Here's how I'd ideally have the process work: Keep the official voting to 1 sportswriter, and 1 historian (suggested 20 years experience in local or national coverage for both) in every single city that has a minor league and major league sports team. Lower the threshold for voting to 70% from 75%. The sportswriter and historian cannot vote for a player that had once played in his locale or team. The player must have played elsewhere. Roger Clemens, for instance would not be voted upon by the representative writer or historian in New York, Houston, Boston, or Toronto.

****** Off the soapbox! Now to look at this year's candidates. As usual, I draw upon the stats provided by Baseball-Reference.com , who have recently added Jeff Jawer's JAWS statistic. For purposes of brief explanation, JAWS measures the best 7-year WAR (wins above replacement) run in a player's career. WAR itself is a recent creation that measures the level of a player's contribution to a team as compared to those who are below major league level. In past years I have added Bill James' Monitor and Standards scores, along with his Black Ink and Grey Ink stats, and Baseball-Reference.com's own usage of Bill James's Similarity Scores, plus similarity scores of career at different ages. This year I've decided to take into consideration the new JAWS stat, plus WAR individually. Along with JAWS there is a rank assigned to the better stats, broken down by position. This rank also goes into the mix. That's a total of 9 stats to examine the 37 players on the writer's ballot. I would give myself the opportunity to fill in all 10 spaces allotted to determine who belongs. I rank the top 10 stats in the 9 categories, count up who have the most top-10 placings, including ties for those who cross through the #10 rank (unless there is a large amount that puts the number well above 10 players). The 10 with the most top-10 placings are those whom I would vote for. I also decided a slightly different path, in that I would group these stats together, and determine who had the most groups represented. All the Bill James stats (Black/Grey Ink, Monitor/Standards) are in Category 1, the JAWS/WAR stats in Category 2, the pair of Similarity scores plus the JAWS within position stat are in Category 3. If a players has at least half of the stats represented in the category, that's one step closer than those without. Now for the Top 10 in each of the categories between the 37 players, with the low threshold of the 10th-ranked player in parentheses: HOF MONITOR Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Sosa, Palmeiro, Schilling, McGwire, Biggio, Bagwell, Walker (148). HOF STANDARDS Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Bagwell, Walker, Bernie Williams, Biggio, Palmiero, Sosa, Edgar Martinez (50)

BLACK INK Clemens, Bonds, Schilling, McGwire, Dale Murphy, Sosa, Bagwell, Walker, David Wells, Mattingly (23) GREY INK Clemens, Bonds, Schilling, Jack Morris, Palmeiro, Bagwell, Murphy, Sosa, Wells, Walker (116) WAR Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Bagwell, Walker, Trammell, Raines, Palmeiro, Lofton, Martinez (64.4) JAWS Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Bagwell, Walker, Trammell, Raines, Lofton, Martinez, Palmiero, Biggio (51.3) JAWS rank per position Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Bagwell, Raines, Lofton, Martinez, Walker, Trammell, Biggio (13)

SIMILARITY by career (# players matching top 10 scores already in HOF)

Clemens, Piazza, Biggio, Sosa, Morris, Palmiero, Bonds, Trammell, McGriff, Walker, Wells (4)

SIMILARITY by career total at # age results (# playing top score already in HOF)

Raines, Clemens, Bonds, Piazza, Palmiero, Murphy, McGwire, Lee Smith, Julio Franco, Shawn Green, Biggio, Walker (3)

Now we'll put this all together to see who ranked the most in the top-10 of the categories: 9: Walker, Bonds, Clemens

8: Palmeiro

7: Bagwell

6: Biggio

5: Raines, Piazza, Schilling, Sosa (IN)

4: Martinez (OUT)

3: Trammell, McGwire, Murphy, Lofton, Wells

2: Morris

1: Smith, McGriff, Mattingly, Williams, Franco, Green The top 10 here are the ones I would vote for based on the individual 9 categories.

Grouping the players into the 3 categories as listed above: Category 1 (Bill James): Matching 4: Bagwell, Walker, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa. Matching 3: Palmeiro, Schilling. Matching 2 (and IN): McGwire, Murphy, Williams, Piazza, Biggio, Wells. Matching 1 (and OUT): Morris, Martinez, Mattingly. Category 2: (WAR/JAWS stats): Matching 3: Bagwell, Raines, Trammell, Martinez, Walker, Palmeiro, Bonds, Clemens, Lofton, Boggia. Matching 2 (and OUT): Schilling, Boggia. Matching 1 (and OUT): Piazza.

Category 3 (Similarity):Matching 3 and IN: Raines, Walker, Palmeiro, Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Biggio. Matching 1 and OUT: Morris, Bagwell, Smith, Trammell, Martinez, McGriff, McGwire, Murphy, Lofton, Sosa, Wells, Franco, Green. Putting these categories together, here's who ranked in the most of these 3 latter categories: 3: Walker, Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, Biggio

2: (and IN): Bagwell, Piazza, Raines, 1: (and OUT): Sosa, Schilling, McGwire, Murphy, Williams, Wells, Trammell, Martinez, Lofton Those 9 players are the ones I would vote for based on the grouped categories.

Finally we'll put the 2 sets of votes together and see who are truly in, on the doorstep, or out: Fitting both sets and IN: Walker Bonds Clemens Palmeiro Biggio

Bagwell

Raines

Piazza

Fitting 1 set and on the DOORSTEP and IN These 2 rank with 1 placing in several grouped categories and were in the top 10 in individual categories. I had just 8 matching both sets and wanted to filling in my final 2 places: Schilling Sosa

OUT (these did not gather enough top 10s in individual categories, nor enough best showings in grouped categories):

McGwire

Murphy Williams Wells Martinez Lofton

Trammell

Morris

Smith

McGriff

Mattingly

Franco

Green

Between these 13 players, Edgar Martinez is the one player who managed top scores in each of the grouped categories, and had 4 individual category placings. He is definitely the best player outside of my 10. McGwire, Murphy and Wells each did well in the Bill James stats, but lack in terms of similarity and JAWS. Lofton and Trammell also had great ranking JAWS/WAR stats, but lack in Bill James stats and don't have enough similarity score matches to HOFers.

[cblue456-blog]

Pacquiao v. Marquez in biorhythms

Here are Manny's charts first: 

Just out of a brief double-critical, generally the cycles are good, tho weakening quickly in punching power. He'll land his share of punches but the strength will not be there. Athletically he's not so great but not so weak that he'd normally be KO'd. He will fight to keep his strength up and he should be able to last.  Here are Marquez's charts:

  Marquez is just out of a brief triple low and will be in a physical critical period for this fight. He might not be aware of his own growing strength and throw more punches than he wants to. He will be swinging wildly and miss a fair amount.  The majority of the positive cycles belong to Manny. I see him winning by decision.  

[cblue456-blog]

Cotto vs Trout in biorhythms

WBA light middleweight title fight!  Here are Miguel Cotto's cycles first (10/29/80)  

 Not pretty. Very weak in punching power, will be jumpy and fight out of desperation at times.  If he ever was to give up during a fight, this would be the time.   Now for Austin Trout (9/18/85), champion:  

Considerably better cycles, as all 3 are pointing up. He is still within a 'critical' physical period, suggesting he's got a lot of power but he won't really embody it, not really knowing his own strength well. But he will make good decisions and follow through.  Overall he's the stronger of the two. Late round TKO for Trout.  

[cblue456-blog]

Robert Guerrero v. Andre Berto

WBC welterweight title on the line! Here's the comparative charts, starting with Guerrero (3/27/83)

Ideal looking chart as all three cycles near positive, with emotions on the upswing. As a boxer you want to see your physical cycle positive and continuing to rise. Athletic ability very strong.  Berto (9/7/83):

 Berto also approaching triple positive and his physical cycle also on the rise yet yet still in the negative uphill phase. He will land his share of punches but might have less power in them than his opponent.  RESULT: Guerrero by decision  

[cblue456-blog]

Abner Mares vs Anselmo Moreno via biorhythms

Here's Abner's chart: Looks like he's firmly on the upswing, tho tonight he might even know his own strength.

Anselmo:

Moreno better with decision making on punches to throw but they will not land hard, or land much at all. Just coming out of triple low and getting better. Abner Mares in KO somewhere past the 8th round.

[cblue456-blog]

2012 Breeders Cup day 2 selections

Firstly the recap of yesterday. If this looks typed in a rush, it is. I gave myself little time to prep for 12 races for today. I did take a bit of a loss but I also scored 3 wins and 2 exactas across the 10 races. Race 4 was the biggest, with a win and exacta that nearly got overturned via DQ. Race 5 was a win Race 8 was another win Race 9 was an exacta score. Here’s how I will be wager. I WILL be wagering actual $ this time: *Wins on horses going off worse than 5-1 in my top 4. *Exactas between the horses in my top 3. *If my 4th selection goes off worse than 9-1, place win bet on that horse, then place my top 3 PLUS any horses under 4-1 over my 4th selection in exacta. Plus/minus will measure the horses that fall outside my top 4 selections to suggest the horses that may be worth a few more $ to play. The most sensitive areas are these: If the 4th selection is involved in the strong side of the plus/minus, I may use that in exactas more so with other strong horses and favorites, regardless of odds. Also: Any horses who are strong and outside of the top 4 and better than 5-1 will definitely be used as win. I might combine strong horses with each other for exactas, and also under favorites if they come at large price. Trend ranks are a bit different. The only real change is that I'm removing horses in recovery form from the 'plus' category, and inserting horses who had no works since last race (tho there are just 4 such horses in the 12 races). On the minus side, I'm adding the horses who are of 'exploding' form type, and removing the top turf specialists from this list. On yesterday's card, only one variable shone; that was the horses who benefited from track bias. 7 of 12 horses in exacta positions actually finished in the top 2. No other variable broke 50%. Race 1: BREEDERS CUP JUVENILE FILLY SPRINT PREVIEW 4-1-5-3 Plus: 4,1 Minus: 1,3,5 #4: UNUSUAL WAY has lone track bias edge: Sprinters going 7 furlongs on dirt won 2 of 5 such races this meet, and also the 1 scheduled this week. Increased speed from 57 to 90 in last race, so bounce risk. Race 2: BC JUVENILE TURF SPRINT PREVIEW 6-12-4-10 plus: 1,4,10,12 minus: 6 Yes, I'm actually downgrading #6, ONE FIRM CAT only because it's rated in one of the lower-performing variables, that being 'forging' a lifetime best speed figure in the last 60 days. Outside of that, he comes off the best turf performance on this track of this field, breaking his maiden just 3 weeks ago, scoring an 83. Might bounce a bit, as he increased from 75 in prior race. For extra value, consider #1: SCHERER MAGIC has some track bias value. Horses with early-pace types, running 6.5 furlongs on turf have won 32% of the races during the meet, and 3 of 5 this week. Race 3: Damascus Stakes 4,2, (then 5 or 7, whoever has worse odds will be my 4th). plus: 2,4,5,7 minus: 2,3,5 Will include #7 in the mix. I actually have #4 and #2 even, but give it to #4 for having track bias edge and no real downside. #4:MILE HIGH MAGIC 's best on this track is a 101, breaking maiden on 3/3. He and #5 Private Zone are the lone speed (see race 1 for track bias). Both of these come out of losing speed duel. Mile High Magic lost by a length, being outkicked in last race, 6.5 furlongs on 9/9. Best jockey/trainer combo in Rafael Bejarano (22% wins) and Bob Baffert (31%) Race 4 BC JUVENILE TURF 4-8-9 4th will be between 3,6,14. I'll take the worst odds of these three. Plus: 3,6,8,14 minus: 7,8,10,11,12,13 Whoever drops out of my 4th selection choices (3,6,14) will likely be included as extra bets for wins and exactas to either each other or to public favorite. These horses each are moving from sprint to route, the highest performing variable within the 9 racecards I've studied. Meanwhile... #4 GERVINHO is 2 of 2 lifetime. Comes out of an 88 score from 10/8, best track performance of the field. Best jockey/trainer combo in Bejarano, and Carla Gaines (26%) Race 5: BC FILLY/MARE SPRINT 2-10-7-1 Plus: 2 Minus: 2,5 Not much confidence in this race, really. #2 BELLE OF THE HALL comes off lifetime best, a 103 run at Belmont last month. She is the fastest horse of this field, and also slightly moved past her prior best mark, a 98 scored during Belmont's spring meet. Race 6: BC DIRT MILE 7-3-5-8 Plus: 2 through 8 Minus: 2,3 Will bring in #4 and #6 and #8 for value Six horses in the field have track bias edge: Horses #2, 6, 8 are pure sprinters. Sprinters going a mile on the dirt this meet have won 58% of the races, along with going 2 of 4 this week. Further, horses in post positions 4 through 7 are winning 22% during the meet at this surface's distance, and 23% this week. Along with the track bias, EMCEE, #7, moves from sprint to route, a big plus in my book here. #4, JOHN SCOTT and #6 SHACKLEFORD also get the track bias, but I have even more love for Shackleford: He led much of the G2 Kelso on 9/29 at Belmont, lost in the stretch and finished 2nd. Moved from 91 to 102 in that race, so a bounce risk. Race 7: BC TURF SPRINT 9-3 or 6-1 Plus: 1,5,6,8,9,11 Minus: 4,5,7,10,14 Will bring in #1, #8 and #11 for value, mainly on track bias basis. #9 BRIDGETOWN is one of 5 horses with track bias edge (see race 2 info). Fastest pace of the field (last 3 2nd-call numbers are all over 100). Also has recovery angle: After 9 month layoff, scored 100 in 5f Turf Sprint at Churchill back on 5/5, then ran races of 98, 96, and then circled back fully with a 101 in the Troy Stakes at Saratoga 3 months ago. Pushed forward in the Woodward Stakes last time out 3 weeks ago with a 103. Race 8: BC JUVENILE 4-1-9-8 Plus: 4,8,9 Minus: 2,3 and 5 through 9 #4 SHANGHAI BOBBY is fastest of these colts and geldings (last 3 2nd call numbers are 96, 98, 108). Despite a very small sample, he has best jockey/trainer combo in Rosie Napravnik (1 of 4 races won this meet) and Todd Pletcher (1 of 2) Race 9: BC TURF 11-1-8-9 Plus: 1,8,9 Minus: 1,5,11 #11 SLIM SHADEY has best track performance here among winners here, a 100 scored in a 2nd place finish earlier this year. Increased speed from 92 to 98 in last race on 9/30. Best jockey/trainer combo in Garrett Gomez (22% wins), and Simon Callaghan (29%). ROI angle: Gomez and Callaghan have worked one other race together, winning that race, for return of 6.40 (this is probably referencing the horse's last race). #9: DULLAHAN for value. Fastest pace of the field (last 3 stretch numbers are 117, 93, 82). Race 10: BC SPRINT 13-8-7-11 plus: 4 through 7 and 13 minus: 1,7,9,13,14 Bringing in 4,5,6 for value. Each of these horses have track bias edge. In 6 furlong races on the dirt this meet, posts 4 through 7 are winning 16%, along with going 1 for 4 this week. #13: Poseidon's Warrior has the fastest pace numbers (last 3 2nd call numbers all over 105). Finished 3rd in the Vosburgh last time out after nearly wiring the field. ROI angle: Trainer Robert Reid has saddled 20 horses at the Graded stakes level. He has 15% wins, 40% in money, for return of 8.54. Race 11: BC MILE: 2-3-7-4 plus: 2 minus: 2,3,4,6 #2 WISE DAN (love the name) is just about a lock here. 4 for 5 lifetime on turf, with highest score a lifetime best 110, run 3 races back at Saratoga. Easily the fastest of this field (overall pace numbers in last 3 range from 103 to 110). ROI angle: Trainer Charles Lopresti has had 22 shipping horses this year, with 27% wins and 45% in money, for an even return of 2.00. Race 12: BC CLASSIC 5-1-2-9 plus: 1,2 minus: 1,2,7 #5 GAME ON DUDE is ideal horse for course, 5-for-5 lifetime here with top score of 109 achieved in last start 5 weeks ago. Increased in speed from 103 in prior start, so slight bounce risk. Has Bejarano/Baffert connection (see race 3)