For those of you not familiar with real life horse racing (probably very few of you), there is something called a Beyer Speed Figure assigned to every horse and race in the US.\u00a0 The Beyer Speed Figure is \u201ca numerical expression of a horse’s final time, universalized for distance, track surface, and the daily variant on that surface.\u201d\u00a0 The idea behind it is pretty simple.\u00a0 A horse finishing 10 furlongs on the Churchill Downs dirt on the first Saturday in May in 2:02 may have actually run faster, or slower, that an equivalent horse running 10 furlongs on the Belmont Park dirt on the first Saturday in May in 2:02.\u00a0 And it may be slower or faster that a horse finishing in 2:02 on a different day.\u00a0 Or on the turf.\u00a0 And using the 2:02 time wouldn\u2019t be very helpful if you want to compare how a horse did at 10 furlongs versus how it did at 6 furlongs, nor would the 6 furlong split time in a 10 furlong race be helpful (horses need to carry their speed for longer, so the opening fractions will be slower at longer distances).\u00a0 So the idea behind its creation was to assign a single number, that can be used across tracks, distances, and dates.\u00a0 A 120 Beyer Speed Figure indicates a race was \u201cfaster\u201d than a 100 Beyer Speed Figure, regardless of the time of the race.<\/p>\n
The Sim has a similar stat referred to as the Speed Figure (or \u201cSP<\/strong>\u201d, as it will be referred to throughout the rest of this article).\u00a0 The Sim Speed Figure is not quite the same thing as the Beyer Speed Figure (it does not change based on track variant), but the idea is the same \u2013 It is a way to compare horses across distances, tracks, and surfaces.\u00a0 In theory, a 120 SP in the Sim at 8 furlongs on the turf is \u201cfaster\u201d than a 105 SP \u00a0at 10 furlongs on the dirt, even if that 120 SP ran second in a NW2x allowance and the 105 SP won a stakes race.\u00a0 It does NOT mean that the horse that ran the 120 SP would beat the horse than ran the 105 SP if they had raced against each other, because some horses prefer certain distances, surfaces, and possibly even tracks.\u00a0 But Speed Figures in the Sim are a good way to determine if your horse likes a particular surface, distance, or even running style.<\/p>\n But in order for the above to work to allow you to use Sim Speed Figures to determine your horse\u2019s best distance, Speed Figures need to be consistent across all distances.\u00a0 In other words, if your horse ran a 120 SP at 8 furlongs, then if he ran the EXACT SAME race at 6 furlongs, the Speed Figure should also be a 120.\u00a0 We can assume this is true, but without seeing the actual code that makes up the game, we can\u2019t know for sure.<\/p>\n What we DO know, however, is the actual Speed Figures that every horse has earned in every race in the Sim.\u00a0 This gap in knowledge led to a few questions and anecdotal observations posted on the Sim Message Board<\/a>, which are:<\/p>\n 1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dkyoung<\/i>: \u201cI was wondering why Speed Ratings seem to increase with distance as a rule.\u00a0 Shouldn’t the top speed ratings be consistent no matter what distance raced? \u2026 For example, if a horse rated 100 over 4.5f then rated 100 over 8f next start it is clearly not the same level of performance in the sim.\u201d<\/p>\n 2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dixiedotco<\/i>: \u201cDon’t know about the longer distances, but this is certainly true when it comes to the sprint distances. A horse that runs, for example, 90 at 4.5f in a winning effort will probably run somewhere closer to 100-105 going 7.5f\u2026.7f and 7.5f races especially lend themselves to large speed figures that may not accurately represent the horse’s ability when compared to other horses that run shorter.\u201d<\/p>\n 3)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Tyedye<\/i>: \u201cThere’s always been a long time discrepancy (inflated speed figures) for races at 7.5f and 10.5f. I think it’s some sort of rounding error in however make comes up with the speeds for these distances.\u201d<\/p>\n 4)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Itch<\/i>: \u201cShaggy your stuff should be in a BTB article.\u201d<\/p>\n Well, without knowing the Sim\u2019s code, we don\u2019t have all the answers.\u00a0 But we do have data.\u00a0 And we can perform some analysis of that data to try and answer these questions (well, except for #4\u2026that one is answered by this article being published).\u00a0 We will boil those comments down to these main questions:<\/p>\n 1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Do Speed Figures increase with distance?<\/p>\n 2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Do races at 7.5 furlongs and 10.5 furlongs have inflated Speed Figures?<\/p>\n 3)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Is a Speed Figure at one particular distance \u201cequivalent\u201d to a Speed Figure at a different distance?<\/p>\n 4)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Can I write a BTB article analyzing the data that anyone will read?<\/p>\n So with that (long) introduction, it\u2019s time to play one of my favorite Sim side-games: FUN WITH NUMBERS!<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n Methodology<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n The main thing to understand before we get into the analysis is what data is being used.\u00a0 The analysis was performed on a set of data comprised of all 2017 Races.\u00a0 There are multiple reasons for limiting the data in this way.\u00a0 One is just practicality: the Sim has been in existence for 19 years, and if I were to go back to 1998, that would be way too much data for my computer to handle.\u00a0 The second is for consistency of data: The Sim has gone through many changes over those 19 years.\u00a0 The calculation of Speed Figures was changed back in 2004, so anything prior to that would have needed to be converted into present-day Speed Figures (similar to how you hear \u201cX is the highest grossing movie of all-time\u2026adjusted for inflation).\u00a0 Furthermore, there has been a SIGNIFICANT<\/span><\/b> increase in Speed Figures over the past 2 years.\u00a0 How significant?\u00a0 From 2005-2015, there were 66<\/i> Speed Figures over 120 in the Sim.\u00a0 In 2017 ALONE, there were 103 Speed Figures over 120 in the Sim.<\/span><\/b> We had 56% more Speed Figures over 120 in 2017 ALONE than we had for an 11-year stretch from 2005-2015 COMBINED<\/i>.\u00a0 This is a sign of a different problem in the Sim, but that is subject for a different analytical deep dive.\u00a0 For purposes of this article, the important thing is that because of this drastic difference, I have limited Speed Figure data to 2017 only.<\/p>\n But limiting data to 2017 alone isn\u2019t enough.\u00a0 2 year olds are always slower than their older counterparts.\u00a0 3 year olds are typically slower early in the year than their older counterparts.\u00a0 Different surfaces have different speed figures.\u00a0 So from the full set of races from 2017, I made the following changes:<\/p>\n (1) all 2yo races were removed<\/p>\n (2) all 3yo races prior to July 1, 2017 were removed<\/p>\n (3) all Polytrack races were removed (there are far fewer of them, as the CPU does not card polytrack races)<\/p>\n (4) All off-track races were removed<\/p>\n (5) Turf and Dirt races were analyzed separately<\/p>\n After those changes, there were 322,141 Dirt Races and 312,214 Turf Races in 2017.\u00a0 But just making those changes still leaves some concerns:<\/p>\n (1) Female horses are typically slower than their male counterparts<\/p>\n (2) There is no control for wear and tear and the number of races a horse had previously run (a horse in its 50th<\/sup> race will be slower than a horse in its 20th<\/sup> race)<\/p>\n (3) There is no control for horses running at non-ideal distances\/surfaces (for example, a sprinter trying a 16 furlong race)<\/p>\n (4) There is no control for injuries or effort (A 1.2 SP due to injury is not indicative of the horse\u2019s ability or speed figures generally at that distance).<\/p>\n To minimize the impact that those limitations have on the analysis itself, I then used five different methods for analyzing the data:<\/p>\n (1) The AVERAGE Speed Figure at each distance (referred to as \u201cAvgSP<\/strong>\u201d), which is an average of each speed figure at the distance, regardless of how high or low.<\/p>\n (2) The MEDIAN Speed Figure at each distance (referred to as \u201cMedianSP<\/strong>\u201d), which is the median speed figure at each distance.\u00a0 This minimizes the impact of outliers on the data (for example, if there were 5 races in total and the Speed Figures were 100, 100, 100, 100, and 2, the MedianSP would be 100, but the AvgSP would only be 80.4).<\/p>\n (3) The MAXIMUM Speed Figure at each distance (referred to as \u201cMaxSP<\/strong>\u201d), which is the fastest speed figure by any horse at the distance.<\/p>\n (4) The AVERAGE OF THE TOP 100 Speed Figures at each distance (referred to as \u201c100SP<\/strong>\u201d).\u00a0 This looked at the fastest 100 Speed Figures at each distance and took the average of those (the concern about outliers is negated by the fact that Speed Figures that would normally drag down the average would not have fallen within the top 100).<\/p>\n (5) The AVERAGE OF ALL SPEED FIGURES OVER 70 SP at each distance (referred to as \u201c70SP<\/strong>\u201d).<\/strong>\u00a0 This has two benefits.\u00a0 First, it attempts to remove injuries or wear and tear from the overall analysis, as horses who perform poorly are dropped out without eliminating a majority of the races at the distance).\u00a0 Second, it allows us to see just how many races there are at each distance where the Speed Figure is over 70 (based on the initial questions, one might suspect that a 7f race will have a higher percentage of speed figures over 70 than a 4.5f race).<\/p>\n There was one final alteration made to the data that was not initially part of the plan, but was somewhat necessary once the analysis began.\u00a0 Certain distances (11.5f, 12.5f, 13.5f, 14.5f, and 15.5f) \u00a0are not carded by the CPU, and therefore the number of races at the distance is very low.\u00a0 A low number of races increases the likelihood of error in the data and makes it harder to detect trends.\u00a0 Therefore, I determined that I would only analyze data for distances that made up at least 1% of the races carded during the year.\u00a0 As a result, races at 11.5f, 12.5, 13.5, 14.5f, 15f, and 15.5f were removed from the trend analysis (15f on turf was the toughest decision, as 0.99% of turf races in 2017 were run at 15 furlongs, but ultimately the average SP (62.39449) was so much lower than any other distance that it made more sense, even if just for graphical purposes, to eliminate it from the data.\u00a0 I\u2019m also not sure if 15f races are carded by the CPU; they were not in the Old Sim).<\/p>\n Results and Analysis<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n Overall, we can see similar trends in both the dirt and turf races that answer our three initial questions.\u00a0 To answer the first question posed above (whether Speed Figures increase over distances), Speed Figures in the Sim DO increase as distances increase, but only up to a point and not uniformly.\u00a0 Speed figures increase exponentially from 4.5 furlongs to 8.25 furlongs, then decrease exponentially (though with a slower decline) from 8.25 furlongs to 16 furlongs, leveling out as we hit the long distances.<\/p>\n The second question posed above (whether 7.5 furlong and 10.5 furlong races have abnormally high speed figures) is significantly unlikely.\u00a0 In fact, based on the data used for this study, 7.5 furlong and 10.5 furlong races seem to have LOWER speed figures than would be expected.<\/p>\n For the third question posed above (whether speed figures are equivalent across distances), the data does not give a definitive answer, but we can draw some conclusions.\u00a0 There is every indication that horses running at short distances (4.5 furlongs) will put up slower speed figures than those running at slightly longer distances in sprints, (7.5 furlongs), and that the opposite is true for routes.\u00a0 Overall, it appears that a top level horse will need to put up a much higher Speed Figure when running in the 6 furlong to 10 furlong range than it will need to at either end of the spectrum (shorter than 6f or longer than 10f).<\/p>\n Now it’s time to look at some of the data:<\/p>\n AvgSP:<\/span><\/p>\n Fig. 1 \u2013 Dirt AvgSP and Turf AvgSP data.\u00a0 Bubble size indicates the proportional number of races at each distance across all dirt\/turf races (the larger the bubble, the more races).\u00a0 Red line indicates the average SP for the data across all distances (points above the red line are distances that have an AvgSP higher than the overall average; points below the red line are distances that have an AvgSP lower than the overall average).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The above charts show the AvgSP on both dirt and turf for all of 2017.\u00a0 The size of the blue bubbles indicates the number of races at that distance \u2013 the bigger the bubble, the more races were run at that distance.\u00a0 The red line in both charts shows the AvgSP of all dirt\/turf races from the year (the average dirt SP was 84.54459, the average turf SP was 83.60584).\u00a0 The black line in each is the trendline for the data, based on a cubic exponential equation (which is also listed in the charts).\u00a0 The important number to look at is the R2<\/sup> value.\u00a0 This shows you the percentage of data that is explained by the trendline.\u00a0 An R2<\/sup> value of 0 would essentially mean that the trendline is useless, whereas an R2<\/sup> value of 1 would mean the trendline perfectly explains all of the data.<\/p>\n If Speed Figures were the same across all distances, we would expect that the average at each distance would be the same and thus the data would form a straight line (similar to the red line above).\u00a0 But that is not the case; rather, the data seems to rise and fall.\u00a0 Furthermore, if there was a consistency to the increase or decrease (which would happen if, say, speed figures increase as distance increases), we would expect that a linear trendline would explain a lot of the data.\u00a0 But in this case, it does not.\u00a0 A sample of that is below, where the linear trendline for turf races from just 4.5f to 8f has an R2<\/sup> value of 0.9766 and the linear trendline for turf races from 8f to 16f has an R2<\/sup> value on 0.8581 (both very close to 1):<\/p>\n Fig. 2 \u2013 Turf AvgSP separated into sprint races (left) and route races (right).\u00a0 Bubble size indicates the proportional number of races at that distance across all turf races.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n But that is not the case for the full set of data.\u00a0 The linear trendline for all turf races has an R2<\/sup> value of only 0.138, indicating that a linear trendline does not explain very much of the overall data.\u00a0 Instead, an exponential trendline fits the data far better (specifically a 3rd<\/sup> power exponential trendline), which indicates that Speed Figures rise to a certain point, then drop to a certain point before flattening out.\u00a0 As you can see in the initial charts above, the R2<\/sup> value for Dirt AvgSP is 0.915, and the R2<\/sup> value for the Turf AvgSP is 0.8828, indicating that the trendline explains approximately 91.5% and 88.28%, respectively, of all of the data.<\/p>\n In general, at sprint distances, the AvgSP increases by approximately 2 for every additional half furlong, up to 8 furlongs.\u00a0 For route races, the AvgSP drops roughly 1.5 for every additional half furlong, beginning at 8 furlongs and going up to 16 furlongs.\u00a0 Based on those statistics, if a horse put up a 76 SP in a 5 furlong race, the same race would have earned that horse an 88 SP in an 8 furlong race, while that same race at 16 furlongs would have earned a 64 SP.<\/p>\n One interesting data point to look at is the difference between Speed Figures at 12 furlongs on the turf and on the dirt.\u00a0 Most data points, whether on dirt or turf, are in the same general vicinity away from the trend line.\u00a0 But 12 furlongs has a wide disparity between surfaces.\u00a0 On dirt, the AvgSP of a 12 furlong race is only slightly above where the trendline would expect it to be (the trendline expects a 12 furlong AvgSP on the dirt to be 77.2766, whereas the actual AvgSP is 78.97722, approximately 1.7 points higher than the trendline).\u00a0 On turf, however, the AvgSP of a 12 furlong race is above the baseline<\/i>, and FAR above the trendline (the trendline expects a 12 furlong AvgSP on the turf to be 79.1373, whereas the actual AvgSP is 84.00089, approximately 4.9 points higher than the trendline).\u00a0 This is possibly due to two different causes: one is that there are significantly more 12 furlong turf races than dirt races (10,951 (or 3.51% of the total) on turf, versus 6,859 (or 2.13% of the total)); the other is that the class of horses running at 12 furlongs on the turf is higher than the number running at 12 furlongs on the dirt, due to the \u201cclassic\u201d turf distance being 12 furlongs on the turf vs. 10 furlongs on the dirt (there were 84 Graded Stakes at 12 furlongs on the turf in 2017, versus only 8 on the dirt).\u00a0 What this means is that the turf data at 12 furlongs might be more accurate than the dirt data<\/p>\n MedianSP<\/span>:<\/p>\n Fig. 3 \u2013 Dirt MedianSP and Turf MedianSP data.\u00a0 Bubble size indicates the proportional number of races at each distance across all dirt\/turf races (the larger the bubble, the more races).\u00a0 Red line indicates the median SP for the data across all distances (points above the red line are distances that have a MedianSP higher than the overall median; points below the red line are distances that have a MedianSP lower than the overall median).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Doing a calculation based on MedianSP had the benefit of minimizing the impact of outliers on the data.\u00a0 But ultimately, the trend analysis is relatively similar to that of AvgSP.\u00a0 The R2<\/sup> value for dirt MedianSP and turf MedianSP is 0.899 and 0.8746, respectively, within two percentage points of the data from AvgSP.\u00a0 The data shows that the MedianSP increases as distances go from 4.5 furlongs to 8.5 furlongs, then decrease from 8.5 furlongs to 16 furlongs, leveling off towards the end.<\/p>\n The main difference here is the overall increase in Speed Figures at each distance.\u00a0 The MedianSP is anywhere from 2-5 points higher at each distance than the AvgSP at the distance.\u00a0 This isn\u2019t surprising, given that the outliers we were trying to correct for were injuries and extreme wear and tear; all of those outliers would be on the low end of the SP spectrum.\u00a0 As you can see, the baseline MedianSP is an 87.87622\/86.82092 (Dirt\/Turf), which is approximately 3.3 points higher than the baseline AvgSP of 84.54459\/83.60584 (Dirt\/Turf).\u00a0 The difference in MedianSP from AvgSP gets higher as the distances increase.\u00a0 For sprint races (4.5f-7.5f), the difference between MedianSP and AvgSP is only an average of 2.6\/2.3 (Dirt\/Turf); for standard route races (8f-10f), the difference between MedianSP and AvgSP is 3.5\/3.4 (Dirt\/Turf); for long route races (10f-16f, minus the excluded data), the difference between MedianSP and AvgSP is 4.2\/4.6 (Dirt\/Turf).\u00a0 This indicates that the outlier data more severe the longer the races get.\u00a0 Again, this is unsurprising \u2013 Every horse can run 4.5 furlongs; very few have the stamina to go a full 16 furlongs.<\/p>\n Fig. 4 \u2013 Dirt MedianSP separated into sprint races (left) and route races (right).\u00a0 Bubble size indicates the proportional number of races at that distance across all turf races.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n We can also see, from the above charts of MedianSP on the dirt, a similar linear correlation when splitting up distances into sprints (4.5 furlongs to 8 furlongs) and routes (8 furlongs to 16 furlongs).\u00a0 The data is again very similar to the AvgSP data, shifted upward for increased MedianSP across every distance.\u00a0 In fact, the linear relationship in general is the same as AvgSP \u2013 the MedianSP increases approximately 2 points for every half furlong increase in sprints, and decreases by approximately 1.5 points for every half furlong increase in routes.<\/p>\n MaxSP<\/span>:<\/p>\n Fig. 5 \u2013 Dirt MaxSP and Turf MaxSP data.\u00a0 Data represents the fastest SP at each distance during the data set.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Once again, we have a similar trend when looking at the MaxSP for each distance (you\u2019ll note that this is a common theme of this article).\u00a0 MaxSP tends to rise as you increase the distance in sprint races, and decline as you increase the distance in route races.\u00a0 There are, however, a couple of unique items to look at here.\u00a0 First, on the dirt side, the MaxSP increases from 4.5 furlongs to 8.5 furlongs and then decreases, but actually rebounds and increases slightly at 16 furlongs (data from AvgSP and MedianSP merely flattens out more at the 16 furlong distance).\u00a0 One possible culprit for this is that the 16 furlong data is an outlier \u2013 in other words, someone ran a REALLY good race.\u00a0 While MaxSP removes the possibility of any injury or wear and tear, it has a high sensitivity to outliers on the upper end of the spectrum.\u00a0 On December 24, Golfteam<\/b>, a 4yo gelding owned by golfteam1<\/i>, took home G1 The Hit Man<\/span> in Italy by 4.25 lengths, with a speed figure of 115.2099.\u00a0 The next fastest SP for the year was the second place finisher, New King In Town<\/b>, owned by frankster<\/i>, who put up a 112.7563 SP.\u00a0 The next fastest was a 111.65918 SP.\u00a0 If you remove the 115 outlier, the trend line for dirt MaxSP looks very similar to the turf MaxSP \u2013 rising to the middle distances, then falling for the longer distances.<\/p>\n The turf MaxSP chart is more standard in that the trendline rises and then falls.\u00a0 Where that gets interesting is at the pivot point \u2013 Most other charts show a decline in Speed Figures beginning around 8 or 8.5 furlongs.\u00a0 The trendline for turf MaxSP, however, keeps increasing until it reaches 9.5 furlongs.\u00a0 So why is the pivot point of the trendline at such a longer distance than the others?\u00a0 I don\u2019t have a good explanation for it.\u00a0 There\u2019s no obvious answer like switching from sprints to routes or having a main distance for the surface (like 10 furlongs on the dirt or 12 furlongs on the turf).\u00a0 So it\u2019s an interesting fact to find.<\/p>\n Even more interesting is that the actual data for 9.5 furlongs is significantly below the trendline.\u00a0 The actual MaxSP of 118.937 is approximately 3 points below the trendline expectation of 121.875, the biggest difference in actual data vs. trendline data.\u00a0 The only other data in the turf MaxSP analysis close to that is the 8.25 furlong distance, which is an inherently flawed distance in the MaxSP analysis because there were 0 stakes races run at the distance in 2017, thereby limiting the maximum Speed Figure that could be achieved at the distance.\u00a0 If we were to remove the data for both 8.25 furlongs and 9.5 furlongs, the R2<\/sup> value of the turf MaxSP trendline would jump from 0.8401 to 0.9222.\u00a0 Again, there does not seem to be an obvious reason for this.\u00a0 Yes, there are fewer graded stakes at the 9.5 furlong distance (8) than the surrounding distances (9 furlongs had 71 graded stakes, 10 furlongs had 93 graded stakes), so there is less potential for a high SP.\u00a0 But there were plenty of regular stakes that could have seen a higher SP (there were 163 stakes races at 9.5 furlongs on the turf in total).<\/p>\n 100SP<\/span>:<\/p>\n Fig. 6 \u2013 Dirt 100SP and Turf 100SP data.\u00a0 Red line indicates the average SP of the full data set comprised of 100 fastest SPs at each distance (points above the red line are distances that have a 100SP higher than the overall average; points below the red line are distances that have a 100SP lower than the overall average).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n There isn\u2019t much to say about the 100SP data that hasn\u2019t already been said above.\u00a0 The 100SP list limits all of the data to only the 100 fastest SPs each distance, but overall the trend is the same as it is for the AvgSP and MedianSP \u2013 Speed Figures increase as distance increases from 4.5 furlongs to 8.5 furlongs (dirt) or 9 furlongs (turf), then begins to decline before leveling out at 16 furlongs.\u00a0 The main item of note here is that the 100SP at 8.25 furlongs on both dirt and turf is significantly below where the trendline would expect it to be.\u00a0 The reason for this is likely as noted above: 8.25 furlong races are not carded by the CPU and there were NO stakes run at 8.25 furlongs in 2017.\u00a0 The lack of stakes races at 8.25 furlongs likely impacts the 100SP data even more than it impacts the MaxSP data; a hotly contested allowance race can produce a very high Speed Figure that gives a high MaxSP (which would technically be an outlier), but you would need 100 of those to match the Speed Figures coming out of the stakes level in the 100SP data.\u00a0 As a result, the actual 100SP for dirt and turf are approximately 3.2 points and 4 points lower, respectively, than the applicable trendlines.\u00a0 In fact, removing the 8.25 furlong data would bring the R2<\/sup> value of the trendline for dirt and turf up from 0.9079 and 0.8938, respectively, to 0.9406 and 0.9457, respectively.<\/p>\n Fig. 7 \u2013 Dirt and Turf 100SP data separated into sprint races (left) and route races (right).\u00a0 Red line indicates the average SP of the full data set comprised of 100 fastest SPs at each distance (points above the red line are distances that have a 100SP higher than the overall average; points below the red line are distances that have a 100SP lower than the overall average.<\/span><\/p>\n Breaking down the 100SP data a little further (and removing the 8.25 furlong outlier), we can see similar trends in the sprint and route races to the AvgSP and MedianSP data, though the decline in Speed Figures in routes is reduced compared to AvgSP and MedianSP.\u00a0 For both dirt and turf sprints, Speed Figures increase by approximately 2 points for every additional half furlong in distance, similar to the AvgSP and MedianSP trends.\u00a0 For dirt and turf routes however, Speed Figures decrease by less than 1 point for every additional half furlong, versus a drop of 1.5 points per half furlong for the AvgSP and MedianSP data.\u00a0 This data does make some sense.\u00a0 As noted earlier, not all Sim horses have the stamina for route races, so the AvgSP and MedianSP data is dragged down by the large number of horses putting up subpar Speed Figures at route distances.\u00a0 As distances increase, fewer horses have the stamina to get the distance, so Speed Figures drop at a high rate (1.5 points per half furlong).\u00a0 When looking only at the top 100 Speed Figures at each distance, however, we are removing all of the horses that can\u2019t run the full distance and are left only with the horses that are good at those distances.\u00a0 Therefore, the drop-off as distances increase is less (0.85 points per half furlong for dirt, 0.65 points per half furlong for turf) because the 100SP at each distance is not being dragged down by slow horses.<\/p>\n![\"Fig](\"http:\/\/blacktypebugler.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/Fig-1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Fig](\"http:\/\/blacktypebugler.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/Fig-2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Fig](\"http:\/\/blacktypebugler.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/Fig-3.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Fig](\"http:\/\/blacktypebugler.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/Fig-4.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Fig](\"http:\/\/blacktypebugler.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/Fig-5.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Fig](\"http:\/\/blacktypebugler.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/Fig-6.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Fig](\"http:\/\/blacktypebugler.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/Fig-7.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
![\"Fig](\"http:\/\/blacktypebugler.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/Fig-8.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Fig](\"http:\/\/blacktypebugler.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/Fig-9.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n