Final Furlong Forum

Breeding => General/Questions => Topic started by: Shanthi on August 09, 2006, 01:23:44 pm

Title: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Shanthi on August 09, 2006, 01:23:44 pm
Hi all,

I've been trying to come up with some sort of "breeding ranking" sort of thing (besides chef-de-race and reines-de-course, since they're obviously the "elite" already)...something that would tell you, at-a-glance, roughly how decent a producer a horse is (i.e. have they thrown SWs, MSWs, or have all their foals run backwards out of the gate).

However, I'm a bit stumped as far as:
- what to call the rankings
- how to rank horses (by % of SW foals, average foal earnings, etc.)

I think I will set it up so that it is just a "record", like the track record (MSW, SW, multi-millionaire, etc)...that way, horses won't be wandering around as ___ WCh. Horse if they happen to be good at racing and breeding.  However, that still leaves the dilemma of how to classify the rankings, and what to call them.  ;)

Any ideas?
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Cheq on August 09, 2006, 04:03:02 pm
My suggestion for stats would be number of off spring to race, #MSW's, #SW's, #Winners, total earnings, average earnings. Kind of like The Stallion Directory at Thoroughbredtimes. Just dreaming but best broodmare sires would be cool also ;)
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Shanthi on August 09, 2006, 04:14:26 pm
This is different from statistics, though.  I'm planning on revamping the sire statistics page to show everything the Bloodhorse does, and allow searching by specialty (dirt/turf/sc sire), age (2yo sire, 3yo sire, etc), broodmare sires, etc.

This is for the horse's individual page, so that, for example, it could list:
Track Record: Mult. Stakes Winner, Mult. Stakes Placed, Multi-Millionaire
Sire/Mare Ranking: _______ (Not sure if it makes sense to do a "theme", such as gemstone/rare minerals, or use something like Champion/Grand Champion/etc, or what...something to indicate what sort of offspring they have without getting into the nitty-gritty of X MSW foals, Y SW foals, etc)
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Andrea on August 09, 2006, 05:32:14 pm
Gemstones could work...

Maybe set up the ranks based on Avg points/race for the foals (so foals have a total of 1000 points and have a total of 100 races so the sire/dam would have 10 points/race as their ranking)?  That'd give you an idea of hte quality of races the foals tend to run in and how they do in them.  A horse who's got almost nothing but horses who win/place in stakes each time out would end up with... I dunno, 30 points per race on average while a horse who's offspring are just alright in allowances might have like an average of 9-10 points per race?

Hard to come up with something where the 2yo's don't drag it down (so like couldn't just do an average of points/horse b/c not all the horses have raced same amount).
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Cheq on August 09, 2006, 05:45:40 pm
A "theme' would be good. I thought about just numbering them but there are so many in tangables that it didn't seem adequate. As far as how to rank them that's a sun-of-a-gun, but the total number of races run should be a part of it. 2 yo inconsistencies not with standing. We had a lot of opinions when the Chefs de Race were set. up. I would imagine there's just as many about this ;) ;D Love the idea though.
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Cheq on August 09, 2006, 05:57:02 pm
This is complicated but I would use something like this to rate. 1st, 2ND, 3rd would be assigned points for stakes, allowances, others. The point value of each race would be the value of a 1st place finish. Total point value for all races run compared to point value of finishes(%). Whatever spread the % fits is the rating.(I said it was complicated :P )
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Morning Star Farms on August 09, 2006, 06:51:05 pm
How about Grades. like Grade A, Grade B or even like stakes races themselves

G1 producer, G2 producer

Then on a seperate page, like you do with titles, define what criterion are needed to advance.

EG. Riceburner :Allowance Producer would be one that produces winners or placers

Grade III is a stallion that produces Stakes Placers or Ungraded winners

Grade II is a stallion that produces MSW but not stud qualified MSW's

Grade 1 would be a stallion of stallions.

Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Shanthi on August 09, 2006, 06:53:11 pm
The problem with that is if you have fluke foals.  Some mares (and studs as well) are really crappy overall, but they have 1 (or a few, for studs) nice foals.  So they'd be ranked as, say, Grade II, even though they had one nice foal and the rest sucky foals.
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: taylon on August 09, 2006, 07:38:03 pm
What about a simple scale of 1-100?  They could have different breakdowns, then an "average number" would be assigned to the stallion in the end.  It could be a simple box plot with outliers and quartiles.  That would be a good way to find the right range for the stallions average production rates, and it would eliminate the harsh effects of the outliers- for example, a stallion throwing one amazing MSW in mediocre 40 foals, or throwing one dud in 40 where his foals are normally good runners.

so the math would look something like....

0-----------------25% quartile----------------Median---75% quartile---------100

The median here is closer to the 75th quartile, so lets say that 68% of his foals turn out to be winners or better.

They could have different number breakdowns such as-

2y/o sire
3y/o sire
4y/o sire
5+y/o sire
Broodmare sire

So for example-

Stallion A has 20 foals.  He has produced two MSWs and most of them are winners by the age of 3.  So there could be a point system devised based on how all the foals performed, and also based on using the plot box to eliminate any "uncharacteristic" superstars or  duds that horse produced....

You might get numbers like this?  I don't know how you would get an average number, but it might be worth looking into.

2y/o sire- 60
3y/o sire-83
4y/o sire-65
5+y/o sire-30
Broodmare sire-56
MSW- 10
SW- 33
SP- 45
Place- 95
Turf- 62
Dirt- 48
Steeplechase- 26
Distance- 28
Mid-range runner- 46
Sprint- 24

So looking at these numbers, I could probably assume the following (the #s were completely made up, not based on any horse living or in the game)-

Obviously, this is a stallion who has the capacity to produce lower level winners and stakes quality runners, but isn't likely to produce your next superstar.  His foals perfer the 7-9 or 10 furlong range, and run better on the turf.  His foals generally mature into their prime as three year olds, but don't rule out a good two year old or aged runner.  He seems to be a solid sire overall, perhaps nothing spectacular, but paired with the right mare, he has the capacity to produce some really nice foals. 

Wow, that was a lot for me, since I'm terrible with math, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.  I'm not sure how it would all work out, but if anyone can decipher it, Shanthi can!
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Shanthi on August 09, 2006, 07:42:35 pm
Thanks for that, Taylon, but that's going to be incorporated more into my sire stats page.  The breeding rankings is more a "snapshot" of how good the sire is overall, regardless of age of foals, surface preference, etc.  For instance, Highland Rogue and Rainbow Quest are both excellent sires, but Rogue tends to throw SCers and RQ tends to throw flat racers.  The Breeding Ranking wouldn't care, it'd just classify them both as _____ (whatever title "superstud" would get ;)).

The more in-depth look at their sire analysis and such (which is a planned feature) would break them down by how well their foals do at various ages/surfaces/race grades/etc.
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: taylon on August 09, 2006, 07:59:14 pm
Eh, I tried  :).  I hope you can use it for something, anyways. 

Looking at it more, you could do grades, like in school.....  Kindergarten- Foals have placed but no winners. Say, a 1st Grade sire has produced at least one winner, but no stakes placed horses.  Second grade, multiple winners but no stakes placed horses.  Third grade, at least one stakes placed horse but no MSPs.  4th Grade- MSPs but no SWs.  5th grade- At least one SW, but no MSWs.  6th grade- Multiple SWs, no MSW.  7th grade- At least one MSW, but not multiple MSWs.  8th grade, two MSWs.  9th grade, 3-4 MSWs.  10th grade- 5-6 MSWs.  11th grade- 7+ MSWs, none stud qualified.  12th Grade- 7+ MSWs, at least one stud qualified.   

Or however else you wanted to construct it.  It gives more options, and a stallion won't be held back for one bad foal, and similarly, won't get a great ranking for one really awesome foal.  The would have to be at least semi-consistant to move up in rank.

Maybe?  I don't know, probably not a great idea either, but it's worth a throwing out for you to take a look at.  I'm actually in a "thinking and motivated mood" today, and those usually don't both hit at once  ;).   
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Shanthi on August 09, 2006, 08:01:59 pm
Well, again the problem ends up being the outliers.  If a stud has 20 non-winning foals and 1 MSW, he'd get counted as 7th grade, even though realistically, he's probably only Kindergarden/1st Grade.
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: taylon on August 09, 2006, 08:05:44 pm
You could always use a box plot and a median to determine which grade he falls into.  It would eliminate the outliers, but the problem may be that very few stallions would make it into higher grades....
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Andrea on August 09, 2006, 08:18:50 pm
Well, and mares don't typically have enough foals to do very good statistical analysis on... Imagine Shanthi'd like one system that could work for mares and stallions to make life easier on us all.  :)
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Shanthi on August 09, 2006, 08:22:45 pm
Yeah, would like mares and studs to be ranked equally, so having flat minimums for #s of foals at ___ level doesn't work so well for mares.  (Nor does doing %s, since mares have 10-15 foals, so requiring 10% SWs for ___ ranking = 1 good foal, which doesn't work as well as 10% of a stud's 150 foals.)
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: JasonCameron on August 09, 2006, 08:42:19 pm
Sounds cool! I like the idea of minerals or gems...

Say Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze (like credit cards or airpoint programs ;)). Or maybe Diamond, Ruby, Emerald, Sapphire. :)
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Cheq on August 09, 2006, 09:23:50 pm
;D and I thought what I suggested was complicated ;D ;D At least my way was more even for mares if not slightly skewed toward great mares. I don't envy you figuring this one out Shanthi ;)
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Nan on August 09, 2006, 10:23:59 pm
I'm definitely no breeding expert but I have been thinking about it a bit...

I'm all for keeping the number of rankings small. A precious metals theme (Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze) would be best because it's easy to differentiate at a glance whtat the value of the ranking is. Then, perhaps, to assign studs to those ranks, a point system could be used, like:
10 points for every MSW foal
5 points for every SW foal
3 points for every SP foal
1 point for every winning foal

And then to attain a certain rank, a stud would have to have so many points, like:
Platinum Stud: 100+ points
Gold Stud: 75-100 points
Silver Stud: 50-75 points
Bronze Stud: 15-50 points

The same system could be used for mares, only with lesser points to qualify for the ranks (since they produce fewer foals), so, say:
Platinum Dam: 75+ points
Gold Dam: 50-75 points
Silver Dam: 25-50 points
Bronze Dam: 10-25 points

Then to break it down into various categories, like dirt, turf, SC, 2 yo, 3 yo, 4 yo+, the database could just look and see how many wins, SP, SW a horse has had in those years or on those surfaces, and assign points for each category. So you might be able to look at a stud and see that he's at Platinum rank overall, is Gold for flat runners, Silver for SCers, and only Bronze for 2 yo you could see that his foals tend to mature late but tend to be pretty nice flat runners overall.

That's a really rough and dirty way to hash it out, I realize. And not all studs/dams are going to qualify for a ranking...but not all should, right? Because the rankings are a way of seeing which horses are the best at producing certain qualities.

Hopefully I'm not shooting too far off the mark here...The idea just occurred to me so I figured I'd write it down. :)
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Andrea on August 10, 2006, 01:48:32 pm
I dunno... the points/foal seems good, but seems like you'd have to average it to some sort of average number of points per foal... Seems like a mare who's produced nothing but MSW's, even if it's just 4 MSWs, should rank higher than a horse who might've produced like 12 allowance winners.  I like your system, but it'd be hard to fairly apply to horses still actively being bred..
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Sorceress Edea on August 10, 2006, 04:06:28 pm
I like the Precious Metals/Gems idea.  Perhaps I could have a mare that was so sad she was Fool's Gold.  Or perhaps some fake cheap version of a diamond.
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: skyclad on August 11, 2006, 04:05:34 am
I like the idea of the precious metals. Also the titles for really lame horses...we could have Moissanite and stuff. :p
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Shanthi on August 11, 2006, 04:59:31 am
Breeding Rankings are up.  :)  634 horses have rankings, based on average race record of foals.

Each raced foal was ranked based on race record (2yos got a bonus b/c, well, they're 2yos ;)):
MSW = 20 points (2yos: 20pts)
SW = 10 points (2yos: 13pts)
MSP = 7 points (2yos: 11pts)
SP = 5 points (2yos: 9pts)
Mult. Winner = 3 points (2yos: 7pts)
Winner = 1pt (2yos: 5pts)

The rankings are:
Platinum: Ave points > 12pts - Mares must have at least 2 raced foals to qualify, studs must have at least 10 raced foals to qualify
Gold: Ave points > 8pts - Studs must have at least 5 raced foals to qualify
Silver: Ave points > 4pts
Bronze: Ave points > 0

Current Rankings are:
Platinum: 27 Horses (1 stud)
Gold: 122 Horses (10 studs)
Silver: 254 Horses (69 studs)
Bronze: 231 Horses (57 studs)
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Shanthi on August 11, 2006, 04:59:50 am
Oh, and "anti-rankings" were not implemented, for fear of insulting various horses.  ;)
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: JasonCameron on August 11, 2006, 05:59:16 am
Just wondering how Highland Rogue didn't make Platinum Stud? It's just confused me a bit as to how the rankings are worked out.
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Shanthi on August 11, 2006, 06:03:33 am
Rogue has a total of 714 points, and 74 foals.  Thus an average of 9.6 points, and a Gold ranking.

(I was surprised, too ;)  Think the "problem" is that Rogue has really really really nice foals, but only 24 of them, and they don't get bonus points for being superstars rather than "just" multiple stakes winners)
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Megabucks12003 on August 11, 2006, 04:26:03 pm
Wow, really cool system it's going to be a big help. Now I'm going to have to look up some studs and see where they "stand" just for fun.
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: lckychrm150 on August 11, 2006, 06:18:12 pm
this is going to really help newbees pick studs!!!!!! I had a very hard time picking my first stud!
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Shanthi on August 13, 2006, 01:27:00 am
Breeding Rankings are now listed here (  This page is also linked off the "Breeding" page.
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Sorceress Edea on August 21, 2006, 08:14:18 pm
Hum, I just thought of something.  Because 2yos receive a boost, it is perfectly possible to have a Gold rated mare this year and have her slip quite a ways back down the next year, right?  And will the new 2yo crop count before they race?  As in:  Mare A has  5 foals, a yearling, a 2yo, a 3yo, a 4yo, and a 5yo.  It is January first, so her 2yo hasn't raced yet.  Would you divide her points by 4, because she DOES have a 2yo, or by 3, because the 2yo hasn't raced yet?

It's worded to make it sound complicated, sorry!
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Shanthi on August 21, 2006, 08:23:32 pm
Yes, many high-ranked mares may drop in rankings once they have more than 1 or 2 foals racing.

Rankings are only based on raced foals, so 2yos don't count until they actually get to the track.
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Sorceress Edea on August 26, 2006, 04:06:38 am
Whoo Hoo!  I got to poking aroudn and discovered that Cigar is a Platinum stud now!  Just thought I'd share the arrival of a new P rated stud with everyone ;D
Title: Breeding Ranking incorrect????
Post by: CascadeJade on May 24, 2007, 01:41:31 am
Hi Shanthi,
I was looking over my stud Devil May Care's foal list and noticed that he has 13 raced foals and 18.3 is is avg. pts. My question is...shouldn't DMC be a Platinum ranked stud since the minumum requirement for Platinum studs is 12.1 or am I missing something??

Anyway, just double checking because I'd love to add a Platinum DMC to newly rated Gold What's Debatable. ;)

P.S.-Also noticed Irish River has over 10 raced foals, an avg of 17.4pts but is only ranked Gold.

***EDITED TO ADD: Might have found the problem, on the breeding rankings page it shows DMC as having only 4 foals and Irish River as only having 8...
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Andrea on May 24, 2007, 03:41:51 am
Studs have a minimum # of foals they have to have racing in order to qualify for each level, but I forget how many. 
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: CascadeJade on May 24, 2007, 06:37:20 am
According to the breed rankings page its 10 "foals"(I'm assuming that refers to raced foals)for studs, 2 "foals" for mares, but maybe 2yo's don't count...? I only checked part of the page but also found:
Somethin' Smokin'(3 raced, 15pts)
Gimme A Shot(10+ raced 14.1pts)
Northern Lady(3 raced 13pts)
Worth My Time(2 raced 13pts)
High Enough(2 raced 13pts)
Wild Highland(2 raced 13 pts)
...all of those are currently gold ranked but according to the requirements at the top of the page should be platinum(min 12.1pts)...again unless I'm missing something or 2yo's don't count. :) Also, on the breeding rankings page all of those horses, including Irish River and DMC have the incorrect amount of foals listed so maybe with the correct number of foals factored in(if they aren't being counted) all these horses wouldn't have such high average pts anyway...
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: gustyacres on February 25, 2009, 01:20:51 am
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: fionababe56 on May 13, 2009, 11:14:23 pm
I have a mare that's breed ranking is wrong. Earlier it said Silver, which is right, and now it is saying she is bronze.

Won't She Tell(1102):

Says she is bronze with 3.7 avg. points

Really she should be silver with 5.3 avg. pts.

Foal: Fancy Fleet-2009 Mare-MSP-7 pts.
Foal: I Can't Tell-2010 Mare- Placed- 0 pts.
Foal: Steelaway-2011 Colt-SP-9 pts.
Total Points: 16
Avg Points: 5.33333
Rank: Silver--not bronze
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: hollyh1125 on May 14, 2009, 12:53:13 am
You may be asked to report it as a bug.
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: fionababe56 on May 14, 2009, 03:20:24 am
I know, I just wasn't sure if it qualified as one or not...
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Shanthi on May 14, 2009, 02:02:35 pm
Yes, it would.  As usual, please do not report problems on the forum, it gets lost far too easily.
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Starfish on April 20, 2015, 08:26:51 pm
Just out of curiosity - I have seen references to Stallions being Chef-de-Race and Broodmares being Reines-de-Course.

What do those terms mean (presumably they are some kind of Breeding Ranking) and what qualifications does a horse need to earn these Rankings?
Title: Re: Breeding Rankings?
Post by: Shanthi on April 20, 2015, 08:37:35 pm