Final Furlong Forum
Final Furlong
Nov. 19, 2021 10:46am

Final Furlong Forum - POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 19, 2017, 02:46:03 PM

Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
Final Furlong Forum  |  Breeding  |  General/Questions  |  Topic: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All Go Down Print
Poll
Question: Should breed rankings be re-calculated?
Yes
No

Author Topic: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?  (Read 3901 times)
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,690
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« on: March 01, 2012, 07:13:29 PM »

So I was thinking today on my commute about breed rankings. Right now they primarily reward producers of early bloomers. 2YOs get "extra credit" for the same achievements (except MSW, which counts the same regardless of age).

Is that really fair, though? What if your stallion/mare throws amazing jumpers, who therefore wouldn't really do well until 3 and up? What if you're breeding for longevity so you don't aim for 2yo stars but would like your babies to last until 6+? Etc.

Which got me to thinking, rather than reward based simply on age (which was a bit arbitrary based on the hypothesis that 2yo races are more competitive/harder to win, so therefore it's a bigger achievement), horses could be awarded points based on each year of racing, with breed rankings averaged out over all foals' years.

So, hypothetically, the following points could be awarded:
Multiple stakes wins in a year: 15 points
Single stakes win in a year: 12 points
Multiple stakes places in a year: 10 points
Single stakes place in a year: 8 points
Multiple wins in a year: 3 points
Single win in a year: 1 point

Using a mare (for an easier example, since she's got less foals), let's take Move Boldly's foals:
Debatable Move: 3 racing years, 31 points
  • Single stakes place at 2: 8 points
  • Multiple stakes wins at 3: 15 points
  • Single stakes place at 4: 8 points
Pyromaniac: 5 racing years, 2 points
  • Unplaced at 2: 0 points
  • Single win at 3: 1 point
  • Single win at 4: 1 point
  • Unplaced at 5: 0 points
  • Non-winner at 6: 0 points
Pyrotechnics: 4 racing years, 12 points
  • Single stakes place at 3: 8 points
  • Single win at 4: 1 point
  • Multiple wins at 5: 3 points
  • Non-winner at 6: 0 points
Strawberryswing: 3 racing years, 16 points
  • Non-winner at 2: 0 points
  • Multiple stakes winner at 3: 15 points
  • Single win at 4: 1 point
Sir Irish Knight: 2 racing years, 3 points
  • Non-winner at 2: 0 points
  • Multiple wins at 3: 3 points
Artic High: 1 racing year, 1 point
  • Single win at 3: 1 point

Overall, she has 6 foals who've raced a total of 18 years and earned 65 points. So her average points would be 3.6.

Obviously the breed ranking numbers and/or points for racing achievements would need to be tweaked a bit since she's gold ranked (with 8.2 points), but when you look in more detail, her best foals aren't all that consistent over time - Debatable Move was, but the rest were somewhat iffy.

This is all just what sprang to mind on the bus this morning, so I'm open to feedback, but it occurred to me that breed rankings could be falsely optimistic (or pessimistic) if you have especially brilliant but inconsistent horses. Personally speaking, I'd rather know that a horse is only silver ranked but will consistently produce horses who win year after year as opposed to appearing amazing and gold (or platinum) ranked based on one foal having a good season once. (This is especially true for stallions, but also for mares.)

So...thoughts? Suggestions for improvements?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2012, 07:28:35 PM by Shanthi » Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,690
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2012, 07:25:28 PM »

In contrast, compare the stats for Atlantis' foals:
Prospero: 4 racing years, 37 points
  • SW at 2: 12 points
  • MSW at 3: 15 points
  • MSP at 4: 10 points
  • Non-winner at 5: 0 points
Mummify: 5 racing years, 22 points
  • Multiple stakes placed at 2: 10 points
  • MSW at 3: 15 points
  • Multiple winner at 4: 3 points
  • Winner at 5: 1 point
  • Non-winner at 6: 0 points
Timaeus: 3 racing years, 15 points
  • Multiple winner at 2: 3 points
  • SW at 3: 12 points
  • Non-winner at 4: 0 points
Maya: 3 racing years, 23 points
  • Winner at 2: 1 point
  • Multiple stakes placed at 3: 10 points
  • SW at 4: 12 points
Single Sprice: 2 racing years, 8 points
  • Stakes placed at 2: 8 points
  • Non-winner at 3: 0 points

She's got 5 raced foals, with 17 years' racing and 105 points. Her new average would be 6.1. You can see that her foals are more consistent over time, though.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2012, 09:55:21 AM by Shanthi » Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,690
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2012, 07:28:20 PM »

Thinking aloud, the only concern I have is horses getting to hasbeen status. It seems a shame to penalize the parents just because you try racing your horse longer than it wants to (and therefore when he was winning stakes at age 3 and 4, he can't win anything at age 6). Perhaps the racing years used in the average points calculation could only count ages 2-4 and therefore any points earned beyond age 4 would be a bonus?

(In the above example, Atlantis would have only 14 racing years "count", but still have 105 points, bringing her average up to 7.5. Move Boldly would have 14 years count and her average would be 4.6.)
Logged
Shadowfax
Guest
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2012, 07:28:23 PM »

sounds good to me, the best horses being those that throw the best foals, not just acouple of greats and the rest duds

Not sure Holly would like it, given Nightfight's stellar rating at the moment ;)
Logged
Equestriana
Beta Testers
Owner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 878
Stable Name: Semiahmoo Stables


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2012, 07:38:09 PM »

Sounds like a more realistic way of doing it, but like you said the methods may run into problems if horses run to an unnecessarily old age. You would see the effect of that alot of a mare has had alot of colts because people run colts longer if they don't qualify for stud because you can't really do anything with them once retired. This would have a big effect on the mares rating. Your idea of points being a bonus beyond the age of 4 sounds like a good idea
Logged
Kim - Semiahmoo Stables
Proudly Offered at Stud
ICh. What's Your Point - Multi-Stake Winner, Multi-Stake Placed, Multi-Millionaire, Gold Rated
WCh. I'm Your Angel - Multi-Stake Winner, Multi-Stake Placed, Multi-Millionaire, Silver Rated
GCh. Ace Of Hearts - Multi-Stake Winner, Multi-Stake Placed, Millionaire
NCh. Sunday Paper - Multi-Stake Winner, Multi-Stake Placed, Multi-Millionaire
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,690
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2012, 07:46:25 PM »

Not sure Holly would like it, given Nightfight's stellar rating at the moment ;)

Technically it shouldn't make a difference, yet, as his babies only have 1 year of racing under their belt. ;) Time will tell if his stats would change dramatically in a couple of years when he has more foals on the track.
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,690
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2012, 08:52:01 PM »

More thinking aloud - this could also be broken down further so that it takes into account how many times your horse raced in a year.

Say your mare has a colt, Joe. Parallel universe A has him owned by FF, so he gets raced 4 times at age 3, in completely random stakes races that he sucks at. Parallel universe B has him owned by you, his extremely optimistic breeder, who race him 20 times at age 3, in not-so-random stakes races that he sucks at. ;) (Not that Joe sucks, per se, but for whatever reason, he's being overfaced.)

Either way, he gets no credit for the year because he has no wins. But should he get less penalised by only trying stakes 4x and sucking at them rather than trying stakes 20x and sucking at them? If it's just the measure of what he accomplished at age 3, it makes no difference. But if it were done as an average of racing starts rather than racing years, the 4 races with FF would hurt him less stat-wise than the 20 races with you.

Hope that makes sense, I'm on quite a few cold meds this week. (None of which are doing much, sadly.)
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,690
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2012, 07:27:18 AM »

Would the people who voted (especially those who voted no) please weigh in? I'd like to know why people are in favour/against the idea.
Logged
spudly
Jockey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 209
Stable Name: Lochiedo Stables

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2012, 08:33:59 AM »

I voted yes as it does seem that the rankings are heavily biased towards the younger racers. Having a more even spread give a clearer indication of a progenies ability.
Logged
Steve
Lochiedo Stables
"We are on the rise"


Standing at stud
Beau Esprit
sjenee
Guest
« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2012, 02:52:28 PM »

I voted yes as it does seem that the rankings are heavily biased towards the younger racers. Having a more even spread give a clearer indication of a progenies ability.

This.  Sorry, I voted yesterday, but had to head to work and didn't have time to explain why I voted.  But basically everything spudly said.
Logged
Starfish
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,149
Stable Name: Starfish Stables

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 02, 2012, 04:51:37 PM »

What if your stallion/mare throws amazing jumpers, who therefore wouldn't really do well until 3 and up? What if you're breeding for longevity so you don't aim for 2yo stars but would like your babies to last until 6+? Etc.

Personally speaking, I'd rather know that a horse is only silver ranked but will consistently produce horses who win year after year as opposed to appearing amazing and gold (or platinum) ranked based on one foal having a good season once.

I voted yes because of the above reasons. I have a Stallion, Magic Glory, whose 2yo crop have tended to run like they're racing in molasses, but who have come on a lot at 3+. Why should he be penalized because his 2yo's couldn't win a one-horse race, but, when they get to 3, a number of them have become MSW's? They should get the same number of Rating Points, regardless of whether they are 2, 3, 4, or above. I also agree that while Points should continue being accumulated after they turn 5, the number of races they have run in either should not be included, or, if they are, maybe only half, i.e. if a horse ran in 10 races at 5+, for calculating Breed Rankings, it should only count as 5 races.
Logged
Lewis
Grace Littlef
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,299
Stable Name: Iron Spur Stables


Proud Rattie Mommy!!

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2012, 05:02:41 PM »

Tried to post yesterday but couldn't .
I voted for it as it would be nice to have some idea of the longevity of certain bloodlines. As I've had several horses win Ch titles at 2 and then bomb at 3and up. It would be interesting to see who produces longer lived runners. And would be awesome for when my studs babies hit the track to see just how they are doing.
Logged
WHEN GOD CREATED THE HORSE,HE SPOKE TO THE MAGNIFICENT CREATURE: I HAVE MADE THEE WITHOUT EQUAL, ALL THE TREASURE OF THIS EARTH LIE BETWEEN THY EYES.

Home of,Ch. Set It OffNew in the Studbarn-guest stallion-NCh.Irish Gold,our studs- ICH.Gilded Saint, NCH.Golden Text, NCh. Black Light II
Brandi
Guest
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2012, 05:36:42 PM »

I voted yes for the same reasons as noted above.  I would much rather breed a horse for a long career than breed a horse that precocious with no/limited aged talent.
Logged
CricketHill
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,186
Stable Name: Cricket Hill

Cricket Hill: Established 2006

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2012, 05:48:30 PM »

Question: Would it be possible to award points based on the number of wins/SWs rather than just whether or not they won more than once?

I think there a lot of highly ranked ponies (mares especially) that throw foals that can win two or three SWs. These ponies are sometimes ranked as high or more highly than mares who have foals that are really super successful on the track.
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,690
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2012, 10:12:49 AM »

That would work better with breaking points down by actual number of races. So rather than giving an overall quality for the year, you'd award points based on each race and average them out for all the foals.

So if the points became (hypothetically):
Stakes win: 40 points
Stakes place: 20 points
Win: 10 points

(Let's also assume that races at age 5 and up don't count in the average.)

Our above examples would be:
Move Boldly's foals:
Debatable Move: 25 races, 150 points
  • 2yo: 2 wins + 1 stakes place = 40 points
  • 3yo: 2 stakes wins = 80 points
  • 4yo: 1 win + 1 stakes place = 30 points
Pyromaniac: 20 races, 20 points
  • 2yo: 0 wins = 0 points
  • 3yo: 1 win = 10 points
  • 4yo: 1 win = 10 points
  • 5yo: 0 wins = 0 points
  • 6yo: 0 wins = 0 points
Pyrotechnics: 16 races, 50 points
  • 3yo: 1 stakes place = 20 points
  • 4yo: 1 win = 10 points
  • 5yo: 2 wins = 20 points
  • 6yo: 0 wins = 0 points
Strawberryswing: 23 races, 230 points
  • 2yo: 0 wins = 0 points
  • 3yo: 4 stakes wins + 3 stakes places = 220 points
  • 4yo: 1 win = 10 points
Sir Irish Knight: 33 races, 20 points
  • 2yo: 0 wins = 0 points
  • 3yo: 2 wins = 20 points
Artic High: 4 races, 10 points
  • 3yo: 1 win = 10 points

Overall, she has 6 foals who've raced a total of 121 races (that count) and earned 480 points. So her average points would be 3.96.

Atlantis' foals:
Prospero: 33 races, 370 points
  • 2yo: 1 stakes win + 1 stakes place = 60 points
  • 3yo: 2 stakes wins + 6 stakes places = 200 points
  • 4yo: 1 win + 4 stakes places = 90 points
  • 5yo: 0 wins + 1 stakes place = 20 points
Mummify: 48 races, 300 points
  • 2yo: 6 wins + 3 stakes places = 120 points
  • 3yo: 1 win + 2 stakes wins + 2 stakes places = 130 points
  • 4yo: 4 wins = 40 points
  • 5yo: 1 win = 10 points
  • 6yo: 0 wins = 0 points
Timaeus: 33 races, 60 points
  • 2yo: 2 wins = 20 points
  • 3yo: 1 stakes win = 40 points
  • 4yo: 0 wins = 0 points
Maya: 37 races, 170 points
  • 2yo: 1 win = 10 points
  • 3yo: 6 wins + 2 stakes places = 100 points
  • 4yo: 1 stakes win + 1 stakes place = 60 points
Single Sprice: 12 races, 40 points
  • 2yo: 2 wins + 1 stakes place = 40 points
  • 3yo: 0 wins = 0 points

She's got 5 raced foals, with 163 counted races and 940 points. Her new average would be 5.76.

Then perhaps our breed rankings would be something like:
0.0-1.0: Bronze
1.1-3.0: Silver
3.1-5.0: Gold
5.1+: Platinum
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All Go Up Print 
Final Furlong Forum  |  Breeding  |  General/Questions  |  Topic: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings? « previous next »
 
SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Final Furlong Forum, POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings? - Theme by Mustang Forums