Final Furlong Forum
Final Furlong
Nov. 18, 2021 8:17pm

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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 19, 2017, 12:17:20 AM

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 3891 times)
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
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: 9,687
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: 9,687
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: 9,687
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: 9,687
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: 9,687
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: 9,687
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
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2012, 10:26:01 AM »

And just for the hell of it, I did Nightfight too.
  • Fake Number: 14 races, 70 points
  • Enyo: 22 races, 190 points
  • Black Star: 23 races, 260 points
  • Nightlight: 11 races, 60 points
  • Ardiente: 18 races, 160 points
  • Hopes Flight: 16 races, 120 points
  • Jett Black: 10 races, 100 points
  • Key Biscuit: 17 races, 220 points
  • Night of Storms: 10 races, 160 points
  • Dazzling Night: 3 races, 10 points
  • Darknight: 18 races, 40 points
  • Thanatos: 7 races, 0 points
  • Shadow Play: 5 races, 10 points
  • Glow in the Dark: 10 races, 200 points
  • Black Heartbreak: 22 races, 250 points
  • Inheritance: 20 races, 150 points
  • Burn Notice: 10 races, 10 points
  • Sponsored: 23 races, 460 points
  • Fightin The Smoke: 21 races, 360 points
  • Nightlit Haze: 17 races, 180 points
  • Buenos Aires: 15 races, 50 points
  • Kentucky Wildcat: 17 races, 70 points
  • Girlfight: 3 races, 0 points
  • Shailaja: 7 races, 0 points

So he has 24 foals who've raced a total of 339 times and earned 3,200 points. This gives him an average of 9.43. So the breed rankings may have to be adjusted for stallions since they have way more babies. ;)
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2012, 10:35:51 AM »

And for comparison, I did What's It Worth. (Not going to list out all the foals because he has a ton.) He has 125 foals with 3,306 counted races who earned 31,510 points, giving him an average of 9.53.

Highland Rogue has 74 foals with 1,453 races who earned 15,410 points. This gives him an average of 10.60.

So perhaps for studs the breed ranking breakdown would be something like:
0.0-3.0: Bronze
3.1-5.0: Silver
5.1-8.0: Gold
8.1+: Platinum

Right now studs only need 10 raced foals to qualify for gold/platinum (though obviously all 10 foals would need to be amazing to get there). Since this is going by races more than foals, perhaps the requirement could be 300 races for gold and 500 for platinum? (This is assuming that most horses can race 10 times a year and a semi-popular stud would get 300 races within his first couple crops hitting the track. It would take a bit longer to get to platinum, but that seems fair - a stud shouldn't earn platinum based on just one or two foal crops.)
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2012, 11:34:21 AM »

So since this was actually pretty easy to tweak in the database with numbers, I now have exact comparisons if the above system were put in place. (I've only done studs so far.)

The following studs would go down in rank:
Silver -> Bronze:
Gallant Fox, Unbridled, Flash's Image, Closing Time, Hope To Succeed, Worth The Wait, Government Secret, Whirlaway, Brazen Remark, Heza Gallant Gent, Seattle Sorcerer, Magic Man, Backseat Driver, Oscillation, Black Gold, Captain Jack, Who Says, As You Wish

Gold -> Silver:
Candidate, Run For It, Black Legend

The following studs would go up in rank:
Bronze -> Silver:
Count Me In, Robin Hood, Sir Lancelot, MakeMineManhattan, King David, Revenge, West Wind, Wonder's Pride, Tryst of Fate, Prince of Wonder, Awesome Again, Almost Home, Gimme A Shot, Blue Ensign, Magic Glory, Gotta Go

Bronze -> Gold:
Beatyatoit

Silver -> Gold:
Cigar, Forget It, Turbo Tide, Resident Evil, Redwood Prince, Lucky Cigar, High On Love, Danzig, Silver Secrets, Conspiracy Theory, Romeo, Worth My While, Highland Magic, Foolhardy, The Black, Strike The Gold, Townsend Prince, Irish River, Highland Bandit, Bold Ruler, Lit de Justice, Jazz It Up, Highland Wizard

Gold -> Platinum:
Highland Rogue, What's It Worth

All other studs would have the same ranking they have now.
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2012, 12:16:02 PM »

I've setup a new breed ranking page that would show the breakdown of the proposed new rankings.

http://www.finalfurlong.org/breedrankings_new.php

Feel free to comment/suggest/etc.
Logged
CricketHill
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,186
Stable Name: Cricket Hill

Cricket Hill: Established 2006

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2012, 12:27:34 PM »


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


I would request that we do include the 5yo season. I've had way too many that have perked up as old 4yos and 5yos. I think most people do tend to retire their ponies. Not including the 5yo season would disadvantage studs who do throws foals that mature late and favor those who mature early, since the 2yo season is counted when the late-bloomers are running too.
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2012, 12:32:13 PM »

Not including the 5yo season would disadvantage studs who do throws foals that mature late and favor those who mature early, since the 2yo season is counted when the late-bloomers are running too.

Actually, it would do the opposite. I mean "not counting" the 5yo season in the number of races for averaging purposes.

So your horse is meh at 2, wins stakes at 3, 4, and 5. Say his total points (for all races) is 100, and he ran 30 times, 5 of which are at age 5.

Without counting the 5yo year, he would count as 100 points and 25 races for his parents' breed rankings (average 4.0).
With counting the 5yo year, he would count as 100 points and 30 races for his parents' breed rankings (average 3.3).

All the races would be counted for gathering points (so he'd get points for 5yo season), but then when counting the number of races to divide by, it would only count those from age 2-4. So the 5yo year would just increase the average value because the points would count but the number of races wouldn't.

If people want the 5yo year to count for number of races, that's fine too, but more horses are likely to be hasbeen at 5 than immature at 2 (I think).
Logged
CricketHill
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,186
Stable Name: Cricket Hill

Cricket Hill: Established 2006

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: March 04, 2012, 12:34:03 PM »

Okay, that makes sense. My misunderstanding.

Do you think the mare cut-offs need to be tweaked? There are a lot of platinum/gold mares now.
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: March 04, 2012, 12:36:42 PM »

Do you think the mare cut-offs need to be tweaked? There are a lot of platinum/gold mares now.

Probably. I'm happy to keep tweaking numbers (but am getting a bit math'd out at the moment).

Edit: I've tweaked the mare requirements a bit more, which puts them more in line with the current breakdown of mares in each breed ranking.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2012, 12:44:33 PM by Shanthi » Logged
imagine
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,663
Stable Name: Generous Bloodstock

Anything is possible with a willing heart.

View Profile
« Reply #23 on: March 04, 2012, 06:43:25 PM »

I think I like the new system, particularly that mares with only one runner now have a rank.
Logged
Emma @ Generous Bloodstock
Anything is possible with a willing heart

Standing at stud in 2020:
ICh Blue Smoke
ICh Quarren
NCh Lasting Spirit
GCh Mantle of Power
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: March 04, 2012, 08:33:18 PM »

I think I like the new system, particularly that mares with only one runner now have a rank.

They always could, but with counting average points per race, mares with only one raced foal are more likely to get to at least Bronze ranking.

I'll leave the tentative new system up for a while and see if anyone else has comments/suggestions/objections. If not, though, we'll probably switch over. :)
Logged
imagine
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,663
Stable Name: Generous Bloodstock

Anything is possible with a willing heart.

View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 05, 2012, 10:18:29 AM »

Ah I see :)
Logged
Emma @ Generous Bloodstock
Anything is possible with a willing heart

Standing at stud in 2020:
ICh Blue Smoke
ICh Quarren
NCh Lasting Spirit
GCh Mantle of Power
Shadowfax
Guest
« Reply #26 on: March 05, 2012, 03:54:57 PM »

Will you split the list of ranked horses into Mares and Stallions? Might make it easier to read and note the best stallions if they're all together/
Logged
imagine
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,663
Stable Name: Generous Bloodstock

Anything is possible with a willing heart.

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2012, 04:09:02 PM »

If you click on the link the third line of text is a series of filter links (just above the first table) and you can select mares/stallions/BM stallions only there :)
Logged
Emma @ Generous Bloodstock
Anything is possible with a willing heart

Standing at stud in 2020:
ICh Blue Smoke
ICh Quarren
NCh Lasting Spirit
GCh Mantle of Power
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2012, 04:38:43 PM »

You can also sort by various fields as well as filter. So you could see currently available stallions (Active Only link) sorted in descending order of points, or rank, or foals, etc.
Logged
Shadowfax
Guest
« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2012, 05:35:19 PM »

It was my mistake for not noticing it to start with.

It all seems to look good and work well in my opinion
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: March 07, 2012, 09:43:29 PM »

FYI, I've made the swap. :) Rankings should be displayed from new data/calculations now.
Logged
JasonCameron
Guest
« Reply #31 on: March 07, 2012, 10:34:39 PM »

Just so I have my head around the numbers, why would Prince of Wonder be higher rated than Strike It Rich?

Prince: http://www.finalfurlong.org/viewhorse.php?horse=1730
Strike: http://www.finalfurlong.org/viewhorse.php?horse=1536

To me, it is obvious who the better stallion is it just appears Prince's score is skewed because he has one outstanding foal (Bay of Biscay).
Logged
Starfish
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,149
Stable Name: Starfish Stables

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: March 07, 2012, 11:19:22 PM »

I've setup a new breed ranking page that would show the breakdown of the proposed new rankings.

http://www.finalfurlong.org/breedrankings_new.php

Feel free to comment/suggest/etc.

Shanthi - I tried to click on this link but keep getting a message that it "cannot be found on this server". I don't know if it is just my laptop (sometimes I get similar messages on other websites but if I keep trying or come back later, it finds the website) or are other people having the same problem?

Can you please post the Breed Ranking ranges here and I'll keep trying the website in  the meantime.
Logged
Lewis
CricketHill
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,186
Stable Name: Cricket Hill

Cricket Hill: Established 2006

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 07, 2012, 11:25:53 PM »

It's swappped over. So you can find them here: http://www.finalfurlong.org/breedrankings.php

Logged
CricketHill
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,186
Stable Name: Cricket Hill

Cricket Hill: Established 2006

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 08, 2012, 02:02:49 AM »

I would honestly recommend that mares not be ranked until they have 2 or 3 foals raced and/or a certain number of races run by their foals. I have a mare who has one foal to race with one start, which she won. This mare is gold-ranked.

(http://www.finalfurlong.org/viewhorse.php?horse=1774)

While this makes me feel super awesome, it devalues the ranking system. She doesn't deserve to be gold-ranked because she hasn't proven herself yet. One foal, one race, one win does not mean she's of the same caliber of producer as a mare who has produced multiple stakes producers. Let a mare's foals prove that she is awesome first by running well and then rate her. Otherwise, the rankings are going to be useless for at-a-glance value judgements.

Does this make sense?
Logged
DukeItOut9
Beta Testers
Jockey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 236
Stable Name: Marshall Creek Ranch

View Profile
« Reply #35 on: March 08, 2012, 02:15:13 AM »

Candidate is rated at 6.4 silver now... the cutoff for Gold is 5.1 - Why would he not be gold ranked?
Logged
CricketHill
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,186
Stable Name: Cricket Hill

Cricket Hill: Established 2006

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: March 08, 2012, 02:25:13 AM »

His foals need to run a minimum of 300 races to qualify for Gold-ranking. He'll need 500 races to qualify for platinum status.
Logged
DukeItOut9
Beta Testers
Jockey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 236
Stable Name: Marshall Creek Ranch

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: March 08, 2012, 02:38:12 AM »

Ahh ok. The only way to check on that is to manually count, correct? :)



Just checked - 237 - looong way to go!
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 02:41:24 AM by DukeItOut9 » Logged
CricketHill
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,186
Stable Name: Cricket Hill

Cricket Hill: Established 2006

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: March 08, 2012, 02:42:55 AM »

Well, considering he's a new-ish stud, I'm not too surprised. The fact that older studs are being ranked as gold and above lead me to believe that it is counting the # of races properly.  Just keep on running his foals! (I know I'm looking forward to running mine by him. Unfortunately, it'll be a couple years.)
Logged
DukeItOut9
Beta Testers
Jockey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 236
Stable Name: Marshall Creek Ranch

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: March 08, 2012, 02:49:16 AM »

I actually dont have any of his running yet either - bought him two years ago so I am still waiting too :) I had to buy one to race this year, so I am excited about her starting.
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: March 08, 2012, 07:37:45 AM »

Just so I have my head around the numbers, why would Prince of Wonder be higher rated than Strike It Rich?

Prince: http://www.finalfurlong.org/viewhorse.php?horse=1730
Strike: http://www.finalfurlong.org/viewhorse.php?horse=1536

To me, it is obvious who the better stallion is it just appears Prince's score is skewed because he has one outstanding foal (Bay of Biscay).

That's it, pretty much. Both of them don't have many foals to race, so their number of races are roughly similar (740 to 900), but POW has significantly higher points because he's got one very nice horse who races a lot.

(This is the flaw in either system - one/a few monster foals can skew the rankings. It's sort of self-continuing, too - you're obviously going to continue racing a really nice horse for quite a while, but if you run a dud 10 times and it's dead last every time, you'll just retire it. So the average across all the foals gets skewed towards the monster foal because they raced more.)

If anyone has some suggestions for how to adjust things to account for monster foals, feel free. I think the stud rankings are OK for now, though (POW and SIR are both the same rank, and as they get more foals racing if SIR really is better because he has more consistently nice foals, his average will go up while POW's will go down.)
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 07:39:23 AM by Shanthi » Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: March 08, 2012, 07:44:43 AM »

I would honestly recommend that mares not be ranked until they have 2 or 3 foals raced and/or a certain number of races run by their foals. I have a mare who has one foal to race with one start, which she won. This mare is gold-ranked.

(http://www.finalfurlong.org/viewhorse.php?horse=1774)

While this makes me feel super awesome, it devalues the ranking system. She doesn't deserve to be gold-ranked because she hasn't proven herself yet. One foal, one race, one win does not mean she's of the same caliber of producer as a mare who has produced multiple stakes producers. Let a mare's foals prove that she is awesome first by running well and then rate her. Otherwise, the rankings are going to be useless for at-a-glance value judgements.

Does this make sense?

It would be easy enough to mimic the stud's requirements, just on a lower level. So 300 races for studs is on the assumption that 30 foals (1 full crop) race 10 times each, and 500 is based on 2(ish) crops racing 10 times. For mares I suppose the equivalent would be 30 races and 50 races. (Since horses can/do race more than 10 times/year, so 2 foals could get the 30 races by the end of the second's 2yo year, in theory.)

So your mare would get back to gold rank once her one baby races for a few years, or she gets more babies out on the track.

That would drop 15 mares from Platinum to Gold who don't have 50 races, and 47 from Gold to Silver who don't have 30 races.
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: March 08, 2012, 07:55:08 AM »

That would drop 15 mares from Platinum to Gold who don't have 50 races, and 47 from Gold to Silver who don't have 30 races.

Actually, it would drop some P mares down to S if they don't have 30 races yet either.
Logged
Grace Littlef
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,299
Stable Name: Iron Spur Stables


Proud Rattie Mommy!!

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: March 08, 2012, 04:22:06 PM »

The link isnt working for me, is it down?
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
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: March 08, 2012, 04:30:26 PM »

It's swappped over. So you can find them here: http://www.finalfurlong.org/breedrankings.php


Logged
Grace Littlef
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,299
Stable Name: Iron Spur Stables


Proud Rattie Mommy!!

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: March 08, 2012, 05:00:28 PM »

Great thanks!
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
hollyh1125
Guest
« Reply #46 on: September 05, 2012, 07:07:18 PM »

Hi, I've tried to read over the entire thread again and can't find anything addressing horses racing who may not be mature yet.  Is a mare or stallion penalized by a foal who doesn't do well at 2 and 3 but starts winning at 4? 

I'm asking because as a trainer of a few late maturing horses they may not do well at 2 and 3 but show some promise by placing in a few races, because of this I continue to race them in possibly 15-20 races a year (so they gain experience) when suddenly at age 4 they are winning stakes races. 

If the horse is not a winner at 2 or 3, but was raced consistantly, does it hurt the dam or sires ranking?

Maybe only average the top 5 races in a year for each foal so that "hasbeen" and "immature" horses will not have such an impact but great horse will still have a good impact especially if their 5 top races include 5 stake wins...



« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 07:08:53 PM by hollyh1125 » Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: January 22, 2013, 11:26:17 AM »

Hi, I've tried to read over the entire thread again and can't find anything addressing horses racing who may not be mature yet.  Is a mare or stallion penalized by a foal who doesn't do well at 2 and 3 but starts winning at 4?

Sorry, I only just saw this now.

Yes, using this system a sire/dam would have his/her ranking points go down if you continue to race horses under the age of 5 who aren't doing well. (Age 5+ only counts for the horse point-wise so if they suck at that age it doesn't hurt the ranking average.)

Looking in the database, of the current racehorses, their average age to stop being immature is 2.88 years. So most horses will be mature by age 3, and certainly by age 4. (For exact numbers: Horses maturing sometime during their 2yo year? 6,456. 3yo year? Another 2,942. 4yo year? 571. 5yo year? 11.)

Babies don't need that much racing under their belts to get experience, so the assumption (for breed ranking purposes) is that if your foal is running badly as a 2yo (or 3yo, if you think it's still immature), you put it out to pasture to grow for a bit rather than continue to race it over and over and have it not earn any money. (Because what's the point? You get no money and, for the breeder, the parents' breed rankings suffer.)

Basically the rule of thumb is that people won't race horses that suck. ;) Whether that's because they're over-the-hill and should be retired, or they're babies and need more time to grow, the game will assume that you don't want to throw money down the drain running a horse that doesn't want to run. Obviously there are exceptions (trying out a new surface to see if that works, giving a youngster some starts to get experience, etc) but I wouldn't expect anyone to run a horse 20+ times without it earning anything at 2/3, and then have it start winning races at 4. (Feel free to prove me wrong, but I'd still wonder at the cost of those 20+ races.)

Quote
Maybe only average the top 5 races in a year for each foal so that "hasbeen" and "immature" horses will not have such an impact but great horse will still have a good impact especially if their 5 top races include 5 stake wins...

I think the entire point is to get a view of the parent's ability to throw foals who can run
Logged
hollyh1125
Guest
« Reply #48 on: January 26, 2013, 01:05:20 PM »

It makes sense. :)  With that being said would it be neat to have "crop" breed rankings for an at-a-glance purpose? For example, to have seperate breed rankings for average 2, 3, 4, & 5+, crops.  If a stud had multi gold and silver rankings then that would be awesome and not necessarily hurt him if he is bronze at 2 & 5+, but breeders would be able to decipher this studs maturity range more easily. This way different age ranges wont necessarily decrease their breed ranking but would rather make it more dimensional? Maybe? Just think out loud. :)
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: January 26, 2013, 01:30:09 PM »

Hm...maybe. I'm not sure how an age-based breed ranking would work. Is a crop of 10 foals that includes 9 winners and 1 unplaced more gold/platinum worthy than a crop of 10 foals with 1 MSW, 2 winners, and 7 unplaced?

I'm also not sure the best way to access/present that information (because you could want something super specific, like a sire who throws stakes winners at 2 and 3 from 8-9f turf).

I'll think about it, though. :) Plenty of scope to add things to the beta.
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