Final Furlong Forum
Final Furlong
Nov. 24, 2021 11:45am

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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 24, 2017, 03:45:09 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 3934 times)
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,692
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: 3,153
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: 9,692
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: 9,692
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: 9,692
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: 9,692
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
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