Final Furlong Forum
Final Furlong
Jun. 21, 2022 8:11am


Poll

Should breed rankings be re-calculated?

Yes
No

Author Topic: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?  (Read 5527 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ShanthiTopic starter

  • Administrator
  • Kentucky Derby Winner
  • *
  • Posts: 10,151
    • View Profile
  • Stable Name: Stillwater Farms
Re: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?
« 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.

JasonCameron

  • Guest
Re: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?
« 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).

Offline Starfish

  • Beta Testers
  • Stakes Winner
  • *
  • Posts: 3,321
    • View Profile
  • Stable Name: Starfish Stables
Re: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?
« 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.
Lewis

Offline CricketHill

  • Beta Testers
  • Race Winner
  • *
  • Posts: 2,206
  • Cricket Hill: Established 2006
    • View Profile
  • Stable Name: Cricket Hill
Re: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?
« 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


Offline CricketHill

  • Beta Testers
  • Race Winner
  • *
  • Posts: 2,206
  • Cricket Hill: Established 2006
    • View Profile
  • Stable Name: Cricket Hill
Re: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?
« 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?

Offline DukeItOut9

  • Beta Testers
  • Jockey
  • *
  • Posts: 236
    • View Profile
  • Stable Name: Marshall Creek Ranch
Re: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?
« 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?

Offline CricketHill

  • Beta Testers
  • Race Winner
  • *
  • Posts: 2,206
  • Cricket Hill: Established 2006
    • View Profile
  • Stable Name: Cricket Hill
Re: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?
« 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.

Offline DukeItOut9

  • Beta Testers
  • Jockey
  • *
  • Posts: 236
    • View Profile
  • Stable Name: Marshall Creek Ranch
Re: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?
« 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 »

Offline CricketHill

  • Beta Testers
  • Race Winner
  • *
  • Posts: 2,206
  • Cricket Hill: Established 2006
    • View Profile
  • Stable Name: Cricket Hill
Re: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?
« 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.)

Offline DukeItOut9

  • Beta Testers
  • Jockey
  • *
  • Posts: 236
    • View Profile
  • Stable Name: Marshall Creek Ranch
Re: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?
« 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.

Offline ShanthiTopic starter

  • Administrator
  • Kentucky Derby Winner
  • *
  • Posts: 10,151
    • View Profile
  • Stable Name: Stillwater Farms
Re: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?
« 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 »

Offline ShanthiTopic starter

  • Administrator
  • Kentucky Derby Winner
  • *
  • Posts: 10,151
    • View Profile
  • Stable Name: Stillwater Farms
Re: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?
« 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.

Offline ShanthiTopic starter

  • Administrator
  • Kentucky Derby Winner
  • *
  • Posts: 10,151
    • View Profile
  • Stable Name: Stillwater Farms
Re: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?
« 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.

Offline Grace Littlef

  • Beta Testers
  • Race Winner
  • *
  • Posts: 2,301
  • Proud Rattie Mommy!!
    • View Profile
  • Stable Name: Iron Spur Stables
Re: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?
« Reply #43 on: March 08, 2012, 04:22:06 pm »
The link isnt working for me, is it down?
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

Offline ShanthiTopic starter

  • Administrator
  • Kentucky Derby Winner
  • *
  • Posts: 10,151
    • View Profile
  • Stable Name: Stillwater Farms
Re: POLL: Re-calculate breed rankings?
« Reply #44 on: March 08, 2012, 04:30:26 pm »