How on earth did Hollywood players let McKenzies Way go off at 10-1 in the 6th yesterday, a nw1x which he summarily won? McKenzies Way had been off since a 4th-place run at Delaware in June, but was first time Mike Mitchell with Julien Leparoux up. To be honest, I thought 7-10 on Genius was more than fair value, but there were a couple of other horses in there at 7/2. McKenzies Way had back class, too, or at least "back talent." He'd broken his maiden in a big field at Del Mar easily in his second start and gone on to run a competitive 2nd to Premier Pegasus in the Jack Goodman.
I know that bettors are sometimes very reactive to trainer changes. If they are, Mike Mitchell should be prominent in their adjustments, but it seems like he is not. People need to understand that he doesn't just give horses little boosts. Betting his new trainees isn't like betting a horse who was wide last time out. He not infrequently gives horses makeovers. The DRF statistics support this well enough: a 34% winning percentage, and a $2.64 ROI first out from 142 starters.
It's possible that the Mitchell factor in the betting is muted when he is merely taking over a horse, which he did with McKenzies Way, rather than claiming him. The change is in the past performances in both cases, but is more at the front of the mind when it was a claim, and perhaps easier to spot in the past performances in that case as well.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
Is Gulch a bad broodmare sire, or just snake bit in 2011?
This is part II in my thoughts about broodmare sire, percentage of stakes winners; as I'm posting both parts this morning, you might want to start with the earlier one....In looking at broodmare sire stats at the bloodhorse.com site, there is one disadvantage, which is that I am looking at the 2011 top 100 broodmares sires by earnings. My interest is in finding truly good and truly bad broodmare sires, and if the broodmare sires are bad enough, perhaps they're not on the list at all. That said, the top 100 is not a small list; being in the top 100 is nothing to write home about, and signifies a large number of runners, more than anything else. So I do think there are some underperforming broodmare sires on there.
My first candidate for that was Gulch. He is #52 on the earnings list, but his top earner is Glenwood Canyon, with just $164,907. More shockingly, he has just two 2011 stakes winners. Of the 51 broodmare sires ahead of him in earnings, the lowest number of 2011 stakes winners is just 5. Twenty-five of the top 28 earning broodmare sires have double-digit stakes winners in 2011. On the whole top 100 list, all broodmare sires but Gulch, Bertrando, and Regal Classic have more than two 2011 stakes winners, and Bertrando and Regal Classic have fewer starters than Gulch.
It then occurred to me that it was stupid to be evaluating Gulch by his 2011 number of stakes winners. What does that mean, really? Why should I invite flukes into the process? Gulch's overall percentage of stakes winners as a broodmare sire is 3.6, with 1646 foals. The percentage is on the low side, but he had plenty of company on the top 100 list with it. Gulch's percentage of stakes winners is not remarkably bad, the way it has been in 2011.
This whole line of thinking about 2011 versus the duration of the stallion's broodmare sire history got me thinking about something my father and I used to argue about before he passed away. He was always scouring stallion statistics year by year, looking for stallions who had had drop offs, who had gotten old. Actually, he believed young stallions could drop off, too, because he believed mutations were the driving force to this. I explained to him that the degree of expected fluctuation because of sample size was so great that a mutation could never be inferred, and career statistics were far more helpful in predicting future performance than recent statistics.
Now, it occurred to me that year by year broodmare sire statistics are the perfect place to point out the random component, outside of mutation. The daughters of a stallion are an ever changing lot, bred to an ever-changing lot of stallions. If I could show that broodmare sire stats fluctuate as much year to year as stallion stats, wouldn't that be instructive?
I knew that Gulch had had 60 stakes winners overall as a broodmare sire, but just two in 2011. That got me wondering what his number of stakes winners were in other years, and whether the role of random fluctuation could be well demonstrated with him. Here are his number of stakes winners and starters yearly since he began appearing on the top 100 broodmare sire list in 2004.
2011 2 389
2010 8 388
2009 4 374
2008 4 351
2007 9 313
2006 6 257
2005 7 167
2004 6 257
I think the numbers make my point, but not as lucidly as I would have hoped. Gulch's average number of stakes winners from 2004-2010 was 6.3 with 301 starters, compared to 2 with 389 starters this year. His precentages in 2008-2011 have fallen off from the 2004-2007 time. Whether the main factor is coincidence, or a slight aging on teh average and subsequent decreased effectiveness of his broodmares, or something else, I have no way of knowing right now.
My first candidate for that was Gulch. He is #52 on the earnings list, but his top earner is Glenwood Canyon, with just $164,907. More shockingly, he has just two 2011 stakes winners. Of the 51 broodmare sires ahead of him in earnings, the lowest number of 2011 stakes winners is just 5. Twenty-five of the top 28 earning broodmare sires have double-digit stakes winners in 2011. On the whole top 100 list, all broodmare sires but Gulch, Bertrando, and Regal Classic have more than two 2011 stakes winners, and Bertrando and Regal Classic have fewer starters than Gulch.
It then occurred to me that it was stupid to be evaluating Gulch by his 2011 number of stakes winners. What does that mean, really? Why should I invite flukes into the process? Gulch's overall percentage of stakes winners as a broodmare sire is 3.6, with 1646 foals. The percentage is on the low side, but he had plenty of company on the top 100 list with it. Gulch's percentage of stakes winners is not remarkably bad, the way it has been in 2011.
This whole line of thinking about 2011 versus the duration of the stallion's broodmare sire history got me thinking about something my father and I used to argue about before he passed away. He was always scouring stallion statistics year by year, looking for stallions who had had drop offs, who had gotten old. Actually, he believed young stallions could drop off, too, because he believed mutations were the driving force to this. I explained to him that the degree of expected fluctuation because of sample size was so great that a mutation could never be inferred, and career statistics were far more helpful in predicting future performance than recent statistics.
Now, it occurred to me that year by year broodmare sire statistics are the perfect place to point out the random component, outside of mutation. The daughters of a stallion are an ever changing lot, bred to an ever-changing lot of stallions. If I could show that broodmare sire stats fluctuate as much year to year as stallion stats, wouldn't that be instructive?
I knew that Gulch had had 60 stakes winners overall as a broodmare sire, but just two in 2011. That got me wondering what his number of stakes winners were in other years, and whether the role of random fluctuation could be well demonstrated with him. Here are his number of stakes winners and starters yearly since he began appearing on the top 100 broodmare sire list in 2004.
2011 2 389
2010 8 388
2009 4 374
2008 4 351
2007 9 313
2006 6 257
2005 7 167
2004 6 257
I think the numbers make my point, but not as lucidly as I would have hoped. Gulch's average number of stakes winners from 2004-2010 was 6.3 with 301 starters, compared to 2 with 389 starters this year. His precentages in 2008-2011 have fallen off from the 2004-2007 time. Whether the main factor is coincidence, or a slight aging on teh average and subsequent decreased effectiveness of his broodmares, or something else, I have no way of knowing right now.
Broodmare sire % of sw -- confidence intervals
This is going to be an exploratory post, if you'll indulge me. The truth is that you can't trust most breeding statistics. The basic statistics, such as percentage of stakes winners, do not provide simple answers. You can't sort from highest to lowest and trust that the stallions really rate in the order they come up. For broodmare sire percentage of stakes winners, for instance, we have the following confounds.
*Which mares are going to stud? The A. P. Indy mares are virtually all being bred; the Lear Fan mares aren't. That means that the Lear Fan mares that are being bred had to do more on the track than the A. P. Indy mares, all things being equal. Then again, A. P. Indy is a better sire than Lear Fan, so the beginning odds are that the A. P. Indy mares did more on the track. And broodmare sire stats might not be reflecting A. P. Indy's ability to elevate his mares at all, but the fact that the A. P. Indy mares are out of better mares than the Lear Fan mares. You see how teasing out the broodmare sire role goes on and on?
*What quality of stallions are the daughters of the stallions being bred to? At least we can get a good idea of this from Comparable Index, while the selection effect mentioned in point 1 would require extensive research to pinpoint.
*Over what years have the broodmares' foals been running? Percentage of stakes winner norms clearly have evolved for stallions over the years, and have to be evolving for broodmare sires as well. What we want is more rankings year by year, and then an aggregate, rather than just the aggregate. Is Seattle Slew's career percentage of stakes winners from foals as a broodmare sire of 6.8 really better than Seeeking the Gold's of 6.3, when Seeking the Gold is 11 years younger, and compiling his numbers in a tougher era? Probbaly not.
All of these problems present themselves even before we get to "sample size." A lot of people don't understand the nature of the sample size problem. In a nutshell, it's that rates like percentage of stakes winners never just represent ability, but luck as well. So, pretending for a moment that there are no confounds, Storm Cat's 5.8% of stakes winners as a broodmare sire is higher than A. P. Indy's 5.2% percentage of stakes winnes as a broodmare sire. But we cannot necessarily conclude that Storm Car is really the better stakes winning producing broodmare sire. He may just be the luckier one. Unfortunately, if the sample sizes for the two stallions aren't big enough to interpret the difference, there is no way of telling whether it indicates better luck or better ability.
The formula for standard error for percentages is fun and simple, at least if a person has done some statistical reading. It's the square root of (p*(1-p))/n, where p is any percentage. A 95% confidence interval requires more than a standard error, however, but 1.96 standard errors.
I ran confidence intervals for a bunch of different broodmares sires. A rule of thumb is that a broodmare sire whose daughters have been at it for a while has +- of about 1% on his percentage. Sadler's Wells, with a gigantic 4294 foals as a broodmare sire, has a 95% confidence interval on his % of stakes winners of +- 0.7; A. P. Indy, with 1,377 foals as a broodmare sire, has a 95% confidence interval on his % of stakes winners of +-1.2.
These error ranges might sound small, but they're really not. Use +- 1%, and you can see that we can't separate Storm Cat and A. P. Indy; Storm Cat may really be at 5%, and A. P. Indy at 6%, while on the statistics to date, it's been basically the reverse. Deputy Minister at 7.2% with 2735 foals is probably actually really good.
I've seen enough surprisingly talented runners out of Dixieland Band mares, for instance, that my gut tells me the role of the broodmare sire is important, that if we make too big a deal of it, that's only by a modest margin. But the skeptic in me looks at the rather narrow range of the broodmare sire percentage of stakes winners and wonders if the broodmare sire is playing any role at all. We could just be looking at confounds and luck, my head tells me. I think maybe a Dixieland Band or a Carson City broodmare stands out mostly in that they can get a freak once in a while, more than they make a difference horse by horse.
If you believe in the broodmare sire, Conquistador Cielo and Devil's Bag may be your best argument. They were born three years apart. Both were memorable champions of even greater ability than accomplishment, and both were trained by Woody Stephens. Both were dissatisfying stallions, although they couldn't be called out and out bad. Yet Conquistador Cielo's % of stakes winners as a broodmare sire is 5.8 from 2195 foals. Devil's Bag's is 3.8 from 2001 foals. Within 95% confidence, Conquistador Cielo could be as low as 4.8%, and Devil's Bag as high as 4.6%. Those figures don't overlap. The Comparable Index of the stallions bred to Conquistador Cielo mares is 1.41, and the Comparable Index of the stallions bred to Devil's Bag mares, 1.45, reinforcing that they are a pretty fair comparison.
But some of my statistics teachers would have said, "David, well of course you can cherry pick one or two examples of broodmare sire performance differing from expectation. You didn't make a blind test. The idea of the 95% confidence interval is bogus in this context." And my teachers would be right. But the Conquistador Cielo, Devil's Bag comparison is still interesting.
There's another problem. The confidence intervals underestimate the true size of the range. Here's why. Conquistador Cielo has had 2195 foals as a broodmare sire. But he hasn't had 2195 daughters producing the 2195 foals. He's probably had more like 500 or 750. And that changes things. Broodmare sire numbers, and many breeding counts in general, are what is known as multi-layered data. Blue hens can skew the data; not all Conquistador Cielo daughters are equally good producers, and that renders the 2195 count inaccurate.
*Which mares are going to stud? The A. P. Indy mares are virtually all being bred; the Lear Fan mares aren't. That means that the Lear Fan mares that are being bred had to do more on the track than the A. P. Indy mares, all things being equal. Then again, A. P. Indy is a better sire than Lear Fan, so the beginning odds are that the A. P. Indy mares did more on the track. And broodmare sire stats might not be reflecting A. P. Indy's ability to elevate his mares at all, but the fact that the A. P. Indy mares are out of better mares than the Lear Fan mares. You see how teasing out the broodmare sire role goes on and on?
*What quality of stallions are the daughters of the stallions being bred to? At least we can get a good idea of this from Comparable Index, while the selection effect mentioned in point 1 would require extensive research to pinpoint.
*Over what years have the broodmares' foals been running? Percentage of stakes winner norms clearly have evolved for stallions over the years, and have to be evolving for broodmare sires as well. What we want is more rankings year by year, and then an aggregate, rather than just the aggregate. Is Seattle Slew's career percentage of stakes winners from foals as a broodmare sire of 6.8 really better than Seeeking the Gold's of 6.3, when Seeking the Gold is 11 years younger, and compiling his numbers in a tougher era? Probbaly not.
All of these problems present themselves even before we get to "sample size." A lot of people don't understand the nature of the sample size problem. In a nutshell, it's that rates like percentage of stakes winners never just represent ability, but luck as well. So, pretending for a moment that there are no confounds, Storm Cat's 5.8% of stakes winners as a broodmare sire is higher than A. P. Indy's 5.2% percentage of stakes winnes as a broodmare sire. But we cannot necessarily conclude that Storm Car is really the better stakes winning producing broodmare sire. He may just be the luckier one. Unfortunately, if the sample sizes for the two stallions aren't big enough to interpret the difference, there is no way of telling whether it indicates better luck or better ability.
The formula for standard error for percentages is fun and simple, at least if a person has done some statistical reading. It's the square root of (p*(1-p))/n, where p is any percentage. A 95% confidence interval requires more than a standard error, however, but 1.96 standard errors.
I ran confidence intervals for a bunch of different broodmares sires. A rule of thumb is that a broodmare sire whose daughters have been at it for a while has +- of about 1% on his percentage. Sadler's Wells, with a gigantic 4294 foals as a broodmare sire, has a 95% confidence interval on his % of stakes winners of +- 0.7; A. P. Indy, with 1,377 foals as a broodmare sire, has a 95% confidence interval on his % of stakes winners of +-1.2.
These error ranges might sound small, but they're really not. Use +- 1%, and you can see that we can't separate Storm Cat and A. P. Indy; Storm Cat may really be at 5%, and A. P. Indy at 6%, while on the statistics to date, it's been basically the reverse. Deputy Minister at 7.2% with 2735 foals is probably actually really good.
I've seen enough surprisingly talented runners out of Dixieland Band mares, for instance, that my gut tells me the role of the broodmare sire is important, that if we make too big a deal of it, that's only by a modest margin. But the skeptic in me looks at the rather narrow range of the broodmare sire percentage of stakes winners and wonders if the broodmare sire is playing any role at all. We could just be looking at confounds and luck, my head tells me. I think maybe a Dixieland Band or a Carson City broodmare stands out mostly in that they can get a freak once in a while, more than they make a difference horse by horse.
If you believe in the broodmare sire, Conquistador Cielo and Devil's Bag may be your best argument. They were born three years apart. Both were memorable champions of even greater ability than accomplishment, and both were trained by Woody Stephens. Both were dissatisfying stallions, although they couldn't be called out and out bad. Yet Conquistador Cielo's % of stakes winners as a broodmare sire is 5.8 from 2195 foals. Devil's Bag's is 3.8 from 2001 foals. Within 95% confidence, Conquistador Cielo could be as low as 4.8%, and Devil's Bag as high as 4.6%. Those figures don't overlap. The Comparable Index of the stallions bred to Conquistador Cielo mares is 1.41, and the Comparable Index of the stallions bred to Devil's Bag mares, 1.45, reinforcing that they are a pretty fair comparison.
But some of my statistics teachers would have said, "David, well of course you can cherry pick one or two examples of broodmare sire performance differing from expectation. You didn't make a blind test. The idea of the 95% confidence interval is bogus in this context." And my teachers would be right. But the Conquistador Cielo, Devil's Bag comparison is still interesting.
There's another problem. The confidence intervals underestimate the true size of the range. Here's why. Conquistador Cielo has had 2195 foals as a broodmare sire. But he hasn't had 2195 daughters producing the 2195 foals. He's probably had more like 500 or 750. And that changes things. Broodmare sire numbers, and many breeding counts in general, are what is known as multi-layered data. Blue hens can skew the data; not all Conquistador Cielo daughters are equally good producers, and that renders the 2195 count inaccurate.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
South Florida takes those beloved 'B' claimers in a new direction
I was interested to see the Gulfstream twist on the popular "alternate condition claimer" (which is often denoted in the Racing Form with a 'B' at the end of the race condition). The alternate conditions have gotten more and more complex since I first started seeing a lot of them in 2005 or so. But the one element that has remained fairly consistent is that 3-year-olds of any stripe are eligible for the races. The traditional mix is 3-year-olds vs. older horses who haven't run past certain conditions (like winning a certain number of races lifetime). In Gulfstream's 7th on Sunday, I notice that only 3-year-olds who hadn't won in the last six months were allowed. This is interesting; had 3-year-olds really been running roughshod over the poor older horses, who needed to be protected from them? I wouldn't think the problem could be a particular monster 3-year-old; the claiming requirement alone should discourage such a creature from forming. Even the fact that Gulfstream is making the alternate claimer MORE restrictive rather than LESS restrictive is interesting. The species has generally been getting more and more open, obviously to draw more and more contestants (i.e., larger fields).
Yes, the trainer can't win first out. But why? We can figure this out.
I'd like to see data about how often various trainers have their horses break poorly early in their careers. After the first start, we might find that all breaking problems had more or less been eliminated, except for random slow learners and problematic horses here and there. (Indeed, if breaking problems persist past the debut, I think that's when as an owner you would really have a problem with them. Bad breaks in the debut can be part of giving horses a race, which is an accepted practice.) But I'd still like to see the data through starts 2 and 3, or really until they stopped showing differences among traines.
People might say that we don't need "bad break" statistics for trainers, because we have win-early statistics on them, and the rate of bad breaks could be inferred from the win-early statistics. But the bad-break statistics would just break down the issue of early performance further. And I have to say that having a trainer who couldn't get a first-time starter to break would concern me more as a handicapper than a trainer who maybe just didn't have a lot of 2-year-old types in his barn. If the trainer DID then have a first timer who looked like a win early type, and the trainer's history suggested he got his first timers to break (and also not run short, which could be gleaned from interval by interval data in charts), then I might still select the horse.
The reason I think trainer statistics on breaking would not be a waste of time, and would show something, is partly Barclay Tagg. If I've seen one Barclay Tagg firster break slowly, I've seen 100. Well, maybe 3. But 100 sure sounded good.
People might say that we don't need "bad break" statistics for trainers, because we have win-early statistics on them, and the rate of bad breaks could be inferred from the win-early statistics. But the bad-break statistics would just break down the issue of early performance further. And I have to say that having a trainer who couldn't get a first-time starter to break would concern me more as a handicapper than a trainer who maybe just didn't have a lot of 2-year-old types in his barn. If the trainer DID then have a first timer who looked like a win early type, and the trainer's history suggested he got his first timers to break (and also not run short, which could be gleaned from interval by interval data in charts), then I might still select the horse.
The reason I think trainer statistics on breaking would not be a waste of time, and would show something, is partly Barclay Tagg. If I've seen one Barclay Tagg firster break slowly, I've seen 100. Well, maybe 3. But 100 sure sounded good.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Unusual company lines for the Claiming Crown Emerald
Presidential candidate Rick Perry recently added to his list of gaffes when he gave out the wrong date for Election Day 2012. The Breeders' Cup happens around Election Day, with the date firmly fixed in my mind, and the importance perhaps rivaling what a politician feels for Election Day. So when I see 5NOV11 and then CD to the right of that in charts, my heart leaps. (Alert: quality horses in the area)
I only expect to see those digits on select days in select races, however. Claiming Crown events at Fair Grounds are not one of them. So imagine my surprise when I saw that not one but two Breeders' Cup horses contested the Claiming Crown Emerald on Saturday. The integrity of the Breeders' Cup was preserved with Compliance Officer and Baryshnikov dominating the race, running 1-2. The exact condition of the race was starting for a claiming price of $25,000 or less from New Year's Day 2010 on.
Like much of what I write here, Compliance Officer and Baryshnikov's presence in the Claiming Crown race is more a piece of trivia than anything else. But does it say anything about racing today?
Perhaps, yes. First, it underscores the expansion of the Breeders' Cup; while Compliance Officer came from the staple "The Mile," Baryshnikov came from the bottom rung of the "The Marathon." Secondly, it certainly seems to me that the claiming ranks have expanded, and the line between claimers and truly very good horses has blurred. Thus, claimers one month can be Breeders' Cup horses the next.
I only expect to see those digits on select days in select races, however. Claiming Crown events at Fair Grounds are not one of them. So imagine my surprise when I saw that not one but two Breeders' Cup horses contested the Claiming Crown Emerald on Saturday. The integrity of the Breeders' Cup was preserved with Compliance Officer and Baryshnikov dominating the race, running 1-2. The exact condition of the race was starting for a claiming price of $25,000 or less from New Year's Day 2010 on.
Like much of what I write here, Compliance Officer and Baryshnikov's presence in the Claiming Crown race is more a piece of trivia than anything else. But does it say anything about racing today?
Perhaps, yes. First, it underscores the expansion of the Breeders' Cup; while Compliance Officer came from the staple "The Mile," Baryshnikov came from the bottom rung of the "The Marathon." Secondly, it certainly seems to me that the claiming ranks have expanded, and the line between claimers and truly very good horses has blurred. Thus, claimers one month can be Breeders' Cup horses the next.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Sky Blue Pink: flunking with flying colors
Racing is a world of relativity, but a 41-length drubbing conveys a bad performance, regardless of the competition. If we made a list of horses that lost this decisively, some would be horses who had something go wrong on that particular day and were eased, but my guess is that most would be essentially non-competitive horses, who probably would never win again. They would be horses that perhaps owed their haplessness to specific explanation, such as a severe bleeding problem, but would come across to us, the detached fans, as simply not being able to run at all.
This is not the case with Sky Blue Pink, the horse whose connections had to endure the 41-length failure at Aqueduct today. Sky Blue Pink has been in the money eight times in 13 races, but even that doesn't convey how honest he's been. He had certainly never lost by 41 lengths before, only losing by more than 5 lengths twice. And when he did, it apparently wasn't because he ran poorly, but because he was in a little too tough, or had a "horrible trip" (so says the commenet line in one of the worst losses). He had run six straight Beyers between 80 and 85, and four before that between 74 and 80. No, Sky Blue Pink's miserable showing today appears to have resulted from leaving the safety of the turf course for the first time and venturing to the main track.
There were a couple of mildly interesting aspects to this. Number one, Sky Blue Pink changed barns from Christophe Clement to someone named Brad Baker, who was saddling only his 21st starter on the year. Sky Blue Pink was claimed on October 16 and was 2nd five weeks later for Baker, improving from 9th place in the penultimate call.
Even with turf racing ending for the near future in New York, and Baker's having an incentive to keep Sky Blue Pink in New York as a New York-bred, one has to wonder if Clement would have taken the same step with the horse. Being able to compete on dirt certainly increases options, and when a horse proves he can do it with another trainer, the first trainer can be said to have gotten one wrong. Given today's performance, in the case of Clement and Sky Blue Pink, this does not appear to have been the case.
The second interesting angle is that Sky Blue Pink's pedigree looks strongly turf: Sky Classic out of a Grand Lodge mare. I believe Sky Classic was turf champion, and if he wasn't, he was a heck of a lot closer to turf champion than dirt champion. Grand Lodge was a group I winner in Europe, and 10th when tried on the dirt in the Breeders' Cup Classic.
Contrast this pedigree with Midnite Silver's, who also made his dirt debut far into his career on November 25 at Aqueduct, but ran by the competition in the stretch like they were stationary to score a 2 1/2 length victory. Midnite Silver is by Silver Deputy out of a Fast Play mare, names that do not get my blood pumping for the turf. You'd assume there was a good reason the horse had never been tried on dirt before, and even after the win, I'd still assume that. Maybe he has conformation or action that could compromise his soundness if he competed extensively on dirt. But with that sire/broodmare sire cross, Midnite Silver was at least worth a look on dirt.
He also had not been with the trainer who put him on dirt for very long (David Jacobson). While Baker ran Sky Blue Pink on dirt by design, what Jacobson deserves credit for is simply not scratching Midnite Silver, as his race came off the turf. Funny that the trainer backed into running was the one who won.
This is not the case with Sky Blue Pink, the horse whose connections had to endure the 41-length failure at Aqueduct today. Sky Blue Pink has been in the money eight times in 13 races, but even that doesn't convey how honest he's been. He had certainly never lost by 41 lengths before, only losing by more than 5 lengths twice. And when he did, it apparently wasn't because he ran poorly, but because he was in a little too tough, or had a "horrible trip" (so says the commenet line in one of the worst losses). He had run six straight Beyers between 80 and 85, and four before that between 74 and 80. No, Sky Blue Pink's miserable showing today appears to have resulted from leaving the safety of the turf course for the first time and venturing to the main track.
There were a couple of mildly interesting aspects to this. Number one, Sky Blue Pink changed barns from Christophe Clement to someone named Brad Baker, who was saddling only his 21st starter on the year. Sky Blue Pink was claimed on October 16 and was 2nd five weeks later for Baker, improving from 9th place in the penultimate call.
Even with turf racing ending for the near future in New York, and Baker's having an incentive to keep Sky Blue Pink in New York as a New York-bred, one has to wonder if Clement would have taken the same step with the horse. Being able to compete on dirt certainly increases options, and when a horse proves he can do it with another trainer, the first trainer can be said to have gotten one wrong. Given today's performance, in the case of Clement and Sky Blue Pink, this does not appear to have been the case.
The second interesting angle is that Sky Blue Pink's pedigree looks strongly turf: Sky Classic out of a Grand Lodge mare. I believe Sky Classic was turf champion, and if he wasn't, he was a heck of a lot closer to turf champion than dirt champion. Grand Lodge was a group I winner in Europe, and 10th when tried on the dirt in the Breeders' Cup Classic.
Contrast this pedigree with Midnite Silver's, who also made his dirt debut far into his career on November 25 at Aqueduct, but ran by the competition in the stretch like they were stationary to score a 2 1/2 length victory. Midnite Silver is by Silver Deputy out of a Fast Play mare, names that do not get my blood pumping for the turf. You'd assume there was a good reason the horse had never been tried on dirt before, and even after the win, I'd still assume that. Maybe he has conformation or action that could compromise his soundness if he competed extensively on dirt. But with that sire/broodmare sire cross, Midnite Silver was at least worth a look on dirt.
He also had not been with the trainer who put him on dirt for very long (David Jacobson). While Baker ran Sky Blue Pink on dirt by design, what Jacobson deserves credit for is simply not scratching Midnite Silver, as his race came off the turf. Funny that the trainer backed into running was the one who won.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Ultimate Eagle clearly and foolishly ignored
Ultimate Eagle backed up his 34-1 win in the Oak Tree Derby with a 14-1 win in the Hollywood Derby on Sunday. This brings up a pet theory of mine, which is that surprise winners are often discounted, and then return to give the same effort and achieve the same result next time. Call it the Birdonthewire theory: I remember picking him in a graded stake at Saratoga at good odds after he won one at Belmont (equibase horse search shows the races in question were the '93 Tom Fool and Forego). It would be one thing if Ultimate Eagle had looked flukish in the Oak Tree Derby, but I don't believe that that was the case. The bettors just didn't think he could do it again and got diverted by other interesting choices.
I liked the field for the race, believing it a deserving grade I, but it is a little hard to justify runner-up Imagining at 13-1 and Ultimate Eagle at 14-1, when Imagining was just coming off a 5th in a nw1x allowance. I mean, I like Shug McGaughey as much as the next person, and I like Giant's Causeways stretching out, but a lower price for Imagining is basing an awful lot on projections. Certainly, it has to be acknowledged that Imagining didn't perform as an underlay, though; Ultimate Eagle performed as an overlay.
You also had Venomous, runner-up to Ultimate Eagle last time, going off at 3-1, and even Oak Tree Derby 3rd-place finisher Cozy Kitten going off at lower odds than Ultimate Eagle at 12-1.
Ultimate Eagle should have been particularly appealing at his odds because he is a speed horse. Never sell quality speed on the turf short. Horses who fit that bill will win races they shouldn't. In my opinion, the same doesn't happen nearly as often on dirt.
Ultimate Eagle had also set an honest pace in the Oak Tree Derby, going 1:10 2/5 en route to 1:47 for a mile and an eighth. A 1:14 first 6f in the Hollywood Derby was all the help that he needed -- in fact, more help than he needed.
I liked the field for the race, believing it a deserving grade I, but it is a little hard to justify runner-up Imagining at 13-1 and Ultimate Eagle at 14-1, when Imagining was just coming off a 5th in a nw1x allowance. I mean, I like Shug McGaughey as much as the next person, and I like Giant's Causeways stretching out, but a lower price for Imagining is basing an awful lot on projections. Certainly, it has to be acknowledged that Imagining didn't perform as an underlay, though; Ultimate Eagle performed as an overlay.
You also had Venomous, runner-up to Ultimate Eagle last time, going off at 3-1, and even Oak Tree Derby 3rd-place finisher Cozy Kitten going off at lower odds than Ultimate Eagle at 12-1.
Ultimate Eagle should have been particularly appealing at his odds because he is a speed horse. Never sell quality speed on the turf short. Horses who fit that bill will win races they shouldn't. In my opinion, the same doesn't happen nearly as often on dirt.
Ultimate Eagle had also set an honest pace in the Oak Tree Derby, going 1:10 2/5 en route to 1:47 for a mile and an eighth. A 1:14 first 6f in the Hollywood Derby was all the help that he needed -- in fact, more help than he needed.
Monday, November 21, 2011
You live with some things to get a brother to Pyro
One fact I didn't mention in the post below is that Jerry Hollendorfer is the trainer who kept risking Spirit Seeker in those claiming races, and had the initiative to take her to Delta Downs. Perhaps no horse has ever said "Jerry Hollendorfer" to me more than the 3rd-place finisher in the Delta Downs Jackpot, Longview Drive. From all indications, he can really run. He came into the Jackpot with only one loss in four starts, and that in his first race. He won a pair of minor stakes in Northern California (actually, are there any other kind of stakes in No. Cal?) after having broken his maiden by 5 lengths. He doesn't appear to be a world beater, but he has past performances that jump out to me a bit.
Because he set the fair circuit on fire, you might guess that he's an off-bred horse, but if you guessed that, you don't know Jerry Hollendorfer. He is, in fact, bred in the purple, and a full brother to Pyro.
He's not off-bred, but he didn't cost a lot of money to have the pedigree he has, and be running like he is. He was a $175,000 yearling. Hollendorfer's stable is filled with well-bred horses bought at middle-class (in the world of racing, anyway) prices. They are generally by very good sires. I'm not sure he emphasizes female family as much, but the breeding is unmistakably there. Hollendorfer has obviously had his fair share of success, so his approach to selecting horses deserves a look.
Because he set the fair circuit on fire, you might guess that he's an off-bred horse, but if you guessed that, you don't know Jerry Hollendorfer. He is, in fact, bred in the purple, and a full brother to Pyro.
He's not off-bred, but he didn't cost a lot of money to have the pedigree he has, and be running like he is. He was a $175,000 yearling. Hollendorfer's stable is filled with well-bred horses bought at middle-class (in the world of racing, anyway) prices. They are generally by very good sires. I'm not sure he emphasizes female family as much, but the breeding is unmistakably there. Hollendorfer has obviously had his fair share of success, so his approach to selecting horses deserves a look.
Spirit Seeker: ignored in California, worshipped in Louisiana
I've long had the idea that fans do not respect the quality of racing at smaller tracks. It makes us feel good to believe that any race endowed with black type status has creditability, but when bettors place their money at risk, we see that they really have very little respect for the competition at smaller tracks. There is probably an equivalency chart of Beyers, and another one floating around inside handicappers' heads, to address comparisons between tracks. Looking at the betting for Delta Down's $125,000, open-company Treasure Chest Stakes on Saturday, the adjustment may be greater than I realized.
We know there are easy marks out of town, and that minting a new stakes winnner can have as much to do with being willing to pay for the transport as having a horse that measures up. But the situation in the Treasury Chest shows just how far this can go. The mare Spirit Seeker had run for a claiming price in her last three outings. She ran for $40,000 on October 27, $20,000 on October 13, and $16,000 on July 3. She won all three of the races, by 2-3 lengths each time. She was not claimed in any. The last two races were at Santa Anita; the July 3 last race was at Pleasanton.
In the Treasure Chest, Spirit Seeker was the 9-10 favorite of six. She finished a distant 3rd, meaning that the decision to send her to Louisiana probably didn't wholly work out. Still, I have to wonder if the trainers deciding not to claim her on October 13 understood they were looking at an odds-on favorite for a $125,000 stake in the next month. The numbers just seem out of whack. It's like the currency in Southern California, "the Southern California dollar", goes a very long way out of state, and those with the energy to take advantage are seizing an opportunity.
As a claim goes, Spirit Seeker isn't really my type, from the little I know of her. That is, if one is only thinking about future breeding success. She's a router, not a sprinter; it took her eight starts to break her maiden, and they were all in maiden claiming events. But the sheer level of ability here for a $16,000 claimer is not to be cast aside. She once ran a 103 Beyer, a huge number for a female. She was 5th by 4 1/2 in the 2010 grade II El Encino behind Pretty Unusual, Stardom Bound, Freedom Star, and Justwhistledixie. She was only 6-1 in that race, in a field of 10.
We know there are easy marks out of town, and that minting a new stakes winnner can have as much to do with being willing to pay for the transport as having a horse that measures up. But the situation in the Treasury Chest shows just how far this can go. The mare Spirit Seeker had run for a claiming price in her last three outings. She ran for $40,000 on October 27, $20,000 on October 13, and $16,000 on July 3. She won all three of the races, by 2-3 lengths each time. She was not claimed in any. The last two races were at Santa Anita; the July 3 last race was at Pleasanton.
In the Treasure Chest, Spirit Seeker was the 9-10 favorite of six. She finished a distant 3rd, meaning that the decision to send her to Louisiana probably didn't wholly work out. Still, I have to wonder if the trainers deciding not to claim her on October 13 understood they were looking at an odds-on favorite for a $125,000 stake in the next month. The numbers just seem out of whack. It's like the currency in Southern California, "the Southern California dollar", goes a very long way out of state, and those with the energy to take advantage are seizing an opportunity.
As a claim goes, Spirit Seeker isn't really my type, from the little I know of her. That is, if one is only thinking about future breeding success. She's a router, not a sprinter; it took her eight starts to break her maiden, and they were all in maiden claiming events. But the sheer level of ability here for a $16,000 claimer is not to be cast aside. She once ran a 103 Beyer, a huge number for a female. She was 5th by 4 1/2 in the 2010 grade II El Encino behind Pretty Unusual, Stardom Bound, Freedom Star, and Justwhistledixie. She was only 6-1 in that race, in a field of 10.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
A different betting pattern in the UK, courtesy of Sea Moon
I'm not sure how I feel about having to wade through European horses' past performances for the Breeders' Cup. Most of the horses are so good, I relatively enjoy it, and I also fool myself into thinking I have something of a handle on what I'm digesting. (I don't.) In practical terms, there probably is more of an opportunity for me to learn than just looking at North American past performances. I have a learning curve when it comes to European racing, while with North Anerican racing, I don't. I do run across things that are really different, that couldn't happen in America.
Take this, for example. Remember how I told you that in over 700 races with 12 horses running in America, I didn't see one favorite more pronounced than 1-2 odds? Well, BC Turf starter Sea Moon blew that out of the water when he broke his maiden. He was 1-5....and in a 14-horse field! On heavy ground, no less, that knocked the time for the mile of the race over 1:50. Like Hammer's Terror, the horse I saw who went off at 2/5 in a 12-horse field, and set a "new record" of sorts for favoritism, Sea Moon was coming off a 2nd by a nose in his debut. He was coming from a $11,100 maiden at Leicester to a $7,200 one at Yarmouth, so you all can be tell me whether the track shift represented an "Oh my God" drop.
The fact that any horse could be 1-5 in a 14-horse field in England precipitates any number of questions. Was this pari-mutuel betting, like we have in North America, or some other form of betting, like someone's line? Maybe the takeout was especially high at the track? On the latter score, I bet the odds for all of the horses could be looked up from the Racing Post, and the takeout calculated. (Again, it was Sea Moon's 2nd race, his maiden win, and on 10/26/10.) The story could also be ruined if Sea Moon was in fact part of an entry, and that wasn't recorded in The Racing Form. The mystery would then be solved in a very boring way. Sarafina, however, was listed as an entry in the 2010 Arc, so the Racing Form is, presumably, in the habit of marking entries in European races.
I suppose the 14-horse field in Sea Moon's race also doesn't mean there were 14 betting interests, just 14 horses. The 700+ sample I cited contaned only cases with 12 betting interests. But as long as Sea Moon wasn't part of the entry, I wouldn't think his odds would be affected by whether or how the other entrants were grouped in the betting. He was still competing against 13 other horses people could bet, and drawing whatever percentage of the money.
The most interesting answer would just be if Sea Moon really was more heavily bet in this large field than any North American horse ever is. It would be doubly interesting if what happened with him wasn't extraordinary. Then I'd want to know if Europeans have a basis for what they're doing: do the heaviest favorites in large fields in Europe, at shorter odds than the heaviest favorites in large fields in the U.S., actually win more? So many questions. (I should say "so many questions, so little time," but I suspect "so much time" is more appropriate for these kinds of questions. Except, however, when dinner is looming. The latter imperative certainly makes proper punctuation suffer.)
Take this, for example. Remember how I told you that in over 700 races with 12 horses running in America, I didn't see one favorite more pronounced than 1-2 odds? Well, BC Turf starter Sea Moon blew that out of the water when he broke his maiden. He was 1-5....and in a 14-horse field! On heavy ground, no less, that knocked the time for the mile of the race over 1:50. Like Hammer's Terror, the horse I saw who went off at 2/5 in a 12-horse field, and set a "new record" of sorts for favoritism, Sea Moon was coming off a 2nd by a nose in his debut. He was coming from a $11,100 maiden at Leicester to a $7,200 one at Yarmouth, so you all can be tell me whether the track shift represented an "Oh my God" drop.
The fact that any horse could be 1-5 in a 14-horse field in England precipitates any number of questions. Was this pari-mutuel betting, like we have in North America, or some other form of betting, like someone's line? Maybe the takeout was especially high at the track? On the latter score, I bet the odds for all of the horses could be looked up from the Racing Post, and the takeout calculated. (Again, it was Sea Moon's 2nd race, his maiden win, and on 10/26/10.) The story could also be ruined if Sea Moon was in fact part of an entry, and that wasn't recorded in The Racing Form. The mystery would then be solved in a very boring way. Sarafina, however, was listed as an entry in the 2010 Arc, so the Racing Form is, presumably, in the habit of marking entries in European races.
I suppose the 14-horse field in Sea Moon's race also doesn't mean there were 14 betting interests, just 14 horses. The 700+ sample I cited contaned only cases with 12 betting interests. But as long as Sea Moon wasn't part of the entry, I wouldn't think his odds would be affected by whether or how the other entrants were grouped in the betting. He was still competing against 13 other horses people could bet, and drawing whatever percentage of the money.
The most interesting answer would just be if Sea Moon really was more heavily bet in this large field than any North American horse ever is. It would be doubly interesting if what happened with him wasn't extraordinary. Then I'd want to know if Europeans have a basis for what they're doing: do the heaviest favorites in large fields in Europe, at shorter odds than the heaviest favorites in large fields in the U.S., actually win more? So many questions. (I should say "so many questions, so little time," but I suspect "so much time" is more appropriate for these kinds of questions. Except, however, when dinner is looming. The latter imperative certainly makes proper punctuation suffer.)
BC Dirt Mile: an unusual "good betting race"
A good betting race is typically one where many horses have a reasonable chance of winning. Superstar horses typically ruin good betting races. Championship-level races will sometimes be interesting betting contests when they draw multiple superstars, such as when Damascus, Buckpasser, and Dr. Fager squared off, and everything considered, these are the best races. But even in cases like that, the betting is salvaged by the presence of multiple superstars, but not necessarily as interesting as it is in a race where six, seven, eight horses have a realistic chance of winning.
The BC Turf Sprint is a classic good betting race. It features many very good horses, but no great horses. No Hall of Famers, horses approaching the Hall of Fame level, or even horses among the top 30 in training in North America. Only one of the 14 has won as many as half of his career starts (Regally Ready). California Flag and Chamberlain Bridge are past winners of the race, but I don't think you could say that either was dominant at the time that he won it, never mind now.
The BC Dirt Mile also strikes me as an excellent betting race, despite being a little low in its number of entrants (9) as far as excellent betting races go. This field, however, does not lack for brilliance. The Factor set a Santa Anita track record for 6f in just his second start, and has been odds-on in grade Is in two of his last three starts. Shackleford won the Preakness and dares horses to catch him. Caleb's Posse beat Uncle Mo in the King's Bishop. Trappe Shot cost $850,000 as a 2-year-old, has won races by 10 1/4, 12 3/4, and 8 1/2 lengths, and has Beyers of 111 and 112. Even Jersey Town will take a lot of beating if he can run back to his Cigar Mile win from last year. The problem, however, is that all of these horses are coming into the race off losses: indeed, only Shackleford did as well as 2nd in his last start, and Trappe Shot was the closest to winning lengths wise, and still came up 2 1/2 lengths short. So the question isn't if these horses are worthy of winning a Breeders' Cup race, and how they compare, but if they will fire. The handicapping is complicated because the horses' capability at the distance is conjecture: among races showing in the past performances, I believe only Jersey Town has ever run a one-turn mile. I know I would be more bullish on The Factor, Caleb's Posse, and Trappe Shot at 7f than 8f.
I actually still have a rather strong opinion in here: Trappe Shot. Aside from his Travers, he's never really run a bad race. I think his 97 Beyer in the Vosburgh was undershot by a good 5 points. Seven furlongs might be his best distance, but he's been forced into running 6f, and I don't think that's his best, either. Velazquez can be patient from the outside post. And at bottom, after saying that this race is really about who will be best Saturday, not who is really best overall, I do think he is the class of the race: the true standout.
The BC Turf Sprint is a classic good betting race. It features many very good horses, but no great horses. No Hall of Famers, horses approaching the Hall of Fame level, or even horses among the top 30 in training in North America. Only one of the 14 has won as many as half of his career starts (Regally Ready). California Flag and Chamberlain Bridge are past winners of the race, but I don't think you could say that either was dominant at the time that he won it, never mind now.
The BC Dirt Mile also strikes me as an excellent betting race, despite being a little low in its number of entrants (9) as far as excellent betting races go. This field, however, does not lack for brilliance. The Factor set a Santa Anita track record for 6f in just his second start, and has been odds-on in grade Is in two of his last three starts. Shackleford won the Preakness and dares horses to catch him. Caleb's Posse beat Uncle Mo in the King's Bishop. Trappe Shot cost $850,000 as a 2-year-old, has won races by 10 1/4, 12 3/4, and 8 1/2 lengths, and has Beyers of 111 and 112. Even Jersey Town will take a lot of beating if he can run back to his Cigar Mile win from last year. The problem, however, is that all of these horses are coming into the race off losses: indeed, only Shackleford did as well as 2nd in his last start, and Trappe Shot was the closest to winning lengths wise, and still came up 2 1/2 lengths short. So the question isn't if these horses are worthy of winning a Breeders' Cup race, and how they compare, but if they will fire. The handicapping is complicated because the horses' capability at the distance is conjecture: among races showing in the past performances, I believe only Jersey Town has ever run a one-turn mile. I know I would be more bullish on The Factor, Caleb's Posse, and Trappe Shot at 7f than 8f.
I actually still have a rather strong opinion in here: Trappe Shot. Aside from his Travers, he's never really run a bad race. I think his 97 Beyer in the Vosburgh was undershot by a good 5 points. Seven furlongs might be his best distance, but he's been forced into running 6f, and I don't think that's his best, either. Velazquez can be patient from the outside post. And at bottom, after saying that this race is really about who will be best Saturday, not who is really best overall, I do think he is the class of the race: the true standout.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Another Desert Classic
I just saw that, in addition to Ultra Blend, BC Juvenile Turf entrant Wrote has a Desert Classic in his two-generation, DRF provided pedigree. His dam is the English Desert Classic, by Green Desert. You may remember that I was exclaiming what a lowly runner the Desert Classic who is Ultra Blend's broodmare sire is. How odd to have this name doubly represented in the Breeders' Cup.
Are there any other examples of this? In this or any other Breeders' Cup? I'll be floored if you pull out such an overlap from the 1992 Breeders' Cup or something. Even with some comprehensive Breeders' Cup index of pedigrees, it would be a hard thing to track down. Presumably, sires, sire of sires, dams, and broodmare sires wouldn't all be in the same index.
Are there any other examples of this? In this or any other Breeders' Cup? I'll be floored if you pull out such an overlap from the 1992 Breeders' Cup or something. Even with some comprehensive Breeders' Cup index of pedigrees, it would be a hard thing to track down. Presumably, sires, sire of sires, dams, and broodmare sires wouldn't all be in the same index.
Medaglia d'Oros: all shapes and sizes
Not only do the Medaglia d'Oros Plum Pretty, Medaglia d'Amour, and Super Espresso start right next to each other in posts 8, 9, and 10 in the Ladies' Classic, but they could not havehad more different sales prices: Plum Pretty was a $130,000 2-year-old; Medaglia d'Amour, a $3,000 yearling; and Super Espresso a $1,100,000 yearling.
O.k., o.k., this was officially a stupid post, the sin of which I am now compounding by not leaving it as short as possible. It's a stupid post because all stallions have prices that run the gamut. I suppose the variation could differ by stallion, however, or the success rate in different ranges. For instance, I've noted that Cherokee Run's best horses tend to have been expensive. The question vis-a-vis the relevance of this post is if the variation and universal success in all ranges for these three Medaglia d'Oros shows much of anything, other than, I guess, that there was some hope in 2007 if you bought your Medaglia d'Oro yearling for $3,000. But this was supposed to be a cute post, anyway, and not a smart one.
O.k., o.k., this was officially a stupid post, the sin of which I am now compounding by not leaving it as short as possible. It's a stupid post because all stallions have prices that run the gamut. I suppose the variation could differ by stallion, however, or the success rate in different ranges. For instance, I've noted that Cherokee Run's best horses tend to have been expensive. The question vis-a-vis the relevance of this post is if the variation and universal success in all ranges for these three Medaglia d'Oros shows much of anything, other than, I guess, that there was some hope in 2007 if you bought your Medaglia d'Oro yearling for $3,000. But this was supposed to be a cute post, anyway, and not a smart one.
Just how off-bred is Ultra Blend?
My assumptions about the horse racing conversance of my audience probably vary widely. In the last post, for instance, I was expecting you to know Bayou's Lassie (in truth, I vaguely remember her), and in this one, I'm telling you that the very fine Ultra Blend is one of the horses in the...ummm...Ladies' Classic.
She is by Richly Blended, who was a good horse, but of the brilliant variety, and of an even shorter preferring sire, Rizzi. So I wondered where she got her stamina and targeted the (to me) anonymous broodmare sire, Desert Classic.
After looking up Desert Classic, I quickly lost interest in the stamina question for Ultra Blend. I don't think stamina counts for much when the horse just can't run, and Desert Classic couldn't. Running from 1986-89, he started 28 times, won 5 races, and earned just $87,000. He tried one stake, the Harvest Handicap at Fresno in 1988, and ran 3rd. While a half brother to Derby 4th Classic Go Go, he hardly had the record of a sire, let alone a likely presence in the pedigree of a Breeders' Cup starter.
His daughter, the 1996 filly Ankha, is Ultra Blend's dam. She placed but never made it to the winner's circle in 7 starts. Her first race was for maiden claiming 12.5 at Golden Gate, and her last for state-bred $8,000 at Stockton. She ran 10th in the early stages in both before finishing mid-pack, so she had something of the style of Ultra Blend.
Ankha did get a shot as a broodmare, or at least a career, and some of her mates were even more obscure than Desert Classic. The 2002 filly Lil Nugget was by Mining for Money, a Mining who looked good as an early 2-year-old, but ended his career with just one win, one small stakes 2nd, and $22,000 in earnings. Lil Nugget was a pleasant surprise on the track, at least, winning four claimers in Southern California, and eaning $66,000 in 14 starts.
Lil Nugget was followed by Free Throw, by the stallion From Down Town. From Down Town's stud career is really hard to figure: he made $15,000 in his career in 10 starts. A Cal-bred, he won one time, by a nose, in the final race of his career, for maiden claiming $8,000. He was 5 years old and running at Sacramento. We can have honest disagreement about the extent to which mares should be held accountable for their results when bred to "bad" stallions; I would say bad is a relative term, and most stallions give their mares a chance. But I would not hold Free Throw's winless record against Ankha.
Ultra Blend herself started for maiden claiming $25,000 at Stockton, running 2nd, and then rattled off four wins in a row. Anyone looking at her pedigree had to be scared off of claiming her from that debut.
She is by Richly Blended, who was a good horse, but of the brilliant variety, and of an even shorter preferring sire, Rizzi. So I wondered where she got her stamina and targeted the (to me) anonymous broodmare sire, Desert Classic.
After looking up Desert Classic, I quickly lost interest in the stamina question for Ultra Blend. I don't think stamina counts for much when the horse just can't run, and Desert Classic couldn't. Running from 1986-89, he started 28 times, won 5 races, and earned just $87,000. He tried one stake, the Harvest Handicap at Fresno in 1988, and ran 3rd. While a half brother to Derby 4th Classic Go Go, he hardly had the record of a sire, let alone a likely presence in the pedigree of a Breeders' Cup starter.
His daughter, the 1996 filly Ankha, is Ultra Blend's dam. She placed but never made it to the winner's circle in 7 starts. Her first race was for maiden claiming 12.5 at Golden Gate, and her last for state-bred $8,000 at Stockton. She ran 10th in the early stages in both before finishing mid-pack, so she had something of the style of Ultra Blend.
Ankha did get a shot as a broodmare, or at least a career, and some of her mates were even more obscure than Desert Classic. The 2002 filly Lil Nugget was by Mining for Money, a Mining who looked good as an early 2-year-old, but ended his career with just one win, one small stakes 2nd, and $22,000 in earnings. Lil Nugget was a pleasant surprise on the track, at least, winning four claimers in Southern California, and eaning $66,000 in 14 starts.
Lil Nugget was followed by Free Throw, by the stallion From Down Town. From Down Town's stud career is really hard to figure: he made $15,000 in his career in 10 starts. A Cal-bred, he won one time, by a nose, in the final race of his career, for maiden claiming $8,000. He was 5 years old and running at Sacramento. We can have honest disagreement about the extent to which mares should be held accountable for their results when bred to "bad" stallions; I would say bad is a relative term, and most stallions give their mares a chance. But I would not hold Free Throw's winless record against Ankha.
Ultra Blend herself started for maiden claiming $25,000 at Stockton, running 2nd, and then rattled off four wins in a row. Anyone looking at her pedigree had to be scared off of claiming her from that debut.
Awesome of Course
This has to be one of the more interesting stallions out there. With stakes horses Honey Honey Honey and Heaven's Awesome in his first crop, I think I noticed him, but then he was kind of quiet until Awesome Feather. In fact, while this can certainly be excused given his small crops, his highest year for earnings before 2010 was just $212,918 in 2007. He was so quiet that, after noting he was the sire of 2011 Breeders' Cup starters Awesome Belle and Fort Loudon, I had to check and see who Awesome Feather was by. When I saw she was also by Awesome of Course, and that he has had only 28 starters lifetime, I was floored. There are two additional stakes winners and two more stakes horses among teh 28 starters. All of the stakes winner are legitimate -- got in through the front door.
One thing that's interesting about Awesome of Course: all of his stakes winners are out of stakes winners. Awesome Feather is out of Precious Feather, a daughter of Gone West who won $257,000. Awesome Belle, the Breeders' Cup Juvenile Fillies starter, is out of Bayou Plans. She was an Illinois-bred who won $308,000, but with Midas Eyes and Bayou's Lassie to her credit, has been a much better producer. A super producer, really. Fort Loudon, who swept the In Reality series this year and starts in the Juvenile, is out of millionaire Lottsa Talc. I'll spare you the details on Honey Honey Honey and Redbud Road: their dams are less impressive, but still stakes winners. All of these breedings were cases of Jacks or Better Farm supporting Awesome of Course. Awesome of Course's Comparable Index is just 1.31, suggesting that his mares have had stronger race than produce records.
How much should we mark down Awesome of Course for the good mares that have produced his stakes winners? Granted, with just 28 starters, all pronouncements must be qualified, but should we still consider him a good sire? A very good sire?
I think we should absolutely consider him a very good sire. I think the choice of his mares has been judicious. I think they've been good mares for what they were worth (which would pale in comparison to the mares top stallions are bred to). But I don't care how good the mares have been. They certainly haven't been the mares sent to Bernardini. There just is no way to truly discount or explain this kind of success without giving the stallion a great deal of credit.
With three of the four wins in the 1 1/16 Florida Stallion races the last two years, the Awesome of Courses will be respected and thought capable of handling that distance for as long as he sires horses. Ironically, his five wins as a race horse were at 4.5 furlongs, 5.5 furlongs, 5.5 furlongs, 6 furlongs, and 6 furlongs. His average-winning distance as a sire actually isn't long (6.40 furlongs), and equally significantly, it's not longer than his average distance raced (6.52 furlongs). But the Awesome Again in his pedigree may be coming out for his better horses.
So this is the second Awesome Again stallion born in 2000 I've profiled. Yes, that description fits Ghostzapper as well. Awesome of Course and Ghostzapper weren't too far from crossing paths: Awesome of Course set the pace in Valid Video's Carry Back win, which that horse followed up with a win over Ghostzapper in the King's Bishop.
Even though I defended Ghostzapper, of course it will be ironic and incredibly unlikely if Awesome of Course outperforms him at stud. Not only would one not think Awesome of Course would be much of a sire with an absence of graded stakes success on the track -- not only did he not get the greatest of mares -- but his 2012 foal crop, his 8th, will probably be the first one that features a double-digit number of foals!
One thing that's interesting about Awesome of Course: all of his stakes winners are out of stakes winners. Awesome Feather is out of Precious Feather, a daughter of Gone West who won $257,000. Awesome Belle, the Breeders' Cup Juvenile Fillies starter, is out of Bayou Plans. She was an Illinois-bred who won $308,000, but with Midas Eyes and Bayou's Lassie to her credit, has been a much better producer. A super producer, really. Fort Loudon, who swept the In Reality series this year and starts in the Juvenile, is out of millionaire Lottsa Talc. I'll spare you the details on Honey Honey Honey and Redbud Road: their dams are less impressive, but still stakes winners. All of these breedings were cases of Jacks or Better Farm supporting Awesome of Course. Awesome of Course's Comparable Index is just 1.31, suggesting that his mares have had stronger race than produce records.
How much should we mark down Awesome of Course for the good mares that have produced his stakes winners? Granted, with just 28 starters, all pronouncements must be qualified, but should we still consider him a good sire? A very good sire?
I think we should absolutely consider him a very good sire. I think the choice of his mares has been judicious. I think they've been good mares for what they were worth (which would pale in comparison to the mares top stallions are bred to). But I don't care how good the mares have been. They certainly haven't been the mares sent to Bernardini. There just is no way to truly discount or explain this kind of success without giving the stallion a great deal of credit.
With three of the four wins in the 1 1/16 Florida Stallion races the last two years, the Awesome of Courses will be respected and thought capable of handling that distance for as long as he sires horses. Ironically, his five wins as a race horse were at 4.5 furlongs, 5.5 furlongs, 5.5 furlongs, 6 furlongs, and 6 furlongs. His average-winning distance as a sire actually isn't long (6.40 furlongs), and equally significantly, it's not longer than his average distance raced (6.52 furlongs). But the Awesome Again in his pedigree may be coming out for his better horses.
So this is the second Awesome Again stallion born in 2000 I've profiled. Yes, that description fits Ghostzapper as well. Awesome of Course and Ghostzapper weren't too far from crossing paths: Awesome of Course set the pace in Valid Video's Carry Back win, which that horse followed up with a win over Ghostzapper in the King's Bishop.
Even though I defended Ghostzapper, of course it will be ironic and incredibly unlikely if Awesome of Course outperforms him at stud. Not only would one not think Awesome of Course would be much of a sire with an absence of graded stakes success on the track -- not only did he not get the greatest of mares -- but his 2012 foal crop, his 8th, will probably be the first one that features a double-digit number of foals!
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Before notes on BC F+M Sprint
I have to say that I was shocked to see that Champagne d'Oro, taking another crack at the race this year, was the 4.40-1 favorite last year. That must have been the very height of her stock. She was 36-1 in the Kentucky Oaks, 39-1 when winning the Acorn, and then added the Test two starts later. I guess her 4th in the Thoroughbred Club of America before the BC was dismissed as part of the usual polytrack nonsense. (You can see how helpful that line of thinking was.) Only a small-field 3rd in the Honorable Miss this year saves Champagne d'Oro from eight straight out-of-the-money finishes. On the surface, it's just odd to have a horse with a 20-3-3-2 record having been a favorite in a Breeders' Cup championship race, and in a race with older horses, no less. (I'm sure sometimes we get it really wrong with 2-year-olds, with the little we have to go on going into the Breeders' Cup.) Champagne d'Oro has had a fine year in the pedigree department, with Ruler On Ice having won the Belmont. My basic belief about her isn't I don't think she was ever good enough to have won a Breeders' Cup race. I don't think this is a filly who went terribly off form. Understood or even underrated for much of her career, I think she was overrated for that Breeders' Cup. And identifying false favorites is valuable, even when they're of the lukewarm variety, as Champagne d'Oro was last year. Now, if I could only accomplish this before the fact....
I like looking at old results and identifying diamonds in the rough, like Jamie K., who came a neck short of Native Dancer in the Preakness and Belmont. If Havre de Grace wins the Classic, and follows up Zenyatta as Horse of the Year, some assiduous racing historian will probably fall in love with Switch as his personal discovery, noting that she gave both distaffers fabulous races. I can even see Switch fan clubs in the year 2100. When we note the Zenyatta/Switch kinds of battles, we're always seeing the runner-up at her best, however. There's a reason we remember Native Dancer and not Jamie K., and the championing of the forgotten horse can underestimate the better horse's superiority.
If Switch takes this race on Friday, she might end up being than a reference point. Her last two or three have left me wondering if she's lost a step, but she's certainly been one of the more admirable runners these last couple of years.
I like looking at old results and identifying diamonds in the rough, like Jamie K., who came a neck short of Native Dancer in the Preakness and Belmont. If Havre de Grace wins the Classic, and follows up Zenyatta as Horse of the Year, some assiduous racing historian will probably fall in love with Switch as his personal discovery, noting that she gave both distaffers fabulous races. I can even see Switch fan clubs in the year 2100. When we note the Zenyatta/Switch kinds of battles, we're always seeing the runner-up at her best, however. There's a reason we remember Native Dancer and not Jamie K., and the championing of the forgotten horse can underestimate the better horse's superiority.
If Switch takes this race on Friday, she might end up being than a reference point. Her last two or three have left me wondering if she's lost a step, but she's certainly been one of the more admirable runners these last couple of years.
Before notes on BC Juvenile Fillies Turf
Now, this one is on the grade I path. I wonder, actually, when the last time we've had such a great grade II has been? Perhaps the Royal Heroine when it was a Cashcall race. We see what happens with the quality when the main-track race isn't run on synthetic, and doesn't siphon off much of the field.
From the rail out, Stopshoppingmaria, Stephanie's Kitten, European group I winner Elusive Kate, and the two Lemon Drop Kids (Customer Base and Somali Lemonade) seem to highlight it. There's also Pure Gossip and her 87 Beyer in the Miss Grillo, but I'm not convinced she is as good as the 6+ length margin of victory and Beyer would suggest. I'd like to be a bit adventurous and take Stephanie's Kitten, who looked quite good in the Alcibiades, but how can I pick against Somali Lemonade?
From the rail out, Stopshoppingmaria, Stephanie's Kitten, European group I winner Elusive Kate, and the two Lemon Drop Kids (Customer Base and Somali Lemonade) seem to highlight it. There's also Pure Gossip and her 87 Beyer in the Miss Grillo, but I'm not convinced she is as good as the 6+ length margin of victory and Beyer would suggest. I'd like to be a bit adventurous and take Stephanie's Kitten, who looked quite good in the Alcibiades, but how can I pick against Somali Lemonade?
Before notes on BC Juvenile Sprint
So the Marathon ISN'T the first BC race; or it is, but on Saturday. The BC races get off with the Juvenile Sprint. I think Secret Circle could be any kind, but overall the race is kind of disappointing. It drew one filly; since there isn't an equivalent race for fillies, I think some people thought it might draw more. The filly is the English Shumoos, but she's American in the sense of being by Distorted Humor, out of Wile Cat by Storm Cat out of dirt grade I winner Strategic Maneuver. She has a strong dirt pedigree. She also has good European form, although two of her last three haven't been good.
Seeker is another horse who appears to have upside, with that 95 Beyer at Saratoga. Maybe the Nashua was just a throwout.
Trinniberg is certainly a speedball. At $21,000, he was a bargain buy this April. He worked in 10 1/5. They went as fast as 9 4/5, so that didn't stand out, but makes you think the buyers did get a look at his speed.
So if you take an optimistic view of all of the horses in here, the field could produce some talent, but really the race doesn't look to be on the grade I path. If Secret Circle becomes one of the sport's stars, that will compensate for a lot of sins, though. I remember his last was thunderous, and from his debut, I was surprised the 97 Beyer wasn't higher. He also seems to have pedigree to stretch out. I guess I can't stop talking about him. If only he weren't trained by Baffert.
Seeker is another horse who appears to have upside, with that 95 Beyer at Saratoga. Maybe the Nashua was just a throwout.
Trinniberg is certainly a speedball. At $21,000, he was a bargain buy this April. He worked in 10 1/5. They went as fast as 9 4/5, so that didn't stand out, but makes you think the buyers did get a look at his speed.
So if you take an optimistic view of all of the horses in here, the field could produce some talent, but really the race doesn't look to be on the grade I path. If Secret Circle becomes one of the sport's stars, that will compensate for a lot of sins, though. I remember his last was thunderous, and from his debut, I was surprised the 97 Beyer wasn't higher. He also seems to have pedigree to stretch out. I guess I can't stop talking about him. If only he weren't trained by Baffert.
Before notes on the BC Marathon
Starting with it because it is the first Breeders' Cup race....don't necessarily expect comments on all 15, however.
My knowledge of racing outside this continent is woefully lacking. That the Gold Cup at Ascot is 2 1/2 miles never sunk in before. BC Marathon entrant Brigantin ran 3rd in it this year. 2 1/2 miles -- that's longer than the steeplechase races at Saratoga, which seem to be 2 1/16 miles, or 2 3/8 miles. In my mind, flat races are one category, and steeplechase are another, and necessarily longer. You would never see a steeplechase race at a mile or a mile and a quarter, for instance, would you? Yet here the categories cross.
Looking at the Gold Cup, no wonder some people make fun of the "marathon" name for the distance Breeders' Cup race. Heck, it is on dirt, so that's something. You might think of dirt racing, turf racing, and steeplechase racing as three categories, each generally getting longer in distance. The BC Marathon does have novelty appeal (yes, I know starter races in particular are sometimes run at 2 miles or longer on dirt, but the BC Marathon hardly blends in with normal races).
Baryshnikov is really the only American turf horse taking a shot in here. He could certainly like the Marathon distance, but his last 12 races have all been a mile to a mile and an eighth. It's interesting to me that none of the entrants are long-distance, American turf horses, since the purse in here is as healthy as it is.
Two of the three European animals (Brigantin and Meeznah) look strong, but at a glance, their pedigrees are a real turn-off for dirt. Maybe Churchill Downs' more turf-horse-friendly sdirt urface will save them. I'm not sure how long Team Valor has had Brigantin, but I have a certain amount of faith they would not have bought a horse with the BC Marathon in mind without some solid reason to think the horse could run on dirt.
The third European horse, Harrison's Cave, only broke his maiden on September 25. Coolmore's Man of Iron didn't have any black type before he won the Marathon two years ago, but I think he had been more impressive than Harrison's Cave. Harrison's Cave also has European breeding.
Cease was only about a month before Harrison's Cave in breaking his maiden. I liked him at Saratoga, although I thought at least one of his Beyers there was inflated. It sure appeara he ended up on the dirt by accident, as when he broke his maiden, it was in his 4th start, and in an off-the-turf event. He could have been a main-track-only entrant; he broke from the #5 post in a 6-horse field, so I can't eliminate the possibility.
My knowledge of racing outside this continent is woefully lacking. That the Gold Cup at Ascot is 2 1/2 miles never sunk in before. BC Marathon entrant Brigantin ran 3rd in it this year. 2 1/2 miles -- that's longer than the steeplechase races at Saratoga, which seem to be 2 1/16 miles, or 2 3/8 miles. In my mind, flat races are one category, and steeplechase are another, and necessarily longer. You would never see a steeplechase race at a mile or a mile and a quarter, for instance, would you? Yet here the categories cross.
Looking at the Gold Cup, no wonder some people make fun of the "marathon" name for the distance Breeders' Cup race. Heck, it is on dirt, so that's something. You might think of dirt racing, turf racing, and steeplechase racing as three categories, each generally getting longer in distance. The BC Marathon does have novelty appeal (yes, I know starter races in particular are sometimes run at 2 miles or longer on dirt, but the BC Marathon hardly blends in with normal races).
Baryshnikov is really the only American turf horse taking a shot in here. He could certainly like the Marathon distance, but his last 12 races have all been a mile to a mile and an eighth. It's interesting to me that none of the entrants are long-distance, American turf horses, since the purse in here is as healthy as it is.
Two of the three European animals (Brigantin and Meeznah) look strong, but at a glance, their pedigrees are a real turn-off for dirt. Maybe Churchill Downs' more turf-horse-friendly sdirt urface will save them. I'm not sure how long Team Valor has had Brigantin, but I have a certain amount of faith they would not have bought a horse with the BC Marathon in mind without some solid reason to think the horse could run on dirt.
The third European horse, Harrison's Cave, only broke his maiden on September 25. Coolmore's Man of Iron didn't have any black type before he won the Marathon two years ago, but I think he had been more impressive than Harrison's Cave. Harrison's Cave also has European breeding.
Cease was only about a month before Harrison's Cave in breaking his maiden. I liked him at Saratoga, although I thought at least one of his Beyers there was inflated. It sure appeara he ended up on the dirt by accident, as when he broke his maiden, it was in his 4th start, and in an off-the-turf event. He could have been a main-track-only entrant; he broke from the #5 post in a 6-horse field, so I can't eliminate the possibility.
The mystery of Ioya Bigtime's odds in the Fayette
I was struggling for an adequate title for this post, and try as I might, I couldn't get past the word "mystery," having looked up Ioya Bigtime's pedigree, and seeing he is a close relative of the million-dollar-winning Mystery Giver. Anyway, the title may not be artful, but conveys the idea, the subject. (Probably not an unfamiliar one to readers, unfortunately.)
In the race, this colt rallied to be 2nd behind the dominant Wise Dan. He went off the 6-1 3rd choice of 10. On the morning line, he was 20-1. Only Anak Nakal was similarly dismissed on the morning line, and he ended up going off at 54-1.
Ioya Bigtime comes from the Illinois-bred ranks, where he won three of his first five starts. His start previous to the Fayette looks his best, with a length and a half win in a nw3x allowance at Keeneland, and a 91 Beyer, which easily topped anything he had done before. I watched the race; there was nothing spectacular about it. If a horse with these kinds of figures and record is going off at 6-1 in a grade II, the race either isn't much of a grade II, or he's drawing surprising support.
Future Prospect(13-1) and General Quarters (7-1) went off at longer odds than Ioya Bigtime. Running 1-2 in their last start in the grade II Kentucky Cup on synthetic, Future Prospect had the same 91 Beyer there as Ioya Bigtime had in his Keeneland win. I would have thought the Kentucky Cup would have counted for something however. Basically, neither the Kentcuky Cup horses or Ioya Bigtime had an impressive Beyer last time. The difference is that there wasn't anything particularly impressive about Ioya Bigtime that I could find. He had Calvin Borel up, but Borel had only won four races at the meet, while Ioya Bigtime's last jockey, Leparoux, switched to Wise Dan. Chris Block, trainer of Ioya Bigtime, is successful, but doesn't draw blind support the way that some of the more national names do.
The upshot, however, is that Ioya Bigtime made good on the support, running 2nd, and establishing himself as a graded stakes horse. Did the stable bet heavily? Did "they know something," underscored by Ioya Bigtime's bullet 58 4/5 work? Can there even be impactful word of mouth in a stakes race for older horses, where the win/place/show pool approaches $500,000? Can anyone unravel the mystery on more concrete grounds? Whatever the source of the betting was, it eluded me and the oddsmaker.
In the race, this colt rallied to be 2nd behind the dominant Wise Dan. He went off the 6-1 3rd choice of 10. On the morning line, he was 20-1. Only Anak Nakal was similarly dismissed on the morning line, and he ended up going off at 54-1.
Ioya Bigtime comes from the Illinois-bred ranks, where he won three of his first five starts. His start previous to the Fayette looks his best, with a length and a half win in a nw3x allowance at Keeneland, and a 91 Beyer, which easily topped anything he had done before. I watched the race; there was nothing spectacular about it. If a horse with these kinds of figures and record is going off at 6-1 in a grade II, the race either isn't much of a grade II, or he's drawing surprising support.
Future Prospect(13-1) and General Quarters (7-1) went off at longer odds than Ioya Bigtime. Running 1-2 in their last start in the grade II Kentucky Cup on synthetic, Future Prospect had the same 91 Beyer there as Ioya Bigtime had in his Keeneland win. I would have thought the Kentucky Cup would have counted for something however. Basically, neither the Kentcuky Cup horses or Ioya Bigtime had an impressive Beyer last time. The difference is that there wasn't anything particularly impressive about Ioya Bigtime that I could find. He had Calvin Borel up, but Borel had only won four races at the meet, while Ioya Bigtime's last jockey, Leparoux, switched to Wise Dan. Chris Block, trainer of Ioya Bigtime, is successful, but doesn't draw blind support the way that some of the more national names do.
The upshot, however, is that Ioya Bigtime made good on the support, running 2nd, and establishing himself as a graded stakes horse. Did the stable bet heavily? Did "they know something," underscored by Ioya Bigtime's bullet 58 4/5 work? Can there even be impactful word of mouth in a stakes race for older horses, where the win/place/show pool approaches $500,000? Can anyone unravel the mystery on more concrete grounds? Whatever the source of the betting was, it eluded me and the oddsmaker.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Agastache and Corleone: are they good exemplars of synthetic horses?
My belief is that there is a good deal of confusion about the effect that running on synthetic has on results, and even more wasted energy on the topic. The biggest effect is that turf horses are at least as apt to like synthetic as dirt horses. An effect is not (generally) to deprive talented horses of their usual dominance, or to render results inexplicable without reference to synthetic form. I do have some evidence for this point of view, courtesy of my odds study, but what I am saying is also common sense, and should resonate with every careful observer.
However, I care enough about the truth, and not just my position on issues, that I'm always on the look out for exceptions. From Saturday's card at Keeneland, Agastache and Corleone struck me as possible exceptions, and possible examplars of "synthetic horses."
Agastache is certainly a great examplar of a career allowance horse, if nothing else. The 6-year-old has made over $358,000 in 43 starts, while never winning a stake, and never running in a graded event. He began his career in the winter of his 3-year-old year on dirt, breaking his maiden second time out at Fair Grounds, and then running 3rd of 9 in a first-level allowance at Oaklawn. He then shifted to Arlington, winning twice and hitting the board three more times in six starts (this was 2008 at Arlington; synthetic). The next year of his career was mostly on dirt, with two wins from 11 starts there, and one start and one win at Turfway over the synthetic.
In his first race at Keeneland, in the fall of his 4-year-old year, he took a nw3x/80k optional allowance at 8-1. He made 10 more starts before coming to the same meet as a 5-year-old (with eight dirt starts, and a 2nd and a 5th in stakes at Turfway and Presque Isle Downs, respectively, over the synthetic). At Keeneland, running in the same condition he'd captured the year before, he was this time 2nd, but at a juicy 17-1. He then jumped from a $53,000 allowance to a $54,000 one at the same meet, and won that at 9/2. In another money allowance at Keeneland the next spring, he was 2nd by a neck in a five-horse field.
He entered Saturday's race off a 3 1/2 month layoff, the longest of his career, but was still making his 8th start of the year. He hadn't found synthetic for any of his races besides the Keeneland 2nd-place finish, but generally had run creditably while not winning, with the race preceding the layoff, the Don Bernhardt at Ellis, the only really bad showing.
I noticed him in Saturday's race (probably an exact replica of the condition for his 2010 score at Keeneland, which was probably also on the final day of the meet) because his form looked moderate for him to be the second choice in the betting behind Winslow Homer. Then I noticed the strong Keeneland races, and a 13 5 5 1 record on synthetic overall, and went "aha." Agastache's career record on dirt is 22 2 5 5. Whether you break down his synthetic record into Keeneland and non Keeneland, or his dirt record by track, his in-the-money statistics just seem stronger on synthetic surfaces.
Saturday's race was not a continuation of the trend; Agastache finished 6th of 11, beaten 5 1/2 lengths.
Corleone, 2nd in the 6th race Saturday behind blowout winner Long Lake Krista, didn't do better than 6th in three dirt races for Pletcher in 2010 and early 2011. In the midst of that disappointing streak, however, she was 2nd in a maiden special weight at Keeneland behind Bouquet Booth. Moving to an easier circuit (synthetic Presque Isle Downs) and trainer Charles Lopresti, Corleone did well, breaking her maiden by 5 lengths and placing in two first-level allowance. She built on the momentum once she came to Keeneland, finishing 3rd on the first Saturday of the meet, in addition to Saturday's placing. All of her Beyers with Lopresti have been better than what she did with Pletcher (that actually includes the Keeneland 2nd, which was, however, her best Beyer at 2).
If that Keeneland 2nd at 2 wasn't there, the improvement could be chalked up to the light bulb going on, or maybe even the trainer change, despite Pletcher's general success. But the good showing at Keeneland at 2 creates a seductive pattern (although one based on small sample size).
Another dimension to Corleone's record is that she was well received as a 2-year-old in training, bringing $325,000. She hasn't lived up to that: if she had, Pletcher would still be training her. By the way, where do you think she sold, and presumably worked, before bringing that big price? At Keeneland.
These text-book examples of synthetic horses are missing one key thing that keeps alive my skepticism of the veracity of "synthetic horses": they've never run on turf. That's hard to believe, with all of the running Agastache has done; his connections apparently aren't of the experimental disposition (unless he worked on turf and hated it, or something. Also worth mentioning that Agastache's first trainer was Asmussen, while his trainer has been Rick Hiles for at least the last 13 races). But simple logic would say that you need to see a horse on dirt, synthetic, and turf, to see if the synthetic form is really a separate phenomenon. Does Agastache just like synthetic, or does he dislike dirt (remembering he's still won over 100k there)? Which performances are the exceptions, the dirt ones, or the synthetic ones? Corleone isn't as experienced as Agastache, and maybe she'll get to turf in due time. The probability that these horses are truly "synthetic horses" is increased because their pedigrees don't look turfy at all: sires and broodmare sires are Mutakddim, Clever Trick, Indian Charlie, and Mining.
However, I care enough about the truth, and not just my position on issues, that I'm always on the look out for exceptions. From Saturday's card at Keeneland, Agastache and Corleone struck me as possible exceptions, and possible examplars of "synthetic horses."
Agastache is certainly a great examplar of a career allowance horse, if nothing else. The 6-year-old has made over $358,000 in 43 starts, while never winning a stake, and never running in a graded event. He began his career in the winter of his 3-year-old year on dirt, breaking his maiden second time out at Fair Grounds, and then running 3rd of 9 in a first-level allowance at Oaklawn. He then shifted to Arlington, winning twice and hitting the board three more times in six starts (this was 2008 at Arlington; synthetic). The next year of his career was mostly on dirt, with two wins from 11 starts there, and one start and one win at Turfway over the synthetic.
In his first race at Keeneland, in the fall of his 4-year-old year, he took a nw3x/80k optional allowance at 8-1. He made 10 more starts before coming to the same meet as a 5-year-old (with eight dirt starts, and a 2nd and a 5th in stakes at Turfway and Presque Isle Downs, respectively, over the synthetic). At Keeneland, running in the same condition he'd captured the year before, he was this time 2nd, but at a juicy 17-1. He then jumped from a $53,000 allowance to a $54,000 one at the same meet, and won that at 9/2. In another money allowance at Keeneland the next spring, he was 2nd by a neck in a five-horse field.
He entered Saturday's race off a 3 1/2 month layoff, the longest of his career, but was still making his 8th start of the year. He hadn't found synthetic for any of his races besides the Keeneland 2nd-place finish, but generally had run creditably while not winning, with the race preceding the layoff, the Don Bernhardt at Ellis, the only really bad showing.
I noticed him in Saturday's race (probably an exact replica of the condition for his 2010 score at Keeneland, which was probably also on the final day of the meet) because his form looked moderate for him to be the second choice in the betting behind Winslow Homer. Then I noticed the strong Keeneland races, and a 13 5 5 1 record on synthetic overall, and went "aha." Agastache's career record on dirt is 22 2 5 5. Whether you break down his synthetic record into Keeneland and non Keeneland, or his dirt record by track, his in-the-money statistics just seem stronger on synthetic surfaces.
Saturday's race was not a continuation of the trend; Agastache finished 6th of 11, beaten 5 1/2 lengths.
Corleone, 2nd in the 6th race Saturday behind blowout winner Long Lake Krista, didn't do better than 6th in three dirt races for Pletcher in 2010 and early 2011. In the midst of that disappointing streak, however, she was 2nd in a maiden special weight at Keeneland behind Bouquet Booth. Moving to an easier circuit (synthetic Presque Isle Downs) and trainer Charles Lopresti, Corleone did well, breaking her maiden by 5 lengths and placing in two first-level allowance. She built on the momentum once she came to Keeneland, finishing 3rd on the first Saturday of the meet, in addition to Saturday's placing. All of her Beyers with Lopresti have been better than what she did with Pletcher (that actually includes the Keeneland 2nd, which was, however, her best Beyer at 2).
If that Keeneland 2nd at 2 wasn't there, the improvement could be chalked up to the light bulb going on, or maybe even the trainer change, despite Pletcher's general success. But the good showing at Keeneland at 2 creates a seductive pattern (although one based on small sample size).
Another dimension to Corleone's record is that she was well received as a 2-year-old in training, bringing $325,000. She hasn't lived up to that: if she had, Pletcher would still be training her. By the way, where do you think she sold, and presumably worked, before bringing that big price? At Keeneland.
These text-book examples of synthetic horses are missing one key thing that keeps alive my skepticism of the veracity of "synthetic horses": they've never run on turf. That's hard to believe, with all of the running Agastache has done; his connections apparently aren't of the experimental disposition (unless he worked on turf and hated it, or something. Also worth mentioning that Agastache's first trainer was Asmussen, while his trainer has been Rick Hiles for at least the last 13 races). But simple logic would say that you need to see a horse on dirt, synthetic, and turf, to see if the synthetic form is really a separate phenomenon. Does Agastache just like synthetic, or does he dislike dirt (remembering he's still won over 100k there)? Which performances are the exceptions, the dirt ones, or the synthetic ones? Corleone isn't as experienced as Agastache, and maybe she'll get to turf in due time. The probability that these horses are truly "synthetic horses" is increased because their pedigrees don't look turfy at all: sires and broodmare sires are Mutakddim, Clever Trick, Indian Charlie, and Mining.
Might not be rational, but Miraloma feels good
Spanish Empiress looked good enough that she went off at 5-1 in a $30,000, nw2l claimer at Keeneland on Saturday, and ran well enough that she ended up in the winner's circle. So owner Ron McCauley may have claimed her for her racing potential. But one could do worse than adding a daughter of Stick to Beauty's stakes-winning daughter Miraloma to a breeding operation.
The problem is that Miraloma has not been a good producer. Even considering Stick to Beauty and not Miraloma, much of Stick to Beauty's punch is through Gold Beauty; Stick to Beauty lived to age 30 but had a pattern of producing very good horses, not monsters (although when you count Gold Beauty's race track achievements in there, perhaps I'm being a little tough).
I did a study looking at mares in the 13-year-old age range, and found their siblings were just about irrelevant to their auction value at that point. So the question for evaluating Spanish Empiress is really whether she is going to be a good producer, and you can weight Stick to Beauty and her clan any way you want in that speculation.
At least the owner of Spanish Empiress the mare will potentially be getting something special. Giving her a shot is a little bit like taking the NFL player with 4.3 speed for the 40-yard dash; there's a path where one can see this working.
This is really here nor there, particularly because Spanish Empiress doesn't trace to Gold Beauty, but Spanish Empiress's foals will show Stick to Beauty as their 3rd dam; Sky Beauty's 3rd dam was also Stick to Beauty. Horses like Pine Island and Tale of Ekati had/have Stick to Beauty as their 4th dam.
The problem is that Miraloma has not been a good producer. Even considering Stick to Beauty and not Miraloma, much of Stick to Beauty's punch is through Gold Beauty; Stick to Beauty lived to age 30 but had a pattern of producing very good horses, not monsters (although when you count Gold Beauty's race track achievements in there, perhaps I'm being a little tough).
I did a study looking at mares in the 13-year-old age range, and found their siblings were just about irrelevant to their auction value at that point. So the question for evaluating Spanish Empiress is really whether she is going to be a good producer, and you can weight Stick to Beauty and her clan any way you want in that speculation.
At least the owner of Spanish Empiress the mare will potentially be getting something special. Giving her a shot is a little bit like taking the NFL player with 4.3 speed for the 40-yard dash; there's a path where one can see this working.
This is really here nor there, particularly because Spanish Empiress doesn't trace to Gold Beauty, but Spanish Empiress's foals will show Stick to Beauty as their 3rd dam; Sky Beauty's 3rd dam was also Stick to Beauty. Horses like Pine Island and Tale of Ekati had/have Stick to Beauty as their 4th dam.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Dark Star....and not that far back in the pedigree
With past performances that made 61-1 appear the residue of unbridled optimism, the Unbridled's Song 4-year-old gelding Highlight blew away $40,000 maiden claimers at Keeneland Friday. For once, I would be just as happy to discuss Highlight if he'd paid $6.00 (or something unremarkable in the middle like $16.40) as $124.20.
My preoccupation this time is that his second dam is by Dark Star. His dam, Star of My Eye, was born in 1990, and her dam, Dangerous Star, was born in 1967. At 17, Dark Star wasn't remarkably old when he sired Dangerous Star, but old enough that the improbability of a 1967 second dam for a current 4-year-old still comes through. I challenge anybody to beat Dark Star for Highlight in any of the possible categories that come could from this game: a third-generation horse born 57 years before its relative; a sire of a second dam born 57 years before its relative; other active dams (or I guess sires) out of Dark Star mares.
The fact that Dark Star seems like he should have abandoned his place as a sire of second dams quite a while ago says something, because I think the tendency with these kinds of things is for us not to update our timeline sufficiently. When I became interested in pedigrees 20 years ago, Dark Star and other horses born around 1950 certainly were sires of second dams; this post wouldn't have worked then. I suppose in time we do start thinking of horses who weren't born when we became fans taking their place as sires of second dams, etc., and the previous horses in that position not showing up much anymore. But I don't think our expectations increase one year for each year we've lived. This is only speculation, of course.
I do know that I'm continually surprised, and feel old, whenever I see a sire who seems like he just had his first crop taking his position in the second generation, as a broodmare sire or a sire of sires. Thinking that the previous generation should stay in those slots is the corollary of not being ready for the new horses.
I wouldn't mind losing my challenge because I know soon enough there won't be any danger of it. The influence of horses born when Dark Star was is, inevitably, lessening.
A couple of other notes: Dangerous Star, Highlight's dam, presumably got sent to Unbridled's Song because she had produced multiple grade I winner Lady Tak. Dangerous Star was full sister to a couple of impactful Dark Stars, Heavenly Body and Hidden Talent. Heavenly Body won the Matron, while Hidden Talent won the Ashland and Kentucky Oaks, and produced the very good runner and better producer, Too Bald.
My preoccupation this time is that his second dam is by Dark Star. His dam, Star of My Eye, was born in 1990, and her dam, Dangerous Star, was born in 1967. At 17, Dark Star wasn't remarkably old when he sired Dangerous Star, but old enough that the improbability of a 1967 second dam for a current 4-year-old still comes through. I challenge anybody to beat Dark Star for Highlight in any of the possible categories that come could from this game: a third-generation horse born 57 years before its relative; a sire of a second dam born 57 years before its relative; other active dams (or I guess sires) out of Dark Star mares.
The fact that Dark Star seems like he should have abandoned his place as a sire of second dams quite a while ago says something, because I think the tendency with these kinds of things is for us not to update our timeline sufficiently. When I became interested in pedigrees 20 years ago, Dark Star and other horses born around 1950 certainly were sires of second dams; this post wouldn't have worked then. I suppose in time we do start thinking of horses who weren't born when we became fans taking their place as sires of second dams, etc., and the previous horses in that position not showing up much anymore. But I don't think our expectations increase one year for each year we've lived. This is only speculation, of course.
I do know that I'm continually surprised, and feel old, whenever I see a sire who seems like he just had his first crop taking his position in the second generation, as a broodmare sire or a sire of sires. Thinking that the previous generation should stay in those slots is the corollary of not being ready for the new horses.
I wouldn't mind losing my challenge because I know soon enough there won't be any danger of it. The influence of horses born when Dark Star was is, inevitably, lessening.
A couple of other notes: Dangerous Star, Highlight's dam, presumably got sent to Unbridled's Song because she had produced multiple grade I winner Lady Tak. Dangerous Star was full sister to a couple of impactful Dark Stars, Heavenly Body and Hidden Talent. Heavenly Body won the Matron, while Hidden Talent won the Ashland and Kentucky Oaks, and produced the very good runner and better producer, Too Bald.
Stop at Scat Daddy
If I'm not sounding like a broken record at this point, I'm sure I will soon, but how did two Scat Daddy firsters get away at 15-1 and 54-1 in a maiden special weight at Keeneland on Thursday? I can understand missing dams who were standout runners or have been standout producers; there are so many to know that actual research might be necessary on that score. But Scat Daddy is not only currently the leading freshman sire, he's the current juvenile sire, too. As the second choice in the BC Juvenile, and the 3rd choice in the Kentucky Derby, bettors and fans had awareness of him before he began accumulating a record as a sire. Certainly they have noticed or read that he is doing well?
The funny thing is that I think they have. They know, but oddly separate the knowledge from the undertaking of making their bets. For some handicappers, they may relegate the sire information subconsciously. Perhaps they've just gotten accustomed to using jockey, trainer, workouts, and early betting as their guides. They have awareness of the good sires and sire lines, but the knowledge may not be solid enough in their brains to trust it, the same way that I've heard of actors and singers but can't place them. If you suggested that they should incorporate pedigree information, with some guidance, they would be open to it.
What flummoxes me is the people who have command of the pedigree information but still ignore it. There must be a fair number of these, or there would not be Scat Daddys debuting at 54-1. Most of us have encountered first-out winning percentages for sires and know there is considerable variability from sire to sire. If you know a sire is a 20 percent first-out win sire, why would you not think the information relevant to the race at hand? That 20 percent winning percentage was made up of races like the one you're examining: it has predictive, not just historical significance. I don't understand the intellectual argument for ignoring a variable that is, in fact, a variable. (I could make an intellectual argument for doing it, actually. I guess what I am saying is that, on face value, sire is obviously predictive. The onus needs to be on those who ignore it to demonstrate that their stance is logical. But when I cite discrepancies between odds and sire capability, I feel like I am being humored, and not presenting the bordering on overwhelming and unassailable.)
So, as for this race with the two overlooked Scat Daddys, 54-1 Daddy's Rose led for the first three calls and ended up second by a length behind Indyniable. The 15-1 Swaythisaway, long on pedigree even setting Scat Daddy aside (she's out of Dance Number's daughter Oscillate, and a half to Mutakddim) made it a Scat Daddy exacta for the first 3f or so of the 7f race before fading to 7th by 6 at the wire. Scat Daddys are instilling confidence that they will run well, or at the very least have speed. Sires are doing this or not doing this every day, and it's prudent to pay attention.
The funny thing is that I think they have. They know, but oddly separate the knowledge from the undertaking of making their bets. For some handicappers, they may relegate the sire information subconsciously. Perhaps they've just gotten accustomed to using jockey, trainer, workouts, and early betting as their guides. They have awareness of the good sires and sire lines, but the knowledge may not be solid enough in their brains to trust it, the same way that I've heard of actors and singers but can't place them. If you suggested that they should incorporate pedigree information, with some guidance, they would be open to it.
What flummoxes me is the people who have command of the pedigree information but still ignore it. There must be a fair number of these, or there would not be Scat Daddys debuting at 54-1. Most of us have encountered first-out winning percentages for sires and know there is considerable variability from sire to sire. If you know a sire is a 20 percent first-out win sire, why would you not think the information relevant to the race at hand? That 20 percent winning percentage was made up of races like the one you're examining: it has predictive, not just historical significance. I don't understand the intellectual argument for ignoring a variable that is, in fact, a variable. (I could make an intellectual argument for doing it, actually. I guess what I am saying is that, on face value, sire is obviously predictive. The onus needs to be on those who ignore it to demonstrate that their stance is logical. But when I cite discrepancies between odds and sire capability, I feel like I am being humored, and not presenting the bordering on overwhelming and unassailable.)
So, as for this race with the two overlooked Scat Daddys, 54-1 Daddy's Rose led for the first three calls and ended up second by a length behind Indyniable. The 15-1 Swaythisaway, long on pedigree even setting Scat Daddy aside (she's out of Dance Number's daughter Oscillate, and a half to Mutakddim) made it a Scat Daddy exacta for the first 3f or so of the 7f race before fading to 7th by 6 at the wire. Scat Daddys are instilling confidence that they will run well, or at the very least have speed. Sires are doing this or not doing this every day, and it's prudent to pay attention.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Several thrusts at a stake with Indiana-sired fillies
Well, I was preparing a post about the Indiana freshmen sire Article of Faith, who had the winner in the Indiana Stallion 2-year-old filly race at Hoosier on Sunday, and the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-place finishers in the colt and gelding affair. But once I figured out that the race was restricted to the offspring of Indiana stallions and not merely Indiana-breds, I just wasn't feeling it. I wouldn't want to react to success that is at bottom just a matter of numbers. While just five of the 23 starters in these races were by Articles of Faith, maybe the Articles of Faiths are out of the best mares bred to the Indiana stallions. He also has just three winners from 12 starters, and the Beyers found among these Indiana-stallion stakes 2-year-olds make it clear that Indiana-breds by Indiana stallions is a different world than 'A' track racing. I do like his pedigree; it screams speed, with Storm Cat his sire, and Santa Monica winner Nany's Sweep his dam. I have a weakness for her sire, End Sweep, and admire what he accomplished in so few American crops. Article of Faith was unraced, and shoot me, I find the mystery of what unraced sires might have been intriguing.
I mentioned the lousy Beyers in these Indiana-stallion 2-year-old stakes. Article of Faith's winner, Slacker, should have been by Peaks and Valleys. She got a 51 Beyer when airing by 8 lengths in her debut, then got Beyers of 0 or less in her next starts, as she finished up the track in stakes. Then on Sunday, there was the big rebound, with her odds 7-1 as she was coupled with the runner-up, a one-win-in-one-start filly named Indy Pie.
I suppose extreme fluctuation in performance is somewhat interesting by its lonesome, but what really got my attention here is that the two wins have been on fast tracks, and the two sub-zero Beyers on muddy, sealed tracks. I have found what I consider outstanding evidence that the role wet tracks play in performance is vastly overrated by most handicappers, and should perhaps be ignored entirely as a variable. But if ever a horse argues for the opposite, it's Slacker. While the track surface has been the constant in her vicissitudes, Slacker did add blinkers on Sunday, and pop right out to the lead. This suggests that the blinkers certainly had an effect, and may have helped.
I don't bet often, but at least with my for-entertainment-purposes-only selections, I still might be the only one shouting for Slacker down from the top of the grandstand if she ever faces a wet track again. (In true, I'd probably be the only one in the grandstand, but that's another matter.) On the face of it, a horse that can't handle mud is something to be skeptical about. Two awful races, even when the Beyers are down 50 points, really aren't anything that should turn a hair in racing, and require a special explanation. It's very possible that Slacker experienced physical or mental problems in her bad races that had nothing to do with the track surface.
I mentioned the lousy Beyers in these Indiana-stallion 2-year-old stakes. Article of Faith's winner, Slacker, should have been by Peaks and Valleys. She got a 51 Beyer when airing by 8 lengths in her debut, then got Beyers of 0 or less in her next starts, as she finished up the track in stakes. Then on Sunday, there was the big rebound, with her odds 7-1 as she was coupled with the runner-up, a one-win-in-one-start filly named Indy Pie.
I suppose extreme fluctuation in performance is somewhat interesting by its lonesome, but what really got my attention here is that the two wins have been on fast tracks, and the two sub-zero Beyers on muddy, sealed tracks. I have found what I consider outstanding evidence that the role wet tracks play in performance is vastly overrated by most handicappers, and should perhaps be ignored entirely as a variable. But if ever a horse argues for the opposite, it's Slacker. While the track surface has been the constant in her vicissitudes, Slacker did add blinkers on Sunday, and pop right out to the lead. This suggests that the blinkers certainly had an effect, and may have helped.
I don't bet often, but at least with my for-entertainment-purposes-only selections, I still might be the only one shouting for Slacker down from the top of the grandstand if she ever faces a wet track again. (In true, I'd probably be the only one in the grandstand, but that's another matter.) On the face of it, a horse that can't handle mud is something to be skeptical about. Two awful races, even when the Beyers are down 50 points, really aren't anything that should turn a hair in racing, and require a special explanation. It's very possible that Slacker experienced physical or mental problems in her bad races that had nothing to do with the track surface.
A subtly good day for Street Sense
I encountered three first-time starters for him on Sunday. Here's how they fared:
Ice Cream Silence, 2nd in a 10-horse, 6 1/2 furlong maiden special weight at Keeneland; Toxis, 4th in the same race. Vionnet, 4th by 4 in a 7-horse, 5 1/2 furlong maiden special weight at Santa Anita. Ice Cream Silence broke slowly if not horrendously, but poorly enough that she was a good length behind the otherwise last away. Vionnet broke flat out horrendously, perhaps losing as much ground as she was beaten by.
A daughter of the neat turf sprinter Cambiocorsa, she went off a slight favorite. She took the far turn on the rail, though, and despite the bad break, oddly wasn't that impressive overall. She was dull in the stretch; "not doing enough," as Trevor Denman said. But mathematically, you know she ran pretty well, and against good competition.
That's one thing I like about what these Street Senses did: if they were running at 'B' tracks, and not against each other, they might all have been winners. Not that we expect anything less of horses out of these kinds of mares than to win at 'A' tracks.
Ice Cream Silence, 2nd in a 10-horse, 6 1/2 furlong maiden special weight at Keeneland; Toxis, 4th in the same race. Vionnet, 4th by 4 in a 7-horse, 5 1/2 furlong maiden special weight at Santa Anita. Ice Cream Silence broke slowly if not horrendously, but poorly enough that she was a good length behind the otherwise last away. Vionnet broke flat out horrendously, perhaps losing as much ground as she was beaten by.
A daughter of the neat turf sprinter Cambiocorsa, she went off a slight favorite. She took the far turn on the rail, though, and despite the bad break, oddly wasn't that impressive overall. She was dull in the stretch; "not doing enough," as Trevor Denman said. But mathematically, you know she ran pretty well, and against good competition.
That's one thing I like about what these Street Senses did: if they were running at 'B' tracks, and not against each other, they might all have been winners. Not that we expect anything less of horses out of these kinds of mares than to win at 'A' tracks.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Calculating Jimmy: a very vibrant 8-year-old
When I think of older horses who maintain their class as they age, I think of turf routers. It's not clear in my mind whether these are horses who could once compete at other games and switched to longer races on the turf, or if they were always turf routers, but the idea is there.
Calculating Jimmy, 2nd in a non-winners-of-two-other-than (nw2x) allowance on the turf at Keeneland Sunday, not only runs short as he pushes his 9th equine birthday, but usually dashes out to the lead. Of his last 13 races (which encompass his Sunday past performances and the Sunday race) he's been first at the first call eight times, and up by a length or more on seven of those occasions. It's one thing to lead early in routes, when many of the horses in the race can physically get the lead if their jockeys seek it, and another to lead early in sprints, when the run out of the gate is almost a race unto itself. As Calculating Jimmy has been a moderate horse, never trying a stake in 47 starts, he is clearly a horse who has maintained his speed.
And that makes me question my whole assumption. Do older really horses lose more ability in the early stages and in sprints than they lose overall? I know I've heard trainers talk about good older horses adopting a closer's role as they age, so I'm not making the idea up. But I also think of Caller One, the two-time Golden Shaheen winner, who eschewed other spots for the 2f Rocket Man Stakes at 7, 8, and 9, and won the race at age 10. And when a couple of our ex-horses have been considered as lead ponies, they've been described as still quick. So maybe the quickness remains, but not the speed, power, and soundness to run a good full 6f. Not that it's much different, but Calculating Jimmy's preferred distance seems to be 5.5 furlongs.
The story also falls a bit flat since I opened the post talking about older horses preferring long, turf races, and Calculating Jimmy was running on the turf Sunday. So he only defied the norm in one respect. However, 11 of his 12 races previous to Sunday's race were on synthetic, and he's been very competitive in his those races. He was 5-1 on Sunday off the synthetic form, and it would be premature at this point to conclude from the second-place finish that turf moves him up.
Calculating Jimmy's viability as an 8-year-old synthetic sprinter does beg the question of whether the theory of older horses maintaining their form on the turf also applies with synthetic. It's not as if Calculating Jimmy shifted to synthetic late in his career, though; he's only run on dirt four times in 47 races, and never hit the board on it. He's by Cozar out of a Housebuster mare, which fits with turf. We can't get anywhere comparing his dirt and synthetic performances as an older and younger horse, because there haven't been dirt races for him as an older horse.
Even setting aside distance and surface, Calculating Jimmy has aged well (how many 8-year-olds do you see almost breaking through in a straight nw2x allowance, not in a nw2x/optional claimer where they start by virtue of the tag?) This brings up the thought of whether Calculating Jimmy's durability has in some measure resulted from his unusual career of 64% synthetic races, 28% turf races, and 9% dirt races. We heard a lot about racing on the synthetic cutting down on injuries and breakdowns when it was first introduced, and a byproduct of that would be longer careers with less decline.
Calculating Jimmy's career has been noteworthy in one more respect: he's finished second 17 times and only won four times. If you're new to this kind of thinking, firsts and seconds should be more or less equal, if not for a trend or luck. There aren't many walkovers in racing, which means there are almost exactly the same number of firsts and seconds.
Calculating Jimmy didn't get stuck in race after race trying to break his maiden and just missing; that's often how a horse acquires a large number of seconds. He didn't finish second until his 14th start, and he broke his maiden in his seventh start. It doesn't appear he got stuck in pursuit of any other condition, either; he's an equal opportunity second-place finisher, with eight runner-ups in claiming races, seven in allowance races, and two in optional claiming races.
Getting back to the original direction of the post, Calculating Jimmy was 5th by
2 1/2 after 3/8ths of a mile on Sunday, unusual territory for him. He of course ended up performing very well. But it's too early to say that he's going over to the supposed norm for his age of relying on stong finishes in turf races.
Calculating Jimmy, 2nd in a non-winners-of-two-other-than (nw2x) allowance on the turf at Keeneland Sunday, not only runs short as he pushes his 9th equine birthday, but usually dashes out to the lead. Of his last 13 races (which encompass his Sunday past performances and the Sunday race) he's been first at the first call eight times, and up by a length or more on seven of those occasions. It's one thing to lead early in routes, when many of the horses in the race can physically get the lead if their jockeys seek it, and another to lead early in sprints, when the run out of the gate is almost a race unto itself. As Calculating Jimmy has been a moderate horse, never trying a stake in 47 starts, he is clearly a horse who has maintained his speed.
And that makes me question my whole assumption. Do older really horses lose more ability in the early stages and in sprints than they lose overall? I know I've heard trainers talk about good older horses adopting a closer's role as they age, so I'm not making the idea up. But I also think of Caller One, the two-time Golden Shaheen winner, who eschewed other spots for the 2f Rocket Man Stakes at 7, 8, and 9, and won the race at age 10. And when a couple of our ex-horses have been considered as lead ponies, they've been described as still quick. So maybe the quickness remains, but not the speed, power, and soundness to run a good full 6f. Not that it's much different, but Calculating Jimmy's preferred distance seems to be 5.5 furlongs.
The story also falls a bit flat since I opened the post talking about older horses preferring long, turf races, and Calculating Jimmy was running on the turf Sunday. So he only defied the norm in one respect. However, 11 of his 12 races previous to Sunday's race were on synthetic, and he's been very competitive in his those races. He was 5-1 on Sunday off the synthetic form, and it would be premature at this point to conclude from the second-place finish that turf moves him up.
Calculating Jimmy's viability as an 8-year-old synthetic sprinter does beg the question of whether the theory of older horses maintaining their form on the turf also applies with synthetic. It's not as if Calculating Jimmy shifted to synthetic late in his career, though; he's only run on dirt four times in 47 races, and never hit the board on it. He's by Cozar out of a Housebuster mare, which fits with turf. We can't get anywhere comparing his dirt and synthetic performances as an older and younger horse, because there haven't been dirt races for him as an older horse.
Even setting aside distance and surface, Calculating Jimmy has aged well (how many 8-year-olds do you see almost breaking through in a straight nw2x allowance, not in a nw2x/optional claimer where they start by virtue of the tag?) This brings up the thought of whether Calculating Jimmy's durability has in some measure resulted from his unusual career of 64% synthetic races, 28% turf races, and 9% dirt races. We heard a lot about racing on the synthetic cutting down on injuries and breakdowns when it was first introduced, and a byproduct of that would be longer careers with less decline.
Calculating Jimmy's career has been noteworthy in one more respect: he's finished second 17 times and only won four times. If you're new to this kind of thinking, firsts and seconds should be more or less equal, if not for a trend or luck. There aren't many walkovers in racing, which means there are almost exactly the same number of firsts and seconds.
Calculating Jimmy didn't get stuck in race after race trying to break his maiden and just missing; that's often how a horse acquires a large number of seconds. He didn't finish second until his 14th start, and he broke his maiden in his seventh start. It doesn't appear he got stuck in pursuit of any other condition, either; he's an equal opportunity second-place finisher, with eight runner-ups in claiming races, seven in allowance races, and two in optional claiming races.
Getting back to the original direction of the post, Calculating Jimmy was 5th by
2 1/2 after 3/8ths of a mile on Sunday, unusual territory for him. He of course ended up performing very well. But it's too early to say that he's going over to the supposed norm for his age of relying on stong finishes in turf races.
My newfound interest in The Lone Ranger
Whether you want to cite a deprived childhood or just a narrow focus, I can't say that The Lone Ranger calls up many associations for me. The character is in that vast array of topics that I hope people don't pursue with such passion at a party that I'm required to do more than fake it and nod. But as far as the rest of the country goes, I gather The Lone Ranger is famous enough that a couple of successful eponymous thoroughbreds aren't going to affect his prominence much. They would probably make about as much difference for his popularity as my vote is going to make for the Presidency.
That said, we did have Sloane Ranger running 3rd in the newly ungraded DeFrancis on Saturday, while 2-year-old The Roan Ranger debuted to be 2nd in a maiden special weight at Santa Anita. I can't see that either horse gets his name from the pedigree, so the owners are presumably true fans of The Lone Ranger. I say fans, plural, because the ownerships of the horses are different. (If you want all of the stats, Sloane Ranger is by Parker's Storm Cat, out of Toppenish, by You and I, owned and bred by Vicki Schowe. The Roan Ranger is by Exchange Rate, out of Crafty Marian, by Crafty Prospector, owned by a group including Blinkers On Racing Stable, and bred by Nick Cimino.)
It would be maddening if The Roan Ranger were not in fact roan, and he is. It would seem Lone Ranger horses in general should be of that color, since The Lone Ranger's horse was Silver, but Sloane Ranger is dark bay or brown.
It would seem this period where only the clever can acknowledge The Lone Ranger may soon be coming to a close, as plain "Lone Ranger", a gelding who won 5 times and $75,000, last started in 2006. His name still appears in the Jockey Club list of names, but I would think it would be becoming available in 2012.
Now that I think of it, it's not clear to me that the five-year inactivity period guarantees that a horse will not start again. I know I've seen three-year layoffs, and maybe even four-year. Horses are coming back off longer and longer layoffs.
I'm sure if a horse hasn't run for years but records a workout, however, that the calendar starts anew. A racing layoff of multiple years usually involves failed comebacks and new injuries. For a horse not even to progress to working in a five-year stretch, but then to return successfully to the races, makes the prospect even more implausible.
Perhaps there is a rule that horses aren't allowed to return after more than five years' absence? If so, then The Jockey's Club's five-year moratorium makes sense. Obviously, safety and humane concerns should drive inactivity bans, though, not existing Jockey Club policy. But it makes sense for the two to be aligned.
If a comeback were attempted for a horse that had been off for more than five years, and the horse's name had been given away, I wonder if the horse would have to be renamed? Or if the Jockey Club would just live with the two horses with the same name? We see this all the time with foreign-bred horses running in the U.S. Two horses with the same name wouldn't present a practical problem, but it would be messy and out of place. We trust The Jockey Club not to let it happen.
That said, we did have Sloane Ranger running 3rd in the newly ungraded DeFrancis on Saturday, while 2-year-old The Roan Ranger debuted to be 2nd in a maiden special weight at Santa Anita. I can't see that either horse gets his name from the pedigree, so the owners are presumably true fans of The Lone Ranger. I say fans, plural, because the ownerships of the horses are different. (If you want all of the stats, Sloane Ranger is by Parker's Storm Cat, out of Toppenish, by You and I, owned and bred by Vicki Schowe. The Roan Ranger is by Exchange Rate, out of Crafty Marian, by Crafty Prospector, owned by a group including Blinkers On Racing Stable, and bred by Nick Cimino.)
It would be maddening if The Roan Ranger were not in fact roan, and he is. It would seem Lone Ranger horses in general should be of that color, since The Lone Ranger's horse was Silver, but Sloane Ranger is dark bay or brown.
It would seem this period where only the clever can acknowledge The Lone Ranger may soon be coming to a close, as plain "Lone Ranger", a gelding who won 5 times and $75,000, last started in 2006. His name still appears in the Jockey Club list of names, but I would think it would be becoming available in 2012.
Now that I think of it, it's not clear to me that the five-year inactivity period guarantees that a horse will not start again. I know I've seen three-year layoffs, and maybe even four-year. Horses are coming back off longer and longer layoffs.
I'm sure if a horse hasn't run for years but records a workout, however, that the calendar starts anew. A racing layoff of multiple years usually involves failed comebacks and new injuries. For a horse not even to progress to working in a five-year stretch, but then to return successfully to the races, makes the prospect even more implausible.
Perhaps there is a rule that horses aren't allowed to return after more than five years' absence? If so, then The Jockey's Club's five-year moratorium makes sense. Obviously, safety and humane concerns should drive inactivity bans, though, not existing Jockey Club policy. But it makes sense for the two to be aligned.
If a comeback were attempted for a horse that had been off for more than five years, and the horse's name had been given away, I wonder if the horse would have to be renamed? Or if the Jockey Club would just live with the two horses with the same name? We see this all the time with foreign-bred horses running in the U.S. Two horses with the same name wouldn't present a practical problem, but it would be messy and out of place. We trust The Jockey Club not to let it happen.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Can you blame anyone for thinking pedigree is BS?
Believe it or not, I am new to TVG. I'm something of a dinosaur generally. I'm not sure if I lived in places where I couldn't get it or I just didn't, but in any event, I'm finally experiencing racing the way many of you have for the last however many years.
Today the announcers (I believe two were Simon Bray and ex-major league catcher Paul Lo Duca) told us that Keeneland allowance starter Garnet Crystals, being by Lion Heart out of a Silver Ghost mare, had the pedigree to transition to turf. Or, to be more accurate, the announcers made noises that sounded like they were eating a really tasty sandwich, but I think I got the right idea.
I'm holding out hope against hope that they had some basis for this statement, were thinking of something definite in their minds. But I have my doubts. Lion Heart never ran on the turf. Neither did his sire, Tale of the Cat. I don't think Silver Ghost ran on turf. I don't think Silver Ghost's sire, Mr. Prospector did. About the most I can say is that Silver Ghost's broodmare sire was Halo (although this Halo dam, Misty Gallore fared extremely well in dirt races).
Now it's certainly possible that, despite not running on turf, some of these ifluences have proven good on turf through the years. I don't know what goes into Tomlinson ratings, but this possibility didn't show up there: Garnet Crystal's turf rating was 8th of 11 in the field. Lion Heart sired Breeders' Cup Turf winner Dangerous Midge, but Dangerous Midge was out of a turf mare. Lion Heart's list of top horses features a preponderance of dirt horses.
I'm sure my categorization of sires as dirt and turf is less than perfect, and not just because I am less than perfect, but because I don't work hard enough at it. My initial categorization based on the horse's race record probably persists in the face of evidence sometimes. I don't have a rule that it takes this percentage of turf stakes horses or that percentage of turf stakes horses to change my mind. I am sincerely curious to know how other people make their assessments.
But I am hoping they actually make assessments, rather than just chattering because it sounds good to say a horse is bred for the turf. I hope they are not chattering to create a mood, the same way Tom Durkin will proclaim sizzling fractions when nothing of the kind has been established. The more empty statements are made, the more confused fans new to pedigree assessment could be. I can't blame them for tuning out the pedigree aspect.
One way of telling whether a commentator is actually analyzing the pedigree or just adding to the hubbub is if he always says a first-time turf starter is bred for it. I do think the declared ratio of turf-bred horses to dirt-bred horses in first-time turf appearances is much higher than it could possibly be.
Garnet Crystals wasn't bad, by the way: 5th as the 9th choice (26-1) in the race. Just think what price she would have been if she didn't have that turf pedigree!
Today the announcers (I believe two were Simon Bray and ex-major league catcher Paul Lo Duca) told us that Keeneland allowance starter Garnet Crystals, being by Lion Heart out of a Silver Ghost mare, had the pedigree to transition to turf. Or, to be more accurate, the announcers made noises that sounded like they were eating a really tasty sandwich, but I think I got the right idea.
I'm holding out hope against hope that they had some basis for this statement, were thinking of something definite in their minds. But I have my doubts. Lion Heart never ran on the turf. Neither did his sire, Tale of the Cat. I don't think Silver Ghost ran on turf. I don't think Silver Ghost's sire, Mr. Prospector did. About the most I can say is that Silver Ghost's broodmare sire was Halo (although this Halo dam, Misty Gallore fared extremely well in dirt races).
Now it's certainly possible that, despite not running on turf, some of these ifluences have proven good on turf through the years. I don't know what goes into Tomlinson ratings, but this possibility didn't show up there: Garnet Crystal's turf rating was 8th of 11 in the field. Lion Heart sired Breeders' Cup Turf winner Dangerous Midge, but Dangerous Midge was out of a turf mare. Lion Heart's list of top horses features a preponderance of dirt horses.
I'm sure my categorization of sires as dirt and turf is less than perfect, and not just because I am less than perfect, but because I don't work hard enough at it. My initial categorization based on the horse's race record probably persists in the face of evidence sometimes. I don't have a rule that it takes this percentage of turf stakes horses or that percentage of turf stakes horses to change my mind. I am sincerely curious to know how other people make their assessments.
But I am hoping they actually make assessments, rather than just chattering because it sounds good to say a horse is bred for the turf. I hope they are not chattering to create a mood, the same way Tom Durkin will proclaim sizzling fractions when nothing of the kind has been established. The more empty statements are made, the more confused fans new to pedigree assessment could be. I can't blame them for tuning out the pedigree aspect.
One way of telling whether a commentator is actually analyzing the pedigree or just adding to the hubbub is if he always says a first-time turf starter is bred for it. I do think the declared ratio of turf-bred horses to dirt-bred horses in first-time turf appearances is much higher than it could possibly be.
Garnet Crystals wasn't bad, by the way: 5th as the 9th choice (26-1) in the race. Just think what price she would have been if she didn't have that turf pedigree!
Will Straight Story be humbled by "now" horse?
Although a New York-bred, I think of Straight Story as having honorary membership among Kentucky breds as well. You know, he can hang out with them and they don't look down on him. First, he's by Giant's Causeway out of Take Charge Lady's half sister Eventail. As a lightly raced 3-year-old, he was 2nd beaten a head in the $500,000 Colonial Turf Cup, the $750,000 Virginia Derby, and the $300,000 Jamaica. What a succession of tough beats. Those were his biggest moments, but he's been far from inept since: he won the grade III Fort Marcy at Belmont on Derby Day this year.
One week later, Compliance Officer was 4th by 6 1/2 in a New York-bred, non-winners-of-two-other-than/$25,000 claimer. Bruce Brown claimed him that day, and he's 4 for 4 since, including wins in the West Point and Ashley T. Cole, a race in which Straight Story was 7th.
Today Compliance Officer is 8/5 on the morning line in the Mohawk Stakes, and Straight Story is 6/1. Who would have thought it five months ago? In any event, one of the horses seems in for a cold dose of reality, whether the Mohawk confirms how far Straight Story has fallen, or Compliance Officer comes back to earth.
One week later, Compliance Officer was 4th by 6 1/2 in a New York-bred, non-winners-of-two-other-than/$25,000 claimer. Bruce Brown claimed him that day, and he's 4 for 4 since, including wins in the West Point and Ashley T. Cole, a race in which Straight Story was 7th.
Today Compliance Officer is 8/5 on the morning line in the Mohawk Stakes, and Straight Story is 6/1. Who would have thought it five months ago? In any event, one of the horses seems in for a cold dose of reality, whether the Mohawk confirms how far Straight Story has fallen, or Compliance Officer comes back to earth.
NY Showcase Day duplications
You have to appreciate Flying Zee Stable starting (or at least entering) four 2-year-olds in the Bertram F. Bongard. They're all winners, so the substantial presence is earned.
In the turfy Ticonderoga, 3/4 sisters Risk a Chance and Mineralogist start right next to each other. Risk a Chance is 3 years old and Mineralogist is 4. Both are homebreds owned by the Bromans and trained by Kimmel. They are 15-1 on the morning line as an entry, and neither has established herself as a turf specialist. In fact, Risk a Chance hadn't run on turf until September 29, when she was 4th in an allowance. Kimmel tried to get Mineralogist on the turf September 25, but the John Hettinger was moved to the turf. Both fillies seem like they could handle 7f adequately, so it's interesting they're not in the Iroquois earlier on the program. They could get in that race; it only has nine entrants. A strong faith in pedigrees might make you think that both fillies will move up on turf, or both will not. But it is perfectly possible that one of the fillies will like the turf and the other will not. This would be true even if the fillies were full sisters and not 3/4 sisters. But clearly Kimmel and the Bromans think of the fillies together to some extent, or they would not be trying the same gambit with both.
In the turfy Ticonderoga, 3/4 sisters Risk a Chance and Mineralogist start right next to each other. Risk a Chance is 3 years old and Mineralogist is 4. Both are homebreds owned by the Bromans and trained by Kimmel. They are 15-1 on the morning line as an entry, and neither has established herself as a turf specialist. In fact, Risk a Chance hadn't run on turf until September 29, when she was 4th in an allowance. Kimmel tried to get Mineralogist on the turf September 25, but the John Hettinger was moved to the turf. Both fillies seem like they could handle 7f adequately, so it's interesting they're not in the Iroquois earlier on the program. They could get in that race; it only has nine entrants. A strong faith in pedigrees might make you think that both fillies will move up on turf, or both will not. But it is perfectly possible that one of the fillies will like the turf and the other will not. This would be true even if the fillies were full sisters and not 3/4 sisters. But clearly Kimmel and the Bromans think of the fillies together to some extent, or they would not be trying the same gambit with both.
No respect for Cute Cadet
The morning-line odds in New York are very aggressive, by which I mean that the oddsmaker doesn't mind putting longshots at higher odds than they go off, and favorites at shorter odds. He isn't trying to avoid hurting people's feelings, he's actually trying to get the odds right, and that means errors high and low for high and low odds horses. When I said he isn't trying to hurt people's feelings, I of course meant the connections of the horses, but strong opinions can resonate further. I, for instance, am right now bordering on indignant that a 2-year-old filly named Cute Cadet in the New York-bred only Joseph A. Gimma Saturday is listed at 50-1 on the morning line.
Even in New York, if we were to take all of the 50-l morning-line shots on the year, this would have to be one of the more plausible entrants. For she ran 4th by 2 1/4 last out -- and well may be taking a class drop! That result came in the $150,000, open Presque Isle Debutante. It was a 12-horse field, so 4th place was very respectable. She came from 10th place and adds blinkers today. The Gimma is a $100,000, state-bred race.
While the PID Debutante was on synthetic, Cute Cadet didn't run well in her other start on synthetic, and broke her maiden on dirt, so synthetic wouldn't seem to have been the driving force. She's also by Officer out of a Future Storm mare, with Carson City the sire of her second dam. Why can't she run on dirt?
I think what may have happened is that the oddsmaker looked at Presque Isle Downs and curled up his nose without thinking of the actual nature of the last spot. Additionally, the oddsmaker seems to go heavily on connections. Cute Cadet's trainer has only made 36 starts this year. For the 5th time in five starts, her jockey is Joel Sone. He's ridden her at Belmont, Finger Lakes, and Presque Isle. That's not wholly a bad sign.
Using speed and not class, I'm not sure what odds Cute Cadet deserves to be. None of her Beyers exceeded 35 before her last of 60. No horse in the race has a better last-out Beyer than 69, however. It's somewhat fluky that the last-race Beyers are so tightly condensed in a 2-year-old stake. Nine of the eleven fillies ran from 60-69 last out. It should make for the good proverbial betting race.
Even in New York, if we were to take all of the 50-l morning-line shots on the year, this would have to be one of the more plausible entrants. For she ran 4th by 2 1/4 last out -- and well may be taking a class drop! That result came in the $150,000, open Presque Isle Debutante. It was a 12-horse field, so 4th place was very respectable. She came from 10th place and adds blinkers today. The Gimma is a $100,000, state-bred race.
While the PID Debutante was on synthetic, Cute Cadet didn't run well in her other start on synthetic, and broke her maiden on dirt, so synthetic wouldn't seem to have been the driving force. She's also by Officer out of a Future Storm mare, with Carson City the sire of her second dam. Why can't she run on dirt?
I think what may have happened is that the oddsmaker looked at Presque Isle Downs and curled up his nose without thinking of the actual nature of the last spot. Additionally, the oddsmaker seems to go heavily on connections. Cute Cadet's trainer has only made 36 starts this year. For the 5th time in five starts, her jockey is Joel Sone. He's ridden her at Belmont, Finger Lakes, and Presque Isle. That's not wholly a bad sign.
Using speed and not class, I'm not sure what odds Cute Cadet deserves to be. None of her Beyers exceeded 35 before her last of 60. No horse in the race has a better last-out Beyer than 69, however. It's somewhat fluky that the last-race Beyers are so tightly condensed in a 2-year-old stake. Nine of the eleven fillies ran from 60-69 last out. It should make for the good proverbial betting race.
Friday, October 21, 2011
The occasional pedigreequery error (0 for 55, not 0 for 5) keeping life interesting
The 1st at Santa Anita Saturday is a $75,000 2-year-old maiden claimer at 6f, and I did some digging on the morning-line favorite, Shy Humor. He's a first-time starter, and a 45 2/5 bullet work at Santa Anita seems to have gotten him the projected favoritism. Even though Santa Anita is a fast strip, and $75,000 is a high tag, when I see a horse exposed with a 45 2/5 work, I wonder if he's right physically.
Shy Humor also has the redeeming characteristic of being a New York-bred. I don't think NYRA runs $75,000 state-bred maiden claimers (they save that for Monmouth), but I have to think this gelding would be in the straight maidens, and for a good deal more purse opportunity than the $30,000 he runs for Saturday.
He sold rather well as a 2-year-old in training, $58,000, and with a work that wasn't blazing. You generally wouldn't put $58,000 together with Sharp Humor and 10 3/5 and think of an unsound horse.
The dam, Black Barcardi, couldn't run much, running 42 times but earning less than $1,000 a start while running at a long series of tracks housing some of the slower horses in the sport. As a producer, she has likewise been ordinary, although 86 starts and counting for her Barco might allay some concerns on the soundness front. Another foal, Unwavering Spirit, was listed as 0 for 55 with no in-the-money finishes on pedigreequery.com. If true, that would have bolstered the soundness pattern, but raised alarms on the talent front. It turns, out, though, that Unwavering Spirit was just 0 for 5, not 0 for 55, and never in the money. I'm disappointed. Black Bacardi is out of a very good producer, Conquistress, who had Derby 2nd Invisible Ink, and is the 2nd dam of such as Dyna's Lassie.
As far as evaluating this colt, it's important to determine just how fast this 45 2/5 work really was. I'd have to review recent afternoon and morning times at Santa Anita (I know they're fast, but I'mnot sure how fast). Behind the 45 2/5, Shy Humor's next fastest works are two 1:00s for 5f and one 1:00 1/5.
If there weren't a flashy work in tow, a $75,000 maiden claimer would be an absolutely textbook spot for a $58,000 2-year-old purchase. I've seen enough horses with this profile that the work convinces me that he can run some, but doesn't convince me that the connections (including trainer Vann Belvoir) have him placed wrong. Even if he wins and he's brilliant, I'm holding out for the unsoundness theory rather than that they just dared other stables to take him. By the way, I do like what I've seen from Sharp Humor.
Shy Humor also has the redeeming characteristic of being a New York-bred. I don't think NYRA runs $75,000 state-bred maiden claimers (they save that for Monmouth), but I have to think this gelding would be in the straight maidens, and for a good deal more purse opportunity than the $30,000 he runs for Saturday.
He sold rather well as a 2-year-old in training, $58,000, and with a work that wasn't blazing. You generally wouldn't put $58,000 together with Sharp Humor and 10 3/5 and think of an unsound horse.
The dam, Black Barcardi, couldn't run much, running 42 times but earning less than $1,000 a start while running at a long series of tracks housing some of the slower horses in the sport. As a producer, she has likewise been ordinary, although 86 starts and counting for her Barco might allay some concerns on the soundness front. Another foal, Unwavering Spirit, was listed as 0 for 55 with no in-the-money finishes on pedigreequery.com. If true, that would have bolstered the soundness pattern, but raised alarms on the talent front. It turns, out, though, that Unwavering Spirit was just 0 for 5, not 0 for 55, and never in the money. I'm disappointed. Black Bacardi is out of a very good producer, Conquistress, who had Derby 2nd Invisible Ink, and is the 2nd dam of such as Dyna's Lassie.
As far as evaluating this colt, it's important to determine just how fast this 45 2/5 work really was. I'd have to review recent afternoon and morning times at Santa Anita (I know they're fast, but I'mnot sure how fast). Behind the 45 2/5, Shy Humor's next fastest works are two 1:00s for 5f and one 1:00 1/5.
If there weren't a flashy work in tow, a $75,000 maiden claimer would be an absolutely textbook spot for a $58,000 2-year-old purchase. I've seen enough horses with this profile that the work convinces me that he can run some, but doesn't convince me that the connections (including trainer Vann Belvoir) have him placed wrong. Even if he wins and he's brilliant, I'm holding out for the unsoundness theory rather than that they just dared other stables to take him. By the way, I do like what I've seen from Sharp Humor.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Hammers Terror was hammered
At first glance, there doesn't seem to be anything extraordinary about Hammers Terror's 2/5 favoritism in a Keeneland maiden today (which he only won by a half length, but with 6 1/2 lengths over 3rd in a track-record, decent-figure performance). However, I have a huge and far-reaching study of odds in the hopper, and I can tell you of 710 races with 12 betting interests over 2007-2008, the lowest-priced favorite was only 1-2. So I exulted when I saw the odds in this chart, and rushed to see if it was indeed unprecedented in my study, as I remembered it to be. It would have really been something if Hammers Terror were a first-time starter, but the support was more reason-based than that: he had been 2nd by a nose first out behind subsequent stakes winner Luke of York. At 79, his Beyer was certainly not otherworldy, though. The second choice in today's race was Colonel John's brother Bill of Rights, who had been 3rd first out at Woodbine. You had to fear him some; it's not like there was nothing else in this race. Hammers Terror actually was bet remarkably well in that debut, too, starting at 17-10 in another 12-horse field. Despite the close call, I liked his race today and think he has a good future ahead of him. The bigger lesson is simply that we (or at least I) tend not to make sufficient mental adjustments for field size when looking at odds. Twelve horses and six horses are completely different ballgames.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Ghostzapper
Sometimes my impressions of stallions are so strong that I feel like I have a handle on them and don't need to examine their numbers. My working idea of Ghostzapper as the epitome of the awful sire, as the ultimate disappointment, has run into a number of counterexamples on the track lately. Each time I encountered one of these, I found myself saying, "I guess this one is an exception, at least to a degree." I'd thought that enough times that it was time to examine the whole belief.
You probably know what can be said against Ghostzapper. He has 7.4% stakes winners from starters. Even for a stallion who received exquisite mares, this isn't historically bad, certainly not for the low rates we see in this era, and not for a third-crop stallion. But we'd be quibbling over the adverb; 7.4% is weak.
Stately Victor won the grade I Blue Grass, but hasn't shown himself of that caliber generally, certainly not outside of synthetic races. Ghostzapper's only other graded winner is recent Kentucky Cup Sprint winner Matthewsburg (Judy the Beauty did come close in the grade I Spinaway). So not only is Ghostzapper's percentage of stakes winners low, but he hasn't been awash in those really good horses that should come with the commensurate mares.
Now for the surprising virtues that I found. First, Ghostzapper's earnings this year place him #37 on the Blood-Horse's list, behind only Kitten's Joy among third-crop sires. There's a positive flip side to not having a big horse. No Ghostzapper has earned more than $195,897 this year, so Ghostzapper's ranking isn't driven by outliers. It's also important to emphasize how much of a disadvantage being just a third-crop sire is on the general earnings list. Of the top 150 sires by earnings, Ghostzapper ranks in a tie for 96th by number of starters. If earnings were just a redux of starters, we would expect Ghostzapper to rank 96th, but he ranks a lot higher than that. And #37 overall is nothing to dismiss, if the stallion can do it year after year. I would guess that ranking 37th annually might place a stallion somewhere from 15th to 25th cumulatively over a period of five years. Note there are very good stallions way behind #37 this year: Pulpit is 59th, with 32% more starters than Ghostzapper has; A.P. Indy is 75th, with just five fewer starters than Ghostzapper; Smoke Glacken is 93rd, with more starters than Ghostzapper.
For my favorite wins/starts, Ghostzapper over his career is exceptionally high at 21.3%. I didn't check every other stallion in the course of this research, but I didn't run across any better marks. I can tell you that in the top 150 sires by earnings, no stallion has a higher percentage of winners from 2011 starters than Ghostzapper's two-thirds. Behind him are Smarty Jones (62.1%), Saint Liam (61.8%), Flatter (61.3%), Peace Rules (61.1%), and Graeme Hall (60.2%). I have never been a big fan of winners from starters because to me merely winning at some point for some level is not much of an achievement. The rates are very high, meaning that the statistic tells you more about the proportion of really bad horses than really good horses. But to be #1 on any statistic -- would you have thought that of Ghostzapper? Smarty Jones ranking #2 throws the whole statistic into question, but really as a whole, the other five stallions as a whole are good sires, certainly of a type (which could be said to be a type beneath the most protected and pampered horses in the sport). Note, too, that Ghostzapper might well be #1 in another statistic, wins/starts, which does not have the indefinite period of time issue that winners from starters has. (Yearly winners/starters, actually, has some pluses and minuses as a good stat compared to plain winners/starters. The plus is that there is a time limit, as horses can only run so many times in a year. From that standpoint, it makes some sense that a high wins/starts goes with a high percentage of winners from starters in a year. The negative for winners/starters over just a one-year period is that soundness comes into the equation less, which is one thing some people really like about basic winners/starters).
To further the picture of an otherwise good stallion who is only bit by the lack of big horses, Ghostzapper's median earnings per starter of $33,846 is excellent. I don't have a ranking for you there, but it's better than many, many well-regarded stallions, often by a large margin, and worse than very few stallions. Ghostzapper's $53,566 average earnings per starter is more open to interpretation: it's not embarrassingly bad for a stallion with a $20,000 stud fee, but it's certainly not good. Certainly not for a stallion who received the opportunity that Ghostzapper did, a fact we should never lose sight of.
I was intrigued by the combination, the very high median earnings per starter, and the average-ish average earnings per starter. Is it the most extreme ratio of its type? Using the Blood-Horse advertised stallions in the top 150 by earnings, which I would guess would include a good 115, it's the third most extreme, behind Dance With Ravens (1.37 average earnings to median earnings ratio) and Closing Argument (1.57). (Ghostzapper's ratio is 1.58.) An advertised "big-horse stallion" like Tiznow has a ratio over 4 (80k average, 20k median).
I don't really see the ratio as ideally being on one end or the other. The ideal is high in both. A.P. Indy, with a 135k average and a 47k median, is a good model. Any ratio under 2 is low, and there are fine if not elite stallions who fit that (Harlan's Holiday, 1.89; Broken Vow, 1.92; Wildcat Heir, 1.77; Successful Appeal, 1.99; Not For Love, 1.85; Yonaguska, 1.85; Petionville, 1.98).
Ghostzapper's opportunity will be vastly reduced in the future, and that may be the dominant fact about his situation. But it seems to me the fundamental question is if he is simply siring cheap horses who aren't as cheap as some other stallions' horses, or if he is is siring horses with ability who haven't quite broken through and inevitably will. Coupling statistics and observation, I think it's the latter. The wins/starts, for one thing, would not be what it is if his horses were mediocre. Enough is also thought of the Ghostzappers that they would probably not be subjected to heavy campaigns in low-class races to prop up the median earnings. Acting as an advisor to my mother this summer, I crossed Ghostzappers off our yearling list. I'm convinced enough by my analysis that I wouldn't do that again.
You probably know what can be said against Ghostzapper. He has 7.4% stakes winners from starters. Even for a stallion who received exquisite mares, this isn't historically bad, certainly not for the low rates we see in this era, and not for a third-crop stallion. But we'd be quibbling over the adverb; 7.4% is weak.
Stately Victor won the grade I Blue Grass, but hasn't shown himself of that caliber generally, certainly not outside of synthetic races. Ghostzapper's only other graded winner is recent Kentucky Cup Sprint winner Matthewsburg (Judy the Beauty did come close in the grade I Spinaway). So not only is Ghostzapper's percentage of stakes winners low, but he hasn't been awash in those really good horses that should come with the commensurate mares.
Now for the surprising virtues that I found. First, Ghostzapper's earnings this year place him #37 on the Blood-Horse's list, behind only Kitten's Joy among third-crop sires. There's a positive flip side to not having a big horse. No Ghostzapper has earned more than $195,897 this year, so Ghostzapper's ranking isn't driven by outliers. It's also important to emphasize how much of a disadvantage being just a third-crop sire is on the general earnings list. Of the top 150 sires by earnings, Ghostzapper ranks in a tie for 96th by number of starters. If earnings were just a redux of starters, we would expect Ghostzapper to rank 96th, but he ranks a lot higher than that. And #37 overall is nothing to dismiss, if the stallion can do it year after year. I would guess that ranking 37th annually might place a stallion somewhere from 15th to 25th cumulatively over a period of five years. Note there are very good stallions way behind #37 this year: Pulpit is 59th, with 32% more starters than Ghostzapper has; A.P. Indy is 75th, with just five fewer starters than Ghostzapper; Smoke Glacken is 93rd, with more starters than Ghostzapper.
For my favorite wins/starts, Ghostzapper over his career is exceptionally high at 21.3%. I didn't check every other stallion in the course of this research, but I didn't run across any better marks. I can tell you that in the top 150 sires by earnings, no stallion has a higher percentage of winners from 2011 starters than Ghostzapper's two-thirds. Behind him are Smarty Jones (62.1%), Saint Liam (61.8%), Flatter (61.3%), Peace Rules (61.1%), and Graeme Hall (60.2%). I have never been a big fan of winners from starters because to me merely winning at some point for some level is not much of an achievement. The rates are very high, meaning that the statistic tells you more about the proportion of really bad horses than really good horses. But to be #1 on any statistic -- would you have thought that of Ghostzapper? Smarty Jones ranking #2 throws the whole statistic into question, but really as a whole, the other five stallions as a whole are good sires, certainly of a type (which could be said to be a type beneath the most protected and pampered horses in the sport). Note, too, that Ghostzapper might well be #1 in another statistic, wins/starts, which does not have the indefinite period of time issue that winners from starters has. (Yearly winners/starters, actually, has some pluses and minuses as a good stat compared to plain winners/starters. The plus is that there is a time limit, as horses can only run so many times in a year. From that standpoint, it makes some sense that a high wins/starts goes with a high percentage of winners from starters in a year. The negative for winners/starters over just a one-year period is that soundness comes into the equation less, which is one thing some people really like about basic winners/starters).
To further the picture of an otherwise good stallion who is only bit by the lack of big horses, Ghostzapper's median earnings per starter of $33,846 is excellent. I don't have a ranking for you there, but it's better than many, many well-regarded stallions, often by a large margin, and worse than very few stallions. Ghostzapper's $53,566 average earnings per starter is more open to interpretation: it's not embarrassingly bad for a stallion with a $20,000 stud fee, but it's certainly not good. Certainly not for a stallion who received the opportunity that Ghostzapper did, a fact we should never lose sight of.
I was intrigued by the combination, the very high median earnings per starter, and the average-ish average earnings per starter. Is it the most extreme ratio of its type? Using the Blood-Horse advertised stallions in the top 150 by earnings, which I would guess would include a good 115, it's the third most extreme, behind Dance With Ravens (1.37 average earnings to median earnings ratio) and Closing Argument (1.57). (Ghostzapper's ratio is 1.58.) An advertised "big-horse stallion" like Tiznow has a ratio over 4 (80k average, 20k median).
I don't really see the ratio as ideally being on one end or the other. The ideal is high in both. A.P. Indy, with a 135k average and a 47k median, is a good model. Any ratio under 2 is low, and there are fine if not elite stallions who fit that (Harlan's Holiday, 1.89; Broken Vow, 1.92; Wildcat Heir, 1.77; Successful Appeal, 1.99; Not For Love, 1.85; Yonaguska, 1.85; Petionville, 1.98).
Ghostzapper's opportunity will be vastly reduced in the future, and that may be the dominant fact about his situation. But it seems to me the fundamental question is if he is simply siring cheap horses who aren't as cheap as some other stallions' horses, or if he is is siring horses with ability who haven't quite broken through and inevitably will. Coupling statistics and observation, I think it's the latter. The wins/starts, for one thing, would not be what it is if his horses were mediocre. Enough is also thought of the Ghostzappers that they would probably not be subjected to heavy campaigns in low-class races to prop up the median earnings. Acting as an advisor to my mother this summer, I crossed Ghostzappers off our yearling list. I'm convinced enough by my analysis that I wouldn't do that again.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Crossing The Line -- won a graded stake then never got back there
Crossing The Line, 2nd in a 22.5k claimer at Santa Anita yesterday, is like I'm Steppin' It Up, except the hiatus from good races now encompasses nine starts. There can't be many horses like this. After a winning effort in the Del Mar Mile in 2007, the ESPN telecast was buzzing about the Breeders' Cup. But Crossing The Line didn't run again until December of 2009. As you would expect, that wasn't in a stakes race; it was in a $32,000 claimer.
Crossing The Line won three times in 2010, all in consecutive starts, and all in mid-price claiming races. It's doubtful he would have ever found his way back to graded stakes if he had stayed in racing condition, although you never know.
But after just missing a fourth consecutive victory (he was 3rd by a head), the gelding was AWOL for another 15 months, concluding with a September 18 allowance/optional claimer race at Golden Gate. Yesterday was his second start back. So, at least in America, (he's a New Zealand-bred), Crossing The Line has run once in a stake, and he won. Most horses with that record are of the Eastern Echo variety, who get hurt afterwards and don't get to race again. Crossing The Line presumably got hurt but did get to race again (after all, he's a gelding, while Eastern Echo had stud duty waiting).
Crossing The Line reminds me of the baseball player who ends his career with a 1.000 batting average. I was listening to a game recently, and the announcer said one of the coaches had had this record of perfection when he was a player. I think he had more than one at-bat, too, with the 1.000 batting average.
Crossing The Line's outstanding record in the races he has been running in speaks well of John Sadler's/Doubledown Stable's decision not to run him in tougher races. His record also makes him a very appealing horse. He's nine years old, and with a 15-8-3-1 ledger (that's starts/wins/seconds/thirds).
It's kind of funny, though as fans or bettors or what have you, that we come to like these horses, while a horse aggressively spotted might show the same consistency but not be lauded for it. Getting beat five lengths every time doesn't make anyone wax poetic. Probably one of many examples of how we anthropomorphize race horses, thinking that digging deep every time only is notable if the horse is going for first
I'm Steppin' It Up won his race yesterday, going off as the third choice, as the track handicapper said he would. I certainly wasn't selecting him; handicapping isn't my focus. It just seemed like the polite or the complete thing to do to mention it. I didn't want to be remiss, you know, although I suppose the omissions really only reflect poorly on you when their airing might reflect poorly on you, at least in the eyes of people who think an errant prediction shows poor reasoning.
Crossing The Line won three times in 2010, all in consecutive starts, and all in mid-price claiming races. It's doubtful he would have ever found his way back to graded stakes if he had stayed in racing condition, although you never know.
But after just missing a fourth consecutive victory (he was 3rd by a head), the gelding was AWOL for another 15 months, concluding with a September 18 allowance/optional claimer race at Golden Gate. Yesterday was his second start back. So, at least in America, (he's a New Zealand-bred), Crossing The Line has run once in a stake, and he won. Most horses with that record are of the Eastern Echo variety, who get hurt afterwards and don't get to race again. Crossing The Line presumably got hurt but did get to race again (after all, he's a gelding, while Eastern Echo had stud duty waiting).
Crossing The Line reminds me of the baseball player who ends his career with a 1.000 batting average. I was listening to a game recently, and the announcer said one of the coaches had had this record of perfection when he was a player. I think he had more than one at-bat, too, with the 1.000 batting average.
Crossing The Line's outstanding record in the races he has been running in speaks well of John Sadler's/Doubledown Stable's decision not to run him in tougher races. His record also makes him a very appealing horse. He's nine years old, and with a 15-8-3-1 ledger (that's starts/wins/seconds/thirds).
It's kind of funny, though as fans or bettors or what have you, that we come to like these horses, while a horse aggressively spotted might show the same consistency but not be lauded for it. Getting beat five lengths every time doesn't make anyone wax poetic. Probably one of many examples of how we anthropomorphize race horses, thinking that digging deep every time only is notable if the horse is going for first
I'm Steppin' It Up won his race yesterday, going off as the third choice, as the track handicapper said he would. I certainly wasn't selecting him; handicapping isn't my focus. It just seemed like the polite or the complete thing to do to mention it. I didn't want to be remiss, you know, although I suppose the omissions really only reflect poorly on you when their airing might reflect poorly on you, at least in the eyes of people who think an errant prediction shows poor reasoning.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
I'm Steppin' It Up bowing to the condition book
If you're managing a horse's career, there's an unwritten but standard procedure for taking the previous results and finding the horse's next start. Specifically, if your horse won its last start, you run it at the same class level or higher next time (presuming the last start was recent). Like all rules and expectations, this one can be constraining, though. You don't want a previous win to be an albatross; a horse's ascending performance opens up the possibility of competing in better races, but it shouldn't consign the horse to those spots. So I like it when I see owners and trainers who flout the standard move.
I'm Steppin' It Up's presence in race 5, a $60,000 overnight stake at Belmont, is such an example. While the race was rained off the turf, he won the $265,000 Kent Stakes last out, and before that he was 3rd in the $300,000 Smarty Jones. Certainly, another rich but accessible race would be ideal, but one presumably isn't available. So I'm Steppin' It Up runs for $60,000, rather than staying on the sidelines. The morning line has him trailing Turbo Compressor and Bold Warrior, so who knows if running him in this race is the percentage move. But I see evidence of the connections thinking, and I like that.
A clarification. Winning a stake race is almost unambiguously good and expands the possibilities for the horse. I should hasten to add that this certainly isn't true for horses who win conditional races. Then the horses move up next time out of necessity. Even with stakes winners, if the horse is early in its career or was a squirrel finding an acorn in the victory, conditions which could be of value go by the boards with the win. And the horse will pay a price later for the win in terms of weight, whether it runs under allowance conditions, or handicap.
I'm Steppin' It Up's presence in race 5, a $60,000 overnight stake at Belmont, is such an example. While the race was rained off the turf, he won the $265,000 Kent Stakes last out, and before that he was 3rd in the $300,000 Smarty Jones. Certainly, another rich but accessible race would be ideal, but one presumably isn't available. So I'm Steppin' It Up runs for $60,000, rather than staying on the sidelines. The morning line has him trailing Turbo Compressor and Bold Warrior, so who knows if running him in this race is the percentage move. But I see evidence of the connections thinking, and I like that.
A clarification. Winning a stake race is almost unambiguously good and expands the possibilities for the horse. I should hasten to add that this certainly isn't true for horses who win conditional races. Then the horses move up next time out of necessity. Even with stakes winners, if the horse is early in its career or was a squirrel finding an acorn in the victory, conditions which could be of value go by the boards with the win. And the horse will pay a price later for the win in terms of weight, whether it runs under allowance conditions, or handicap.
Keeneland workout times requires mental makeover
I know Keeneland's been extremely fast, with low-level allowances that generate ordinary speed figures seemingly threatening track records in every race. But seeing that today's first-time starter Coup (2-year-old filly in race 10) worked 59 4/5 last Sunday, and this only ranked 18th of 33 works on the tab, brings home the point.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Jay Em Ess + War Front = 32-1???
I spent some time today on Keeneland's two 2-year-old maiden special weights contested yesterday. Scatman won the first division in 1:09.19; Full won the second in 1:09.45. If we had had a special day of all 2-year-old races, as they do at Churchill, I don't think either race would have ranked in the top half of the day's races, time wise. The connections of Scatman might go home happy that they won the faster division, but the perspective of speed figures would eliminate the false comfort. The mediocre times do not mean Scatman and Full won't be good horses, though; I thought Scatman particularly gave an above-average performance using the eye test.
Scat Daddy, sire of Scatman, has obviously made a splash. Maybe a month or a month-and-a-half ago, I looked up his statistics, and was surprised to find that his offspring were only winning 11% or 12% of their starts. That's basically average; you can interpret winning percentage in terms of corresponding field size. (Twelve percent is an average percentage if the field has 1/.12, or 8.3 starters; 20% is an outstanding percentage, because the average race has easily more than 1/.2, or 5 starters.)
It's not an appealing statistic on the face of it, because it doesn't adjust for class, but total winning percentage does a good job of separating good and bad sires. Just run it on a bunch of sires and see. What it tells you more specifically is how quick or fast a sire's offspring generally are. There are some sires who get important horses, usually important distance horses, who don't have an impressive winning percentage. But producing fast horses is an important part of a stallion's evaluation, and wins/starts is very informative in this regard (the number is part of the free equineline.com reports available from the on-line Blood-Horse Stallion Register and other places).
So, because of his average wins/starts start, I had a closet theory that maybe Scat Daddy was a creation of his large number of runners, which are tops among first-crop sires. (See that list <a href="http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/thoroughbred-breeding/sire-lists/first-crop">here</a>). But through 10/10, not even including Scatman's win, Scat Daddy's winning percentage had rebounded to 19%. It appears this isn't a weakness of his, or a leading indicator of eventual anonymity. His wins/starts have caught up to the rest of his record.
Incidentally, I'm surprised the number has changed so much in a relatively short period of time. Have the Scat Daddys been winning at a torrid 30% or so since I last checked, or have Scat Daddy's numbers of starts increased quickly as he's had returning runners added to first-time starters?
The race behind Scatman was crazy bunched, with 2nd and 10th only separated by 3 1/4 lengths. Running 7th by 5 1/4 was Bold Front.
Scat Daddy will have to go a ways to overtake second-crop sire War Front in my eyes, War Front being the sire of Bold Front. War Front could be one of the sires we are talking about in 10 years.
The best owners of young horses in my mind are Jay Em Ess Stable. Their horses do well in absolute terms, and for the money paid, they are even better. They have talented, exciting horses. Couple War Front with Jay Em Ess....and a handicapper has to have a lot of confidence in such a 2-year-old, doesn't he? Bold Front also sold well, at $145,000 last September. Yet, making his debut, Bold Front was the longest shot in his race, an ice-cold 32-1.
I saw enough in his race to think he is going to live up to his stallion and owner. The chart says he "broke slowly." Now, there are countless degrees of this mishap, so one really needs to watch races and draw personal conclusions. The slow start in thus was not negligible. I also saw a horse finishing willingly. Bold Front's price will probably improve dramatically as he continues his career, and I think his finish position will as well.
It's frustrating to me, because I feel like I reliably pick out first-time starters from their profiles who are going to be much better than their starting odds would indicate. But the bettors do tend to know who is a threat on that day. Horses with strong pedigrees often run to their lackluster odds first time out, or at least don't run well enough to figure into the payouts, but continue on to be good horses.
Still, it's hard for me to believe the bettors are as smart as this pattern would suggest. It's hard for me to believe they wouldn't give a second look to a horse if they knew it was going to win a stake. I understand that certain stables aim for winning first out, but is first-out evaluation so exact that bettors can be extremely sure a good horse isn't going to win first out? It might just take a few Bold Fronts for the superior insight (if I do flatter myself) to pay mutuel dividends
Doing about as Bold Front did, that is to say running mid-pack in a bunched affair, was Fifty Five South in division two (to be precise, he was 5th by 3). This horse's pedigree caught my eye because he is a half to The Factor. His dam also was a half to the very fast Chief Seattle, who placed in the Breeders' Cup Juvenile, and got a shot at stud. Fifty Five South was only a $2,000 weanling, selling a couple of years ago, obviously before The Factor had made any noise. This was only so much of an oversight, as Fifty Five South is by Cuvee, and now gelded. But the good female families do hold up, and produce runners to one degree or another. Chief Seattle was also an inexpensive Seattle Slew, if I remember correctly, although again, I can't really term a $2,000 Cuvee weanling as inexpensive, or as underselling.
Scat Daddy, sire of Scatman, has obviously made a splash. Maybe a month or a month-and-a-half ago, I looked up his statistics, and was surprised to find that his offspring were only winning 11% or 12% of their starts. That's basically average; you can interpret winning percentage in terms of corresponding field size. (Twelve percent is an average percentage if the field has 1/.12, or 8.3 starters; 20% is an outstanding percentage, because the average race has easily more than 1/.2, or 5 starters.)
It's not an appealing statistic on the face of it, because it doesn't adjust for class, but total winning percentage does a good job of separating good and bad sires. Just run it on a bunch of sires and see. What it tells you more specifically is how quick or fast a sire's offspring generally are. There are some sires who get important horses, usually important distance horses, who don't have an impressive winning percentage. But producing fast horses is an important part of a stallion's evaluation, and wins/starts is very informative in this regard (the number is part of the free equineline.com reports available from the on-line Blood-Horse Stallion Register and other places).
So, because of his average wins/starts start, I had a closet theory that maybe Scat Daddy was a creation of his large number of runners, which are tops among first-crop sires. (See that list <a href="http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/thoroughbred-breeding/sire-lists/first-crop">here</a>). But through 10/10, not even including Scatman's win, Scat Daddy's winning percentage had rebounded to 19%. It appears this isn't a weakness of his, or a leading indicator of eventual anonymity. His wins/starts have caught up to the rest of his record.
Incidentally, I'm surprised the number has changed so much in a relatively short period of time. Have the Scat Daddys been winning at a torrid 30% or so since I last checked, or have Scat Daddy's numbers of starts increased quickly as he's had returning runners added to first-time starters?
The race behind Scatman was crazy bunched, with 2nd and 10th only separated by 3 1/4 lengths. Running 7th by 5 1/4 was Bold Front.
Scat Daddy will have to go a ways to overtake second-crop sire War Front in my eyes, War Front being the sire of Bold Front. War Front could be one of the sires we are talking about in 10 years.
The best owners of young horses in my mind are Jay Em Ess Stable. Their horses do well in absolute terms, and for the money paid, they are even better. They have talented, exciting horses. Couple War Front with Jay Em Ess....and a handicapper has to have a lot of confidence in such a 2-year-old, doesn't he? Bold Front also sold well, at $145,000 last September. Yet, making his debut, Bold Front was the longest shot in his race, an ice-cold 32-1.
I saw enough in his race to think he is going to live up to his stallion and owner. The chart says he "broke slowly." Now, there are countless degrees of this mishap, so one really needs to watch races and draw personal conclusions. The slow start in thus was not negligible. I also saw a horse finishing willingly. Bold Front's price will probably improve dramatically as he continues his career, and I think his finish position will as well.
It's frustrating to me, because I feel like I reliably pick out first-time starters from their profiles who are going to be much better than their starting odds would indicate. But the bettors do tend to know who is a threat on that day. Horses with strong pedigrees often run to their lackluster odds first time out, or at least don't run well enough to figure into the payouts, but continue on to be good horses.
Still, it's hard for me to believe the bettors are as smart as this pattern would suggest. It's hard for me to believe they wouldn't give a second look to a horse if they knew it was going to win a stake. I understand that certain stables aim for winning first out, but is first-out evaluation so exact that bettors can be extremely sure a good horse isn't going to win first out? It might just take a few Bold Fronts for the superior insight (if I do flatter myself) to pay mutuel dividends
Doing about as Bold Front did, that is to say running mid-pack in a bunched affair, was Fifty Five South in division two (to be precise, he was 5th by 3). This horse's pedigree caught my eye because he is a half to The Factor. His dam also was a half to the very fast Chief Seattle, who placed in the Breeders' Cup Juvenile, and got a shot at stud. Fifty Five South was only a $2,000 weanling, selling a couple of years ago, obviously before The Factor had made any noise. This was only so much of an oversight, as Fifty Five South is by Cuvee, and now gelded. But the good female families do hold up, and produce runners to one degree or another. Chief Seattle was also an inexpensive Seattle Slew, if I remember correctly, although again, I can't really term a $2,000 Cuvee weanling as inexpensive, or as underselling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)