Stan
Out 65,999 runners in 2011 only 25 earned $1 million or more during the year. Out of those 25 only 4 had a P/NP cross, #4 Animal Kingdom, #5 Perfect Shirl, #20 Acclamation and #22 Musical Romance, only 16% versus 84% for P/P. Looking at individual races or individual championships is fine, but the big picture is much more telling. The same can be said for leading sires.
DDT
Starters in Belmont Stakes
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
16% had the P/NP pattern
DDT
4 of the 25 or 16% of the Million dollar or more earners carried the P/NP cross. Now lets assume that 90% of those 65,999 runners were comprised of the following three groups collectively: P/P, N/N, and N/P pattern. If this was the case then the 4 who earned a million or more have outperformed their opportunities because they comprised 16% of the million dollar earners and only made up 10% of the horses from the general population of starters. If my guess about 90% of all horses today being something other than P/NP is correct then the impact value for the 4 millionaires with the P/NP pattern is 1.60 (16% winners of a million or more divided by 10 percent of starters who carried the P/NP pattern. ( estimated to be around 10%.)
The problem however, is to find out exactly what percent of horses in the general population today carry the P/NP pattern. I looked over the entire race card at Belmont park on May 5th 2012 and found that 13% of the entries on that card carried the P/NP pattern. So even using this data we find the impact value to be 1.23. I realize the above is a small sample and the truth about the entire population of P/NP horses may actually be higher or lower than that 13% figure I discovered about one race card.
Once again, the only way we can tell if that 4 of 25 millionaire or more earners is actually showing us a positive impact value is to find the actual percentage of horses in the general population of runners that carry the P/NP pattern and then compare that to the 16% millionaire earners. Actually we should look at the last 10 years and see what percentage of millionaire earners over the last 10 years carried the P/NP pattern as well.
4 of the 25 or 16% of the Million dollar or more earners carried the P/NP cross. Now lets assume that 90% of those 65,999 runners were comprised of the following three groups collectively: P/P, N/N, and N/P pattern. If this was the case then the 4 who earned a million or more have outperformed their opportunities because they comprised 16% of the million dollar earners and only made up 10% of the horses from the general population of starters. If my guess about 90% of all horses today being something other than P/NP is correct then the impact value for the 4 millionaires with the P/NP pattern is 1.60 (16% winners of a million or more divided by 10 percent of starters who carried the P/NP pattern. ( estimated to be around 10%.)
The problem however, is to find out exactly what percent of horses in the general population today carry the P/NP pattern. I looked over the entire race card at Belmont park on May 5th 2012 and found that 13% of the entries on that card carried the P/NP pattern. So even using this data we find the impact value to be 1.23. I realize the above is a small sample and the truth about the entire population of P/NP horses may actually be higher or lower than that 13% figure I discovered about one race card.
Once again, the only way we can tell if that 4 of 25 millionaire or more earners is actually showing us a positive impact value is to find the actual percentage of horses in the general population of runners that carry the P/NP pattern and then compare that to the 16% millionaire earners. Actually we should look at the last 10 years and see what percentage of millionaire earners over the last 10 years carried the P/NP pattern as well.
Laurierace wrote:OR could it be that it is a rare horse that is equally as successful at a mile and 3/16ths as a mile and a half? Why get your hat handed to you in the Preakness if you have a legit shot in the Belmont?
The Preakness also has tight turns and tends to favor speedier horses that can win from the front. The Belmont has wide sweeping turns and is 5/16 of a mile longer, favoring stamina types. So, yeah, unless a horse is really special, he's probably NOT going to run well in both, so why try if the Triple Crown is NOT on the line?
"you cannot be brilliant if you cannot run" -- bdw0617
top earners
DDT
Here is some more evidence supporting the theory that the P/NP pattern is an advantage for the very best racehorses. In the top 20 earners of all time we start with Curlin who earned more than 10 million and go down to Roses in May who earned 5 million 400,000. Interestingly, 7 of the top 20 earners of all time have the P/NP pattern and that makes up 35% of the top 20 earners of all time. One can certainly be sure that the percent of horses in the general population does not come anywhere near 35% in the time frame that these horses won their status of all-time great earners. So the impact value is strong for the P/NP pattern. Here are the 7 that had the P/NP pattern and were part of the top 20 earners of all time:
Horse------------------------Year he achieved that status
Smarty Jones------------------2004
Silver Charm------------------1999
Ouija Board-------------------2006
Medaglia D'Oro---------------2004
Best Pal-----------------------1996
Roses In May-----------------2005
Taiki Blizzard-----------------1997
Lets even assume that the percent of the general population with P/NP is as high as 20 percent. The impact value for this pedigree pattern would be 1.75 (35% winners divided by 20% of the starters in the general population)
When it comes to the best thoroughbred earners of all time we get the P/NP pattern outperforming their opportunities
Here is some more evidence supporting the theory that the P/NP pattern is an advantage for the very best racehorses. In the top 20 earners of all time we start with Curlin who earned more than 10 million and go down to Roses in May who earned 5 million 400,000. Interestingly, 7 of the top 20 earners of all time have the P/NP pattern and that makes up 35% of the top 20 earners of all time. One can certainly be sure that the percent of horses in the general population does not come anywhere near 35% in the time frame that these horses won their status of all-time great earners. So the impact value is strong for the P/NP pattern. Here are the 7 that had the P/NP pattern and were part of the top 20 earners of all time:
Horse------------------------Year he achieved that status
Smarty Jones------------------2004
Silver Charm------------------1999
Ouija Board-------------------2006
Medaglia D'Oro---------------2004
Best Pal-----------------------1996
Roses In May-----------------2005
Taiki Blizzard-----------------1997
Lets even assume that the percent of the general population with P/NP is as high as 20 percent. The impact value for this pedigree pattern would be 1.75 (35% winners divided by 20% of the starters in the general population)
When it comes to the best thoroughbred earners of all time we get the P/NP pattern outperforming their opportunities
Stan
The P/NP, NP/P and the NP/NP runners make up about 30-35% of runners annually and there are some very good ones, however there are also many more that do not perform well. You can use any handicapping method you want, that is if you limit your plays to the Classics and the Breeders Cup races. You can sample Belmont for a week, and you will see that they win at about the same percentage as their numbers indicate. I really do not care to argue the point with you, especially because you always look at certain races and not racing in general. Of course, you should also look at the mares involved in the superior performers. There are many factors involved not just the sire lines and the broodmare sire lines. And again, the odds that any Phalaris genes survive, except those on the Y chromosome are in the millions, so I really do not think it matters very much in present day breeding.
DDT
The P/NP, NP/P and the NP/NP runners make up about 30-35% of runners annually and there are some very good ones, however there are also many more that do not perform well. You can use any handicapping method you want, that is if you limit your plays to the Classics and the Breeders Cup races. You can sample Belmont for a week, and you will see that they win at about the same percentage as their numbers indicate. I really do not care to argue the point with you, especially because you always look at certain races and not racing in general. Of course, you should also look at the mares involved in the superior performers. There are many factors involved not just the sire lines and the broodmare sire lines. And again, the odds that any Phalaris genes survive, except those on the Y chromosome are in the millions, so I really do not think it matters very much in present day breeding.
DDT
30-35% really
DDT
You have talked around the argument but never gave any evidence that my supporting data is wrong. I gave supporting data as to why the P/NP pattern is an advantage for the very best horses (those in the BC Classic, Horses of the Year and all time Highest Earners. You have talked around that supporting data but never refuted that data.
The P/NP pattern may not be an advantage for horses running in claiming races at your local track but from the evidence I presented that pattern surely looks like an advantage for the very best horses in training, those that compete in the BC Classic, those that become Horses of the Year and those that become the all time greatest earners.
Yes, there are many factors involved in developing a great runner ---looking at the mares involved etc but that is not what is central to the basic argument--Is the P/NP pattern an advantage for the greatest horses, the ones that earn the most money, the ones that win the BC Classic, the horses that become Horse of the Year?
This is similar to the argument about Raise A Native. Is the RAN sire line an advantage in the Triple Crown races? You might say what about mt-DNA and what about the second damsire etc but the crucial argument is whether or not the RAN sire line is the best at generating winners of the Derby, the Preakness and the Belmont stakes. Does the data support or refute that idea?
You have talked around the argument but never gave any evidence that my supporting data is wrong. I gave supporting data as to why the P/NP pattern is an advantage for the very best horses (those in the BC Classic, Horses of the Year and all time Highest Earners. You have talked around that supporting data but never refuted that data.
The P/NP pattern may not be an advantage for horses running in claiming races at your local track but from the evidence I presented that pattern surely looks like an advantage for the very best horses in training, those that compete in the BC Classic, those that become Horses of the Year and those that become the all time greatest earners.
Yes, there are many factors involved in developing a great runner ---looking at the mares involved etc but that is not what is central to the basic argument--Is the P/NP pattern an advantage for the greatest horses, the ones that earn the most money, the ones that win the BC Classic, the horses that become Horse of the Year?
This is similar to the argument about Raise A Native. Is the RAN sire line an advantage in the Triple Crown races? You might say what about mt-DNA and what about the second damsire etc but the crucial argument is whether or not the RAN sire line is the best at generating winners of the Derby, the Preakness and the Belmont stakes. Does the data support or refute that idea?
Stan
Your supporting data concerns superior runners in particular races, or particular conditions. Most recent top earners share the distinction of earning some sort of bonus, but again, it makes no difference as each horse is a unique individual and in reality the influence of long gone ancestors is little to none.
DDT
Your supporting data concerns superior runners in particular races, or particular conditions. Most recent top earners share the distinction of earning some sort of bonus, but again, it makes no difference as each horse is a unique individual and in reality the influence of long gone ancestors is little to none.
DDT
influence of ancestors long gone
DDT
The ancestors may be long gone but their sire lines and broodmare sire lines still exist and their influence cannot be discounted. If a breeder wants to get an all time leading money earner perhaps he should start out by looking over catalogs with a particular purpose- a P/NP type because these types outperform their opportunities in that regard. They are statistically superior to the other types as evidenced by the data I supplied.
Yes, my supporting data concerns superior runners in particular races and particular conditions and in reality the influence of ancestral lines is significant in the above particular conditions. Though Phalaris is far removed from present day horses, his influence is still very strong in todays thoroughbred by way of Northern Dancer, Mr. Prospector, AP Indy etc.
The ancestors may be long gone but their sire lines and broodmare sire lines still exist and their influence cannot be discounted. If a breeder wants to get an all time leading money earner perhaps he should start out by looking over catalogs with a particular purpose- a P/NP type because these types outperform their opportunities in that regard. They are statistically superior to the other types as evidenced by the data I supplied.
Yes, my supporting data concerns superior runners in particular races and particular conditions and in reality the influence of ancestral lines is significant in the above particular conditions. Though Phalaris is far removed from present day horses, his influence is still very strong in todays thoroughbred by way of Northern Dancer, Mr. Prospector, AP Indy etc.
Stan
You are free to have any opinion you desire, the genetic facts are pretty clear that after 5 generations the genetic influence is slight if at all and we have already discussed the Y and the fact that to date no performance genes have been located on it. Again, you can believe in sire lines that go back many generations having influence but it is not supported by scientific evidence.
DDT
You are free to have any opinion you desire, the genetic facts are pretty clear that after 5 generations the genetic influence is slight if at all and we have already discussed the Y and the fact that to date no performance genes have been located on it. Again, you can believe in sire lines that go back many generations having influence but it is not supported by scientific evidence.
DDT
scientific evidence
DDT
You can believe what you want but there is scientific evidence supporting my idea that the RAN sire line is the best at generating Derby, Preakness and Belmont winners. I gave that evidence in the Raise A Native thread.
There is also evidence supporting the idea that the P/NP pattern is best at getting all time money earners and I gave that evidence in this thread.
Here is some more evidence supporting the P/NP pattern for all time money earning thoroughbreds. The percent of horses in the top 20 all time earners that carry the P/NP is 35% (7 of 20). Since at most the percent of horses from the general population that are P/NP is 20% the impact value for carrying the P/NP is 1.75 (35% of the top 20 divided by 20% starters from the general population). These P/NP types are finding their way into the top 20 money earners of all time 75% more often than statistical expectation.
You can believe what you want but there is scientific evidence supporting my idea that the RAN sire line is the best at generating Derby, Preakness and Belmont winners. I gave that evidence in the Raise A Native thread.
There is also evidence supporting the idea that the P/NP pattern is best at getting all time money earners and I gave that evidence in this thread.
Here is some more evidence supporting the P/NP pattern for all time money earning thoroughbreds. The percent of horses in the top 20 all time earners that carry the P/NP is 35% (7 of 20). Since at most the percent of horses from the general population that are P/NP is 20% the impact value for carrying the P/NP is 1.75 (35% of the top 20 divided by 20% starters from the general population). These P/NP types are finding their way into the top 20 money earners of all time 75% more often than statistical expectation.
Stan
Without Mr. Prospector the Raise a Native sire line is not responsible for record numbers of winners in the Triple Crown series of races, 7 in the Derby, 3 in the Preakness and 3 in the Belmont. The Bold Ruler line is at least as good, therefore I believe you should give credit where credit is due. As to the data supplied being scientific you are wrong, it is simply statistics covering a limited amount of time and races.
DDT
Without Mr. Prospector the Raise a Native sire line is not responsible for record numbers of winners in the Triple Crown series of races, 7 in the Derby, 3 in the Preakness and 3 in the Belmont. The Bold Ruler line is at least as good, therefore I believe you should give credit where credit is due. As to the data supplied being scientific you are wrong, it is simply statistics covering a limited amount of time and races.
DDT
wrong interpretation
The RAN sire line is responsible for all winners I listed in the Raise A Native thread. Your statement about there only being 7 is ridiculous. Since Majestic Prince in 1969 there have been 18 Derby winners carrying the RAN sire line. Since Mr. Prospector is a son of Raise A Native all of the horses that have the Mr. Prospector sire line also have the RAN sire line.
To say that the Bold Ruler sire line is just as good is also ridiculous because the Bold Ruler line had less than 10 Derby winners as compared to 18 for Raise A Native. You should give credit where credit is due and that is credit for the RAN sire line being dominant in all three legs of the Triple Crown.
To say that the Bold Ruler sire line is just as good is also ridiculous because the Bold Ruler line had less than 10 Derby winners as compared to 18 for Raise A Native. You should give credit where credit is due and that is credit for the RAN sire line being dominant in all three legs of the Triple Crown.
Stan
Well, actually you could say the Native Dancer line, but you did not understand what I meant, and of course it could be the way I said it, without Mr. Prospector, Raise a Native's sire line is limited therefore the proper credit should go to Mr. Prospector, granted you have Majestic Prince, Exclusive Native and Alydar, but again, without Mr. Prospector tail male the numbers are not that good compared to other sire lines, meaning, the credit should go to Mr. Prospector as his record of winners in the classics stands alone.
DDT
Well, actually you could say the Native Dancer line, but you did not understand what I meant, and of course it could be the way I said it, without Mr. Prospector, Raise a Native's sire line is limited therefore the proper credit should go to Mr. Prospector, granted you have Majestic Prince, Exclusive Native and Alydar, but again, without Mr. Prospector tail male the numbers are not that good compared to other sire lines, meaning, the credit should go to Mr. Prospector as his record of winners in the classics stands alone.
DDT
the credit goes to Mr. Prospector
Certainly the credit goes to Mr. Prospector because he has had 12 Derby winners carrying his line. However, these 12 winners also carry the RAN sire line. There is no getting around this and the total number of Derby winners carrying the RAN sire line ( with or without Mr. Prospector) is still 18 and that is a dominant sire line for all three legs of the crown whether or not Mr. Prospector is found along the sire line.
You can twist the above any way you want but the bottom line is still the same: The RAN sire line is by far the best for generating Derby, Preakness and Belmont winners. No other line even comes close.
You can twist the above any way you want but the bottom line is still the same: The RAN sire line is by far the best for generating Derby, Preakness and Belmont winners. No other line even comes close.
Re: the credit goes to Mr. Prospector
stancaris wrote:Certainly the credit goes to Mr. Prospector because he has had 12 Derby winners carrying his line. However, these 12 winners also carry the RAN sire line. There is no getting around this and the total number of Derby winners carrying the RAN sire line ( with or without Mr. Prospector) is still 18 and that is a dominant sire line for all three legs of the crown whether or not Mr. Prospector is found along the sire line.
You can twist the above any way you want but the bottom line is still the same: The RAN sire line is by far the best for generating Derby, Preakness and Belmont winners. No other line even comes close.
Your logic is faulty IMO. RAN is NOT the beginning of the line. It should actually be Native Dancer. I doubt that you will find any stakes winners in the last 20 years tracing back to Polynesian through sire or broodmare sire that do NOT go through Native Dancer. You will find some stakes winners in the last 20 years tracing back to Native Dancer that do NOT go through RAN.
If you want to ignore Native Dancer as the start of this superior line, then I think you have to ignore RAN, too, because most of the success of RAN descendents has come through Mr Prospector. Take him out, and the numbers for RAN nose-dive to pretty ordinary.
You can't dismiss the first and third generations, Native Dancer and Mr Prospector, to glorify the middle generation, RAN. It's simply NOT logically consistent.
"you cannot be brilliant if you cannot run" -- bdw0617