Pedigree Query

In years past...the percentage of stakes-winners from foals (not from starters) was considered (by many) to be a particularly valuable statistic. It allowed everyone to have a dependable reference as to the percentage of stakes-winning offspring that a stallion has gotten. No opinion, just fact.

That statistic still exists today, but for whatever reason seems to be minimally referenced or used.

Today it seems to be more about how many times the stud fee a stallion's sales average will be. But that information can be undependable, fabricated or manipulated...as a result of what might be described as creative management in an effort to mislead...or distract from real statistics. A result may be susceptibility to fall into a bogus-sales-averages "trap" and an advertising blitz based on the same.

I believe the percentage of stakes-winners from registered foals may in fact be a more important statistic today than ever before. Why...because it cannot be manipulated. Either a race horse wins the race or it doesn't...and the size of a foal crop is what it is (once all registration information is finalized and tallied by The Jockey Club).

Don't be fooled...be skeptical of stallions that have a small percentage of stakes winners...but seem to command a high stud fee based on an impressive sales average. If the numbers are real, that's one thing...but as you've heard before...if it's too good to be true, it probably is.

When it comes to evaluating performance there are many criteria that come into play...but when it comes to numbers and statistics...be certain they are real (and complete), mistake proof and cannot be tampered with.

Percentage of stakes winners to registered foals is a great statistic.

What are your thoughts?

Respectfully

It's one of many things to look at. It's a useful statistic in that it's hard to manipulate, but you do have to be sure you're comparing apples to apples -- Brent's Prince, for instance, got around 12% SWs from foals if memory serves, but examination of his record reveals that most of them were winners in restricted stakes for Ohio-breds. That's not a bad record at all for a regional sire, but it doesn't compare to a Seattle Slew or a Storm Cat whose SWs are in unrestricted (and often graded/group) races.

I wouldn't necessarily avoid a sire with a low percentage of stakes winners, but I would want to be sure I had a good handle on what kinds of pedigrees and conformation types he is throwing to -- if there's a consistent pattern, it may well be worth the risk. I think a lot of these commercially popular sires are bred to a lot of mares that don't suit them physically or on paper -- or both -- and an alert breeder who pays attention to what does work with them can beat the odds indicated by the low SW percentage.

Do agree with you, FOS, that SWs from starters is a pretty deceptive stat.

As an adjunct to what you say, Mahubah, its important to know if (N) stakes winners are included in a sire's record. I'm having my annual argument with our state breeders association about their inclusion of (N) races in all statistical tables in the stallion directory. I feel its misleading to mare owners and should be abandoned. Why should a $2,500 'stakes' race at Les Bois Park in Idaho carry the same significance as a Grade One stakes? That's exactly what happens when the (N) races are included.

The Blood Horse stallion directory uses the same poorly considered practice; I'm not sure if the TB Times does or not.

Obviously, if a stallion has 10% stakes winners and most of them are in (N) stakes, he shouldn't be ranked as high as a horse with 5% stakes winners in graded and listed events.

Thats why I say---check out the method of calculating stakes winners and their concommitant ratios before putting too much stock in any given number.

Hi Mahubah and Michael

I agree with all of your very good points.

The challenge of evaluating a stallion thoroughly is certainly important and does include a "class" check.

I guess I felt it was necessary to bring up the point that sometimes we need to step back into reality and attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. The chaff being the overwhelming amount of misleading advertising and/or hype that can actually cloud our otherwise clear thinking and decision-making abilities.

When you read (or hear) the often deceptive information that some stallion facilities constantly cram us with...and throw in some possibly tainted statistics for good measure...it is comforting to know that you can set it all aside and turn to some solid...untampered/unmanipulated statistics that are (to some extent) the bedrock of the industry.

Something as simple as stakes-winners from registered foals.

Certainly this is no genius idea I offer...just a reminder of how skewed it all can be and how undependable much of the information is that we are presented (mostly in advertisements) although it is offered so masterfully that sometimes we may let our guard down and actually (if only for a moment) accept it as the gospel.

I don't like it...although I understand it.

I'd love to see some investigative articles written that would at least raise the issue regarding questionable "sales" (if they can be called that), that are obviously perpetrated upon us with the intent to mislead...and the affects of such actions.

It probably won't occur though...for obvious reasons.

Respectfully