High AEI stallions

[henthorn]

The Blood Horse publication called MarketWatch, March 11 issue, contains the top 200 North American stallions by AEI who had at least seventy foals between 1995-2001, and ignores earlier or later progeny. It also divides them into categories of unraced, under 1.00, 1.00-1.99, 2.00-3.99, and 4.00 up. There are separate lists regarding stallions with first crops of 1998-2001, but I won't include them unless they made the larger list.

I studied them closer to see patterns. In alphabetical order, those with AEI 1.60 or greater, who had 60% or fewer of those progeny either unraced or below average earnings, and produced at least 15% runners of AEI of 2.00 or higher are these:

The columns represent percent of individuals with AEI 2.00+, percent 4.00+, combined AEI for 1995-2001 crops, stallion name. (the 4.00 ups are included in the number of 2.00 up)

28/13 3.25 A. P. Indy
25/10 2.98 Awesome Again
23/ 7 1.79 Bold Executive
22/ 8 1.69 Boundary
18/ 5 1.70 Cherokee Run
19/ 5 1.63 Citidancer
31/14 2.80 Distorted Humor
21/ 8 2.22 El Prado
26/ 8 3.40 Elusive Quality
18/ 6 1.63 Forest Wildcat
23/ 8 2.22 Grand Slam
29/ 8 1.84 Indian Charlie
24/ 9 2.10 Mutakddim
27/ 9 2.02 Not For Love
24/10 2.35 Pulpit
21/10 2.55 Seeking the Gold
23/ 7 2.06 Silver Deputy
29/12 2.73 Smart Strike
27/ 8 2.06 Smoke Glacken
26/12 3.70 Storm Cat
21/ 6 2.13 Tale of the Cat
22/ 8 1.81 Tethra
19/11 2.05 Unbridled's Song
27/10 1.88 Valid Expectations

Averages for the top 400 AEI stallions during those years for comparison are:
71% total of unraced or less than average earnings runners (AEI less than 1.00).
13% progeny with AEI of 2.00 or higher
4% progeny with AEI of 4.00 or higher
The smallest AEI for those years among the top 200 stallions was 1.14.

If your favorite stallion did not make my abbreviated list, it may have had excessive unraced and below average progeny, less than 15% above 2.00 racers, fewer than a total of 70 foals in the '95-'01 crops, AEI of less than 1.60 for those crops, or a mistake is possible. I also did not include dead, pensioned, or off-continent stallions.

If you would like to have a copy of the full list, contact Blood Horse publications. If you just want to know where a particular stallion falls on the list, let me know.

[Michael]

Thanks Henthorn. Always interesting to play the numbers game.

As you may have gathered, I take these and most statistics with the grain of salt. That's primarily because we're dealing here with measuring the performance of animals, not machines. So many hidden factors impact these numbers that IMO they should not be used for anything other than a GENERAL global interpretation of success. Of course, in looking at a stallion's AEI, you must also take into account the stallion's CI, which expresses the mare's contributions to a given sire's offspring. For example, a high AEI is relatively worthless if the stallion's foals are produced by a large number of stakes producing mares (high CI).

It probably makes the most sense to use these numbers to determine if a stallion is moving his mares up (e.g. if AEI=2.00 and CI=1.00, the stallion is moving his mares up 100%).

[bcassidy]

Henthorn, thanks. How good does Distorted Humor look? At 50k he still represents great value and in my opinion will be one of the elite stallions in the very near future. If he ever turns out to be a sire of sires--watch out---because there would be no doubt that he would be the next very BIG horse. My privately devised numbers are extremely good for him and I would say his book of mares has been rather modest to date but I am sure his CL will climb over the next few years. He is a tremendous stallion and is very reasonable if not cheap at 50k. I love this stallion and it is still really difficult for me to think of a 50k stallion as cheap but for what you get he may in fact be very cheap. We will just have to wait and see if he produces a sire---- than watch out--- his stud fee could go into the ionsphere. Thanks for sharing your data.

[henthorn]

Brendan, the Thoroughbred Times stallion directory lists Distorted Humor at $60K fee, but it may have changed. His other info shows him among the 2000 first foal crop sires with 50+foals between 2000-2001. In order the top twelve including those no longer in country:

AEI, %unraced, %2.00-3.99, %4.00+
3.40,8,18,8 Elusive Quality
2.98,26,15,10 Awesome Again
2.80,8,17,14 Distorted Humor
2.22, 18,15,8 Grand Slam
2.13, 18,15,6 Tale of the Cat
2.13, 21,10,8 Wild Rush
1.96, 22,17,9 Northern Afleet
1.84, 20,21,8 Indian Charlie
1.80, 27,7,8 Benchmark
1.79, 22,10,5 Coronado's Quest
1.77, 19, 13, 7 Arch
1.77, 20, 9, 7 Stormy Atlantic

[dray33]

Help me if you would with this henthorn. I am looking for a statistic, i have seen it but cant recall. It shows the "quality of mares" booked to a stallion. It gives that a number.

The reason I ask is this: For pinhooking, it might be nice to know what stallion has a great book of mares, with foals about to race (a nice crop of 2-3 year olds) so that you can time your yearling purchases to a "better cropped" sire. Does that make sense? What I mean to say is, it would be good to have a yearling (bought in Spetember) with some prominent stakes winners happening around him. Get a "hot sire" at the sale, and who knows.

Am i delusional????

[FOS]

hi henthorn

Thanks for your efforts...as always.

I find the AEI (especially when in comparison with the CI...as Michael referenced) to be very interesting (and often very useful).

I suggest that statistics (and numbers) can often be valuable (and certainly must be evaluated and interpreted...usually on a case by case basis)...but in this game (for many) it's about dreams coming true not just statistics and numbers...AEI and/or CI etc.

Therefore...when considering a stallions AEI (and CI)...the icing is on the cake for me if (and when) a stallion who has good stats and numbers (which we might agree is often open to interpretation etc) and a good percentage of stakes winners (including graded)...proves that he can not only get one big horse...but also seems to get good ones (and an occasional "big" one) on a regular basis.

A sire that gets one standout star may capture the imagination...but if that sire's "numbers" and "stats" are so-so...and the general caliber and percentage of stakes winners is also so-so...I suggest that may be a sire to be wary of. It seems that often the stud fee of the sire that comes up with the one big horse (although everything else seems quite ordinary) may be skewed (upward) as a result of the one big star. To me that's a red flag...and may be a signal to beware.

Examples of two young sires that seem to have clearly separated themselves from the ordinary are as follows:

Brendan likes Distorted Humor "very much." DH obviously came thru with a very big horse in Funny Cide from his first crop. Distorted Humor backed that up with some very good stakes winners including G1 Spinaway winner Awesome Humor (who is just one of 17 stakes-winners from DH's first 2 Northern hemisphere crops). When considering Distorted Humor's stats and numbers (including questions related to stakes winners...their caliber etc)...Brendan may be quite correct when considering Distorted Humor "great value" (as he wrote) at $50k (or at $60k which he is advertised at for 2005...as henthorn pointed out).

I also suggest that Elusive Quality may be very good value at $100k. From just 3 crops of racing age thru 2004...EQ has already sired a Europen hwt son Elusive City (from his first crop) and last years Ky Derby and Preakness winner Smarty Jones (from EQ's second crop). Those two stars coupled with an impressive 11 stakes winners from his first foal-crop alone (which numbered 76 named per TB-times stallion directory)...seems to separate EQ from the pack. All Things Considered...Elusive Quality seems to be a very special young sire.

On the flip side though...All Things Considered...Unbridled's Song seems to be a tough one (at least for me) to justify at $125k.

Best to you.

Respectfully

[BargainBlueblood]

On the budget side of the equation, check out a new addition to Pennsylvania's stallion register: Rubiyat has the highest AEI of any sire in the state, and a relatively low CI. And better still, I've got some seasons to him in my hot little hands! Email me if interested. Thanks.

[henthorn]

Brendan, that's why this list is especially good, because it limits the years to 1995-2001 foals, large enough population samples to reduce the skew of one or two special progeny, and includes percentages of progeny for each stallion that race at various earnings levels. Therefore it also tells you whether the horse puts out only a few or a lot of elite quality performers, horses that earn double average, average to double, percentage of below average performers, and those that never make it to the racetrack. Each of these five categories are helpful to understand.

Dray, that term you're looking for is the CSI Comparable Sire Index. It is the racing quality of all progeny of the mares the sire is bred to, other than his own. We look for sires whose CSI is lower than their own Sire Index (SI), which indicates he improves his mares. I'm not sure I understand the subtleties of the AEI vs SI, but they are similar. What you are suggesting is a good idea. A stallion that gets good mares has a better chance of producing good offspring, although it is still very hit and miss; as most good racehorses can't reproduce themselves.

[bcassidy]

FOS--Last year I was recommending Elusive Quality vigorously because his numbers in my system are equally outstanding. The reason why I don't say too much about him this year isn't because he has diminished in my data but rather--- the value at 100k may not be as great considering his father stands for 150k and is a proven sire of sires. EQ is absolutely still a tremendous producer but all things being similar-- I would opt to breed to Gone West before EQ at the 100k price level. EQ, Distorted Humor, El Prado, Grand Slam and Northern Afleet are my predictions for the next generation of elite stallions. Let's see how it turns out. I just wanted to expand upon the point you made about EQ. He is very much the real deal and I think this guy can produce consistently high performing runners but his stud fee has already started to reflect that potential and I think the shrewd investor can get better value elsewhere but he is certainly priced fairly at 100k plus. As you may recall I want to find these type stallions before they hit the high stud fees. Last year and the year before I was all over him. I actually tried to get to him when he was standing for 10k and then again at 30k but I didn't act quickly enough and lost the opportunity to breed to him. His book filled very fast both years I was considering breeding to him. He certainly is a great stallion and I don't throw great around easily.

[FOS]

hi Brendan

Your analyses are appreciated as always.

BUT...

...I am somewhat surpised that Grand Slam is among your "next generation of elite stallions"....at least this early.

It seems to me that when you consider the HUGE opportunity he received (first two Northern Hemisphere crops totaling no less than 236 named foals per TB-Times stallion directory)...he seems to still have a lot to prove...to elevate himself that level of accolade.

Granted...he has sired a couple of VERY GOOD horses including Breeders' Cup Sprint winner Cajun Beat and G2 Jim Dandy winner Strong Hope among his best...but some of his percentages do not seem to indicate that he's done enough (YET) to be among those on your short-list.

I've seen many many Grand Slams...clearly he can get you a good-looker and a genuine sales horse...but All Things Considered (including his significant opportunity from the gitgo) I suggest that he seems to fall short of good-value at his 2005 advertised stud fee of $85,000 payable Sept 1st.

Don't get me wrong...I believe he has plenty of appeal...but your system apparently can be a dependable indicator of value...and at $85k it surprises me that he's on your current list.

Regardless...if you believe that Grand Slam is going to be among the elite sires...I'd be foolish to not pay attention.

And for what it's...it's seems difficult (if not impossible) to argue that Northern Afleet is not exceptional value at $12.5k live.

Best to you always.

Respectfully



gets a very small percentage of

[bcassidy]

FOS--I don't mention the more expensive stallions a lot, horses like El Prado, Grand Slam, Gone West and now Elusive Quality because their stud fees are already all above 85k and that is serious money, but each of the stallions above are tremendous sires. I truely believe the next elite stallions will come from this list and possibly a few others like Distorted Humor, Smoke Glacken and Northern Afleet at the lower price levels. Please remember I use hard data to make my assessments so it is a very easy process for me to reach my conclusions. I especially like the fact that all of the above stallions have a CL below 2.00 (with the obvious exception of Gone West). Can you imagine what their produce would be like if they ever see the mares AP Indy or Storm Cat see? Once their stud fee gets above 50K they start to lose some of their attraction for me but that certainly doesn't mean they still don't represent value and are not fairly priced at what ever their stud fee is. I really enjoy ferreting out the really undervalued stallions, especially ones below 10K. With these comments in mind, I would still strongly recommend that Grand Slam is a very serious stallion and has an excellent shot to get to the next level. He is a very strong producer and is fairly priced at 85k. I just don't speak about him often because his stud fee is 85k.

[bcassidy]

FOS--one other point I would like to follow up on from your post, when you mention that Grand Slam was very well supported from the Gitgo, he may have seen a lot of mares but I think his Cl is still below 2.00 ---which in my book is only a fair to modest book of mares. Compare his book to stalllions like Forestry, Smart Stike, AP Indy, Storm Cat, etc and it is an easy conclusion for me to reach about his ability to outproduce the mares he is covering. I really like the stallions which consistently outproduce the mares they visit and I would have no problem putting Grand Slam in that list. Hope that explains my position on Grand Slam. Respectfully Brendan.

[FOS]

hi Brendan

When you consider the size of Grand Slam's first crop (124 named foals) and second foal crop (101 named foals) you might agree that he had a GREAT opportunity (that is afforded very few stallions)...

...and when you couple those EXTREMELY large first two foal crops (a grand total of 225 named per BH-stallion reg 2004) with what you may agree is an impressive 2.05 CI (per BH-stallion register 2004)...

...I expect you might also agree that those numbers probably represent a lot (a whole lot) of very nice mares.

Respectfully

[bcassidy]

FOS--I just checked the BH stallion register online and it has Grand Slam at an AEI of 2.14 with a Cl of 1.98. For a young stallion to have an AEI higher than his Cl, especially with a modest book of mares and no 3 Million dollar plus earner ( al la Smarty Jones) is quite impressive. Even though GS has covered plenty of mares, I don't think they were very high caliber race mares. I think the numbers for GS that most other people would look at are very impressive and my data has him equally strong. He is one or two horses away from getting lots of attention. I think at 85k he is fairly priced and when he puts one or two of his offspring on the derby trail (which he will eventually) his market value will skyrocket. There is no doubt in my mind he can get that done soon. Brendan

[FOS]

hi Brendan

Granted...Grand Slam did not get a big earner in 2005 like Elusive Quality did (ala Smarty Jones) but I suggest that it's unfair to ignore (or even discount) the fact that not only did EQ come up with $7.6mil earner Smarty Jones...but also he sired a Hwt 2-yo colt in France (Elusive City) from his first crop. Furthermore...EQ sired no less than 11 stakes winners from an initial crop of only 76 named foals (TB-Times 2005 stallion directory)...as compared to Grand Slam's first crop of 127 named foals which included 7 stakes winners (also TB-Times StallDir2005).

No champions and/or Hwt's for Grand Slam...at least not yet...chalk two up for Elusive Quality.

And for what it's worth...Grand Slam's second crop numbered 109 vs Elusive Quality at 86...and Grand Slam's third crop (2-yo's of 2004) totals 66 vs a mere 32 for Elusive Quality (TB-Times stallion directory 2005). Obviously Grand Slam will have more than double the opportunity to come up with an outstanding 3-yo of 2005 compared to Elusive Quality.

Totals...Grand Slam 302 named foals from his first three crops...Elusive Quality 194 (TB-Times stallion directory 2005).

And when you factor-in that Grand Slam's mares had a CI of 2.05 vs Elusive Quality's mares CI at 1.63 (BH-stallion register 2004)...well...those numbers speak for themselves. Brendan...you wrote that Grand Slam had "a modest book of mares...respectfully I suggest...hardly. It's not like Grand Slam was a $5k or $10k stallion when he retired to stud...$30k was more like it...it was Elusive Quality that was $10,000...seems like he's the guy that got the "modest" book.

Clearly, Elusive Quality had far less opportunity than Grand Slam (in both the quality and quantity categories, etc)...but regardless Elusive Quality has outsired Grand Slam. And that is not to say that Grand Slam has not sired some very nice horses...and may become the sire that you expect him to be...but right now I suggest that Grand Slam at $85k is not the kind of value that Elusive Quality is at 100k...and that (arguably) Grand Slam is not worthy of favorable comparison with EQ at this time.

And don't forget the HUGE disparities in their stud fees...early-on especially. EQ (as I recall) started at $10k, and even last year at $50k was significantly less than Grand Slam was last year at $75k.

EQ has earned his way to the top by proving (with limited opportunity as compared to Grand Slam) that he had the overall make-up...the prowess...the ability etc (or whatever you might want to call it) to promptly sire a Champion and a Highweight...plus an abundance of stakes winners...with limited help (certainly as compared to Grand Slam).

As a result of his superior (and arguably versatile) accomplishments as a young sire...what I expect to see is that the quality of mares to Elusive Quality will dramatically improve. He has proved that he is not only worthy...but also All Things Considered...a very special young sire.

I expect that Grand Slam will continue to be supported very well...as he has been from day one...and I suggest he will continue to be what he is...a stallion that has clearly benefited from HUGE opportunities...but when under honest and thorough scrutiny might be considered (by many) as overpriced...unless of course his accomplishments...stats...numbers etc...clearly improve to justify the big stud fee.

And what you wrote may be right...you wrote "when he puts one or two of his offspring on the derby trail (which he will eventually) his market value will skyrocket." Maybe so Brendan...but he hasn't seriously threatened yet...and if and/or when he accomplishes that...I suggest that the accomplishment may be discounted (or at least somewhat tempered) based on the HUGE number of opportunities he's had.

You also wrote "I think at 85k he is fairly priced..."

To the extent that if Ashford can fill his book at that number...it's difficult to dispute your claim...but I find him difficult to consider good value at $85k (at least right now). I suggest that if you (and/or other breeders) can justify the $85k...he's certainly a stallion worthy of your/their consideration...but otherwise I suggest that a breeder has to look at $85k for Grand Slam very long and hard before signing that contract.

And when considering good value I suggest that advertising...promotion...hype and/or spin can be (and often are) powerful tools which a breeder can sometimes benefit from. But when making one's evaluations as to who is good value...and may best suit your needs...All Things must be Considered and put in proper perspective.

That being said...and All Things Considered...I suggest that Elusive Quality is a much safer place for me at $100k than Grand Slam at $85k. EQ's stud fee progression to $100k seems to be justified every step of the way...needless to say I do not feel the same about Grand Slam's.

EQ and GS aside...as always I appreciate your insights and opinions...and those based on your "system" often seem to be particularly interesting (if not compelling).

Best to you.

Respectfully