During the course of the usual internet “chat” this week a distinction arose between the words “influential” and “valuable” in describing sire success. It occurred to me that Nasrullah might be a good example to illustrate this distinction. It is my intention to do so at the conclusion of today’s discourse. But first things first.
This week we will examine Nasrullah as a name in more current pedigrees, specifically in the fourth generation of all weanlings, yearlings, or two-year-olds sold at public auction in North America in 1999-2002.
Nasrullah showed up 6,231 times in the fourth generation of these 54,000+ foals. That ranks him tenth among these top 20 sires.
Nasrullah had 1,948 foals at P1 in the fourth generation (the male line) for a Price Index of 0.86 (ninth among these 20 sires) and a PPI (result) of 0.51 (16th), not very good. Included among these 1,948 foals were 48 stakes winners (2.46%), including Orientate (3,617 Performance Points) and Champali (2,274). Oreintate was by Mt. Livermore, by Blushing Groom, by Red God, by Nasrullah. Champali was by Glitterman, by Dewan, by Bold Ruler, by Nasrullah.
At P2 in the fourth generation Nasrullah had a Price Index of 0.41 (17th), 25 foals, and zero stakes winners.
At P3 in the fourth generation Nasrullah had a Price Index of 1.06 (fifth) and a PPI (result) of 0.93 (tenth), not very good. He had 1,045 foals at P3, including 35 stakes winners (3.35%), including Two Item Limit (2,061). Two Item Limit was by Twining (by Forty Niner out of Courtly Dee, by Never Bend, by Nasrullah).
At P4 in the fourth generation Nasrullah had a Price Index of 0.45 (15th) and a PPI (result) of 0.49 (14th), a slight improvement in both absolute and relative terms. He had 81 foals at P4, including one stakes winner (1.23%) with 932 Performance Points.
At P5 in the fourth generation Nasrullah had a Price Index of 1.00 (sixth) and a PPI (result) of 0.54 (19th), not very good. He had 1,884 foals at P5, including 51 stakes winners (2.71%), none with 2,000+ Performance Points.
At P6 in the fourth generation Nasrullah had a Price Index of 0.76 (18th) and a PPI (result) of 0.46 (20th), not very good. He had 102 foals at P6, including three stakes winners (2.94%), but none with 2,000+ Performance Points.
At P7 in the fourth generation Nasrullah had a Price Index of 1.10 (eighth) and a PPI (result) of 0.91 (12th), not as bad as most of his other results. He had 920 foals at P7, including 29 stakes winners (3.15%), including Artie Schiller (3,989) and Hollywood Story (2,471). The second dam of Artie Schiller was by Nantallah, by Nasrullah. The second dam of Hollywood Story was by Never Bend, by Nasrullah.
At P8 in the fourth generation Nasrullah had a Price Index of 1.27 (fourth) and a PPI (result) of 0.98 (13th), not very good. He had 226 foals at P8, including seven stakes winners (3.10%), including Lady Tak (2,861). The third dam of Lady Tak was Dangerous Dame, by Nasrullah.
Overall, counting all eight positions in the fourth generation, Nasrullah had a Price Index of 0.98 (11th) and a PPI (result) of 0.66 (dead last). He had 6,231 foals overall, including 174 stakes winners (2.79%).
Nasrullah was the only one of these 20 sires to have PPIs (results) below 1.00 (average) at all eight positions. P8 was his best position at 0.98. P4 was the only position to show any improvement at all, from 0.45 (15th) to 0.49 (14th), and even that was a pretty negligible improvement.
About 7% (434) of those 6,231 foals involved daughters of Nasrullah in the third generation. Those 434 foals had a Price Index of 0.95 and a PPI (result) of 0.71. The remaining 5,797 foals involved sons of Nasrullah in the third generation. Those 5,797 foals had a Price Index of 0.98 and a PPI (result) of 0.66. So there was not much difference by sex in the prices and results.
About 34% (2,118) of these 6,231 foals involved Bold Ruler in the third generation. Those 2,118 foals had a Price Index of 0.93 and a PPI (result) of 0.42. The remaining 4,113 foals had a Price Index of 1.01 and a PPI (result) of 0.79. Bold Ruler was pretty abysmal in the third generation. But even deleting those abysmal results did not help Nasrullah in the fourth generation all that much.
There is not much to recapitulate here. Nasrullah in the fourth generation was pretty much overpriced and underperformed across the board.
Aside from ranking tenth himself among these 20 sires in overall popularity, Nasrullah also sired Bold Ruler (fourth in overall popularity), Nashua (sixth), and Never Bend (18th). No other sire has more than two sons among these top 20 in popularity. So clearly Nasrullah was an “influential” sire.
That gives a pretty good clue as to the difference between “influential” and “valuable.” The former is measured by popularity, by which names show up most often among the elite population (stakes winners or better). The only problem is that the sires who show up most often in the elite population are generally the same sires who show up most often in the overall (general) population.
Sometimes they show up more often among the elite population than the general population. In that case they are both “influential and “valuable.”
Sometimes they show up in almost exactly the same proportions among the elite and general populations. In that case they are “influential” but “value neutral.”
Sometimes they show up more often among the general population than the elite population. In that case they are “influential” but “value negative.”
The above study has been more about “valuable” than “influential,” factoring in as it does the prices involved as well. And the main reason “influential” has come to be defined as popularity among the elite population is because very little research has been done on the general population in terms of names in pedigrees back three or four or more generations. No one bothers. It is too much work. It tends to disprove all the theories as well. We can’t let that happen, can we????????????
Getting back to Nasrullah, I am sure that at one point in time he was both “influential” and “valuable.” That point of time might have been 20 or 30 or more years ago though (in terms of the fourth generation).
The two oldest sires among these 20 were Nasrullah and Princequillo (both foals of 1940). Nasrullah had an overall result of 0.66 (last). Princequillo had an overall result of 0.83 (19th, second last).
The youngest sire among these 20 was Secretariat (a foal of 1970). As noted last week, he had an overall result of 1.36 (the best among these 20 sires). I would not expect those results to continue indefinitely for Secretariat. Thirty years from now I would expect his results to look a lot more like those of Nasrullah and Princequillo right now.