“Interesting piece, David. But what about foals tail-female with duplications to LT? Anything with that scenario?”
That was the only comment I have received so far on the LT series. Now that I read it over again, I am even more puzzled by it. There were no sales foals of 2003-2007 inbred to LT at all (tail female or not) within five generations. I think there was one such critter among sales foals of 1999-2002 (not tail female). LT was a foal of 1926 and is too far back in pedigrees now. Undoubtedly there are jillions of foals with duplications of LT of all varieties beyond five generations. That is entirely another can of worms (and about as valuable as a can of worms).
Now if you are talking about mares descending from LT in tail female and inbred to her within five generations as well, that is a more interesting question. Two classic examples are the champions Numbered Account (just profiled) and Relaxing. The former is inbred 4×5 to LT, the latter 4×4 to LT, both in exactly the same pattern (female line of the sire to female line of the dam; more about this pattern later).
Aside from being two of my favorite female nags of all time, Numbered Account and Relaxing are among the best female descendants of LT in direct female line. Other champions of that description include Allez France, Straight Deal, and Regal Gleam. Those three had zero duplications to LT. Allez France was a complete outcross within five generations.
So I decided to look for mares in the female lines of these 1,738 nags who were both female-line descendants of LT and had other duplications of LT as well. Numbered Account and Relaxing are the classic examples. Any foal with Numbered Account or Relaxing in their female line qualifies.
I found 418 such foals, not quite a quarter of the total of 1,738. I was trying to determine if those 418 foals were actually any better (presumably because of the duplications of LT) than the other 1,320 foals. I have gone back to the original posts on LT and highlighted those 418 foals in bold.
Numbered Account and Relaxing were both by Buckpasser, whose third dam was LT. So any mare by Buckpasser out of a mare with LT close enough in the female line qualified. Any foal tracing in female line to such a mare qualified. I did not count any mares inbred to daughters or other tail-female descendants of LT (Businesslike, Busanda, Baby League, et al.) but not to LT herself. Nor did I count numerous mares with duplications to LT beyond the fifth generation.
As expected, quite a few other daughters of Buckpasser showed up in the bottom lines of these 418 pedigrees: Love in Vain, Glisk, Special Account, Fascinating Trick, Fashionable Trick, Benefit, Simplon Pass, No Opening, Time Note, Bonnie Blink, and Flare Pass (no particular order).
But the two most popular mares represented were not related to Buckpasser at all. They were Best Side and Twitter. Best Side was a 1952 model by Better Self out of Belle of Troy. Better Self was by Bimelech, a son of LT, and hence was inbred 3×2 to LT.
Twitter was a 1950 model by Brookfield out of Besieged. Brookfield was also by Bimelech. Hence Twitter was also inbred 3×2 to LT in exactly the same pattern as Best Side.
Just to clarify further, let us use the first qualifying stakes winner, Combo Royale, as an example. Combo Royale was by Midnight Royalty out of Winningcombination, by Rare Performer. Winningcombination was 5×5 to LT, the bottom of those being as her fifth dam. So Combo Royale qualified as one of these 418 foals.
So were those 418 foals any better than the other 1,320 foals???? The total of 1,738 foals sold for an average of $65,754 and a maverage of 175.88. The 418 qualifiers sold for an average of $53,350 and a maverage of 169.96. The 1,320 nonqualifiers sold for an average of $69,682 and a maverage of 177.75. So the 418 qualifiers sold for LESS than the group as a whole and even less than the 1,320 nonqualifiers.
The 1,738 total foals included 56 stakes winners (3.22%, lower than the overall average for all 70,714 foals of 3.36%). The 418 qualifiers included 17 stakes winners (4.07%), higher than the overall average. The 1,320 nonqualifiers included 39 stakes winners (2.95%), lower than the overall average.
So if you took percentage of stakes winners from foals as your only criterion, the 418 qualifiers would appear to be better than the 1,320 nonqualifiers. The quality of the stakes winners involved also needs to be evaluated.
The 17 stakes winners among the qualifiers earned a total of 7,723 Performance Points, an average of 454 apiece, well below the overall average of 603. All 56 stakes winners earned a total of 32,217 Performance Points, an average of 575 apiece, only slightly below the overall average of 603. The 39 stakes winners among the nonqualifiers earned a total of 24,494 Performance Points, an average of 628 apiece, slightly above the overall average of 603 and well above the 454 of the qualifiers.
Taking both quantity and quality of stakes winners into account yields the following results in terms of PPI (Performance Points Index): 0.916 for all 1,738 foals, 0.917 for the 1,320 nonqualifiers, and 0.913 for the 418 qualifiers. Very little difference at all among the three groups. More importantly, all three groups were below the overall average of 1.00.
All three groups were below the overall average of 1.00 despite selling for prices above average. All 1,738 foals had a Price Index of 1.078, the 1,320 nonqualifiers had a Price Index of 1.09, and the 418 qualifiers had a Price Index of 1.042. You could say that the 418 qualifiers were better than the nonqualifiers because they achieved about the same results from lower prices. That is the BEST you can say for them though, as all three groups produced inferior results from above-average prices.
I mentioned that the 418 qualifiers sold for an average of $53,350. That was below the overall average of $54,140. Averages are illusory. The maverage is the thing. The 418 qualifiers had a maverage of 169.96, compared to the overall maverage for all 70,714 foals of 163.11 (hence a Price Index of 1.042).
Only one of the 419 qualifiers sold for $1,000,000 or more (and that one for $1,000,000 exactly). Nine of the 1,320 nonqualifiers sold for $1,000,000 or more (the highest being $4,500,000). Such high prices distort the averages. The maverages are more reliable. Price Indexes are based on maverages, not averages.
I confess that the original comment irritated me somewhat. It did so because it was so typical of current “thinking” about pedigrees, namely that inbreeding explains everything. Naturally, I have to hold the opposite, that inbreeding explains NOTHING. And the reason inbreeding explains nothing is that most of the time the fundamental value of the names being duplicated is average or worse. Put that in your mouth and CHEW on it for awhile. Beef jerky. Yum yum!!!!!!
So I am pleased that I got over my original irritation and decided to investigate this subject after all. Because the numbers prove once again that inbreeding makes no bloody XXXXing difference to the overall results.