All Five Aptitudinal Groups

The heart of dosage theory is that a “balanced” pedigree is better than an “unbalanced” pedigree. Any by “balanced” they mean a pedigree that has a good mixture of speed and stamina (not all speed or all stamina).

That all sounds pretty reasonable. Indeed, it is pretty reasonable. . . .

I have repeated myself from my last post in the two paragraphs above. Another idea that has arisen with connection to dosage is that a pedigree with representation in all five aptitudinal groups is a “balanced” pedigree and hence a good pedigree. For the sake of concision let us call this the “all-five” group.

Such pedigrees are pretty hard to find. I thought it might be fun and interesting to isolate all such pedigrees and see how “good” they really are in terms of prices and results.

Let us start by listing the best stakes winners (those with 2,000+ Performance Points) among this all-five group. Listed for each nag is its name, pedigree, sales info, dosage profile, DI, CD, and total Performance Points (in descending order, best nags first).

David Junior (Pleasant Tap–Paradise River, Irish River, 04T175,000, 3-12-10-2-3, DI 2.00, CD 0.33, 5,716 Performance Points).

Rio de La Plata (Rahy–Express Way, Ahmad, 05W65,000, 06Y75,000, 8-1-10-1-2, DI 1.75, CD 0.55, 3,505).

Unbridled Belle (Broken Vow–Little Bold Belle, Silver Buck, 04Y4,000, 8-8-14-2-2, DI 2.09, CD 0.53, 3,310).

Dancing in Silks (Black Minnaloushe–Lemhi Love, Royal and Regal, 05W20,000, 06Y21,401, 1-2-6-1-2, DI 1.00, CD –0.08, 2,200).

City to City (City Zip–Stormbow, Storm Cat, 07W15,000, 13-5-10-1-1, DI 3.29, CD 0.93, 2,030).

Not a bad group of stakes winners for reasonable prices. Unbridled Belle was a particularly good bargain at $4,000. But of course stakes winners alone are meaningless without context. And context is proved by the number of foals qualifying in this all-five group.

Such foals are pretty hard to find. Only a little over 10% of the entire population of sales foals of 2003-2007 (70,714) fell into this all-five group.

Those 7,230 foals sold for a gross of $351,372,742, an average of $48,599 (slightly below the overall average of $54,140), a maverage of 154.64 (slightly below the overall maverage of 163.11), and a Price Index of 0.95 (1.00 being average by definition). So these 7,230 foals were perceived to be slightly below average in overall pedigree quality.

Including the five stakes winners listed above, 192 of these 7,230 foals were stakes winners. That is 2.66%, well below the overall figure of 3.41%. Those 192 stakes winners averaged 551 Performance Points apiece, well below the overall average of 617.

So the all-five group was light on both quantity and quality of stakes winners. Taking both factors into account, these 7,230 foals had a PPI (result) of 0.69, which does not compare favorably with its Price Index of 0.95. The sold for prices about 5% below average and achieved results about 31% below average. That is NOT a good performance at all.

All 70,714 sales foals of 2003-2007 averaged 20.29 dosage total points. The 2,414 stakes winners in this same group averaged 20.87 dosage total points. Not much difference. The 98 stakes winners with 2,000+ Performance Points averaged 23.71 dosage total points. A bit more of a difference, but not much. This illustrates to me that the correlation between dosage total points and racing results is a very weakly positive one, emphasis on the “weakly.”

The 7,230 foals in the all-five group averaged 25.60 dosage total points, even higher than the best stakes winners. The high total points for the all-five group failed to help them at all. So dosage total points is not a very good predictor of racing results, certainly not as good a predictor as sales prices, for example.

The markets were correctly unimpressed that these 7,230 foals in the all-five group averaged 25.60 dosage total points. They should have been even MORE unimpressed by that factor, given their result of 0.69 compared to their price of 0.95.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s