Listed below are the results for the various locales. APPPSW stands for average Performance Points per stakes winner, a measure of the quality of stakes winners involved (the average being 677). Discussion resumes after the chart below.
Locale Bred Foals Stakes Winners % APPPSW PPI (Result)
California 1,733 32 1.85 579 0.48
Canada 2,735 117 4.28 638 1.22
Florida 6,545 181 2.77 577 0.71
Louisiana 2,461 51 2.07 455 0.42
Maryland 774 26 3.36 455 0.68
New Mexico 523 18 3.44 462 0.71
New York 2,390 67 2.80 663 0.83
Pennsylvania 1,402 45 3.21 546 0.79
Texas 462 10 2.16 386 0.37
Virginia 529 28 5.29 653 1.55
Washington 399 12 3.01 343 0.46
All Others 2,045 65 3.18 396 0.56
Totals 21,998 652 2.96 555 0.74
Kentucky 23,564 850 3.61 770 1.25
Grand Totals 45,562 1,502 3.30 677 1.00
To answer the question posed in my last post, yes, Virginia did justify its high prices with racetrack results. They posted 5.29% stakes winners from foals, the highest of any group listed above. Their 28 stakes winners had APPPSW of 653, second only to Kentucky (770). That works out to a PPI (result) for Virginia of 1.55, which compares favorably with its Price Index of 1.49.
Only two other locales listed above had positive (above 1.00) PPIS: Kentucky at 1.25 and Canada at 1.22. They were followed by New York (0.83), Pennsylvania (0.79), Florida (0.71), New Mexico (0.71) Maryland (0.68), California (0.48), Washington (0.46), Louisiana (0.42), and Texas (0.37).
The chart below compares prices with results. A positive difference (meaning that results exceeded prices) is good. A negative difference (meaning that prices exceeded results) is bad. Discussion continues after the chart below.
Locale Bred Foals Price Index PPI (Result) Difference
California 1,733 0.48 0.48 0.00
Canada 2,735 0.76 1.22 +0.46
Florida 6,545 0.80 0.71 –0.09
Louisiana 2,461 0.47 0.42 –0.05
Maryland 774 0.83 0.68 –0.15
New Mexico 523 0.33 0.71 +0.38
New York 2,390 0.92 0.83 –0.09
Pennsylvania 1,402 0.75 0.79 +0.04
Texas 462 0.41 0.37 –0.04
Virginia 529 1.49 1.55 +0.06
Washington 399 0.37 0.46 +0.09
All Others 2,045 0.54 0.56 +0.02
Totals 21,998 0.71 0.74 +0.03
Kentucky 23,564 1.27 1.25 –0.02
Virginia had a very slightly positive difference (+0.06). Kentucky had a very slightly negative difference (–0.02). This confirms that Virginia did indeed have better results than Kentucky, even taking prices into account.
Virginia achieved that PPI (result) of 1.55 without the benefit of any one particularly noteworthy stakes winner, which makes it even more impressive. The best of its 28 stakes winners was Redeemed (Include–Early Mass, Pleasant Tap, sold for $50,000 as a yearling in 2009), winner of the Brooklyn Handicap (G2) and an earner of $832,140.
The other results were a mixed bag, ranging from +0.46 for Canada to –0.15 for Maryland.
My original inclination was to take that +0.46 for Canada (a price of 0.76 and a result of 1.22) with a grain of salt. Canada ranked behind only Virginia in terms of percentage of stakes winners from foals (5.29% to 4.28%). My original inclination was to chalk that up to the plethora of stakes races restricted to Canadian-breds. The more restricted stakes races available to a particular locale, the better its percentage of stakes winners from foals will be.
Upon further reflection, however, I realized that almost all these locales (except for Kentucky) have a number of restricted stakes races available to them (though perhaps not as many as Canada). New York, for example, has a plethora of restricted stakes races as well, probably near the same ratio as Canada. New York had a price of 0.92 and a result for 0.83 for a difference of –0.09. Their plethora of restricted stakes races did not seem to help New York nearly as much as it did Canada.
Furthermore, it occurred to me that the strength of a local breeding program should be reflected in the prices for its foals. If a Canadian-bred has many more opportunities to win restricted stakes races than foals from other locales, the prices for Canadian-breds should reflect that (be higher). Many locales make that their blatant advertising pitch. Breed in our locale because we have a fantastic program that pays more money to our foals (not necessarily just in stakes races either). Therefore, foals bred in our locale are more valuable than foals bred in other locales.
It makes economic sense. Yet I do not perceive much of a premium in prices being paid for Canadian-breds or New York-breds, for example. Considering the results achieved, that was a mistake in the case of the former but not in the latter.
I do not really follow this stuff, but it seems to me that the New York program was just starting to ramp up for sales foals of 2008-2111. Perhaps it will have much better results (and higher prices) for my next group, say sales foals of 2012-2015. State-bred programs are in a constant state of flux.
In retrospect, I must confess that perhaps using stakes winners only to quantify racetrack results is not the best method to do so for this particular study because of this problem of restricted stakes races and how they affect the results. So take these results with as many grains of salt as you desire.
For that same reason do not make too much of Kentucky’s numbers (a price of 1.27, a result of 1.25, and a difference of –0.02). Kentucky does NOT have stakes races restricted to foals bred within its borders. Almost all the other locales do have such stakes races. Considering that factor, Kentucky’s numbers are not that bad at all.
You got what you paid for with Kentucky-breds. Actually, I think the same is pretty much true for all of these locales, with two exceptions. Virginia-breds were a lot better (and more expensive) than most people realize. Canadian-breds appear to be the best bargains of all, although that is at least partially a function of its plethora of restricted stakes races.