As someone with an unhealthy predilection for e/w betting the most impressive statistic for me about Oasis Dream last year (as discussed in part 1) is the 60% strike rate his 2yo runners have to place for betting purposes. In simple terms it is odds-on that an Oasis Dream juvenile will finish in the first 2 or 3 in any given race they contest. What is perhaps even more interesting though, and the reason why I saved this subject for the 2nd part of this blog, is who finished runner-up behind Oasis Dream on last year's figures:
That's right. Sea The Stars.
I have heard a few comments suggesting that his freshman season was a bit underwhelming so as a big fan of the horse I guess I am keen to test this perception against actual data:
Placed (% of progeny that finish 1st in races of < 5 runners, 1st or 2nd if between 5-7 or 1st, 2nd or 3rd in races of 8+)
60% Oasis Dream
51% Sea The Stars
49% Manduro (only 39 runs)
49% Henrythenavigator (only 37 runs)
48% Galileo
45% Clodovil
44% Sakhee's Secret (only 43 runs)
44% Montjeu (only 34 runs)
41% Acclamation
39% Kodiac
38% Kyllachy
38% New Approach
38% Danehill Dancer
38% Haatef (only 37 runs)
37% Invincible Spirit
37% Mastercraftsman
37% Captain Rio
36% Champs Elysees (only 42 runs)
36% Three Valleys (only 33 runs)
35% Dubawi
35% Shamardal
35% Aqlaam (only 37 runs)
Not too shabby eh? In terms of the 1st crop sires (FSS) it also places him well above Mastercraftsman and Champs Elysees in this category, both of whom had a slightly higher strike-rate (SR) than STS who comes out 3rd best of the qualifying FSS:
FSS (1st crop sires with > 30 qualifying runs ranked by SR)
18% Mastercraftsman
17% Champs Elysees (only 42 runs)
15% Sea The Stars
11% Dandy Man
11% Aqlaam (only 37 runs)
9% Intense Focus
8% Myboycharlie
7% Art Connoisseur (only 43 runs)
6% Captain Gerrard*
5% Bushranger
5% Major Cadeaux (only 41 runs)
* At this point, I wanted to mention that the notion of Captain Gerrard being "champion" anything, be it GB-based, or measured on number of winners, wins, prizemoney won, or whatever, is ABSURD. I have him on 4 wins (one of which was in a seller) whereas in the calendar year he produced 13 "winners" of 22 races in total, which either means his progeny excel on an artificial surface OR that they win a lot of shit races. His stud fee has increased from £3,500 - £4,000 FWIW.
There are also a couple of non-qualifiers (< 30 runs) that are worth mentioning here too in Fastnet Rock and Archipenko who both recorded impressive debut figures from limited opportunities:
Fastnet Rock: 14% SR from 22 runs with 36% Placed
Archipenko: 21% SR from 14 runs with 29% Placed
Regardless of his position relative to the other freshman sires, there is one other category that STS absolutely dominates, however, and it is the most important category of all when assessing a stallion's success relative to opportunity. That is in the quality of the mares that were sent to him in his 1st year at stud.
The dam's side of the pedigree should always be the focus when assessing any individual juvenile as they contribute half of that 2yo's genetic information and yet their quality can range from multiple group 1 winners who have already produced group wining siblings to the juvenile in question, to selling platers who have never produced anything of worth from up to 20 previous foals. In short, the differences in the quality of stallions, and in the 50% of genetic material that they provide, is of FAR less consequence than the ability of the dams, either as runners or as producers.
The difficulty lies in how to accurately assess the quality of a given book of mares using fairly crude black and white figures to express relatively grey data. The system I use is based on the murky concept of Black Type with a few minor alterations. In theory, and somewhat bizarrely in my view in practice as well, Black Type appears in a pedigree where the dam or any siblings to the juvenile in question have finished in the 1st 3 in any pattern race in any country. This includes finishing last of 3 runners, beaten 40 lengths at odds of 100/1 off bottom-weight in a listed handicap over 2 miles in Sweden. This is obviously an extreme example but it highlights the necessity of adjusting official definitions of Black Type for our purposes if we want to create a realistic picture of the quality of a given stallion's book of mares, and the subsequent advantages conferred on his juvenile runners. Which we do.
Therefore, only mares who have been placed for BETTING purposes in group races globally, or in (non-handicap) listed contests in GB, IRE & FRA only, or have produced progeny from ANOTHER stallion that have achieved the same criteria, count in the figures below as Black Type dams:
Black Type (Percentage of runs from runners with BT pedigrees*)
91% Sea The Stars
76% Galileo
73% Cape Cross
71% Montjeu (only 34 runs)
63% Oasis Dream
59% Aqlaam (only 37 runs)
59% Pivotal (only 32 runs)
56% Shamardal
56% Dalakhani
55% High Chaparral
53% Teofilo
53% Lawman
52% Invincible Spirit
52% New Approach
52% Danehill Dancer
50% Dylan Thomas (only 38 runs)
48% Exceed And Excel
48% Nayef
47% Verglas
46% Dubawi
46% Henrythenavigator (only 37 runs)
44% Sakhee's Secret (only 43 runs)
43% Mount Nelson (only 44 runs)
42% Raven's Pass (only 31 runs)
40% Mastercraftsman
* There are always going to be exceptions, such as 1st foals from well-related un-raced mares not counting as "well-bred", and CLEARLY a juvenile with one sibling out of 8 who once finished a well-beaten 3rd at big odds in a 8 runner listed fillies race in the French provinces is not the same as a sibling to a classic winner out of a classic-winning mare, but the overall picture created is valid IMO, and superior to what is quoted in sales catalogues etc...
The opposite of a quality book of mares is obviously of EVEN more interest, especially for betting purposes, as when compared against SR and Placed percentages, it gives the best indication available of which stallions out-perform or "upgrade" their book of mares and potentially, therefore, the likely odds of their runners. This will form the content of Part 3 if you're still with me...
No comments:
Post a Comment