Monday, October 31, 2011

Agastache and Corleone: are they good exemplars of synthetic horses?

My belief is that there is a good deal of confusion about the effect that running on synthetic has on results, and even more wasted energy on the topic. The biggest effect is that turf horses are at least as apt to like synthetic as dirt horses. An effect is not (generally) to deprive talented horses of their usual dominance, or to render results inexplicable without reference to synthetic form. I do have some evidence for this point of view, courtesy of my odds study, but what I am saying is also common sense, and should resonate with every careful observer.

However, I care enough about the truth, and not just my position on issues, that I'm always on the look out for exceptions. From Saturday's card at Keeneland, Agastache and Corleone struck me as possible exceptions, and possible examplars of "synthetic horses."

Agastache is certainly a great examplar of a career allowance horse, if nothing else. The 6-year-old has made over $358,000 in 43 starts, while never winning a stake, and never running in a graded event. He began his career in the winter of his 3-year-old year on dirt, breaking his maiden second time out at Fair Grounds, and then running 3rd of 9 in a first-level allowance at Oaklawn. He then shifted to Arlington, winning twice and hitting the board three more times in six starts (this was 2008 at Arlington; synthetic). The next year of his career was mostly on dirt, with two wins from 11 starts there, and one start and one win at Turfway over the synthetic.

In his first race at Keeneland, in the fall of his 4-year-old year, he took a nw3x/80k optional allowance at 8-1. He made 10 more starts before coming to the same meet as a 5-year-old (with eight dirt starts, and a 2nd and a 5th in stakes at Turfway and Presque Isle Downs, respectively, over the synthetic). At Keeneland, running in the same condition he'd captured the year before, he was this time 2nd, but at a juicy 17-1. He then jumped from a $53,000 allowance to a $54,000 one at the same meet, and won that at 9/2. In another money allowance at Keeneland the next spring, he was 2nd by a neck in a five-horse field.

He entered Saturday's race off a 3 1/2 month layoff, the longest of his career, but was still making his 8th start of the year. He hadn't found synthetic for any of his races besides the Keeneland 2nd-place finish, but generally had run creditably while not winning, with the race preceding the layoff, the Don Bernhardt at Ellis, the only really bad showing.

I noticed him in Saturday's race (probably an exact replica of the condition for his 2010 score at Keeneland, which was probably also on the final day of the meet) because his form looked moderate for him to be the second choice in the betting behind Winslow Homer. Then I noticed the strong Keeneland races, and a 13 5 5 1 record on synthetic overall, and went "aha." Agastache's career record on dirt is 22 2 5 5. Whether you break down his synthetic record into Keeneland and non Keeneland, or his dirt record by track, his in-the-money statistics just seem stronger on synthetic surfaces.

Saturday's race was not a continuation of the trend; Agastache finished 6th of 11, beaten 5 1/2 lengths.

Corleone, 2nd in the 6th race Saturday behind blowout winner Long Lake Krista, didn't do better than 6th in three dirt races for Pletcher in 2010 and early 2011. In the midst of that disappointing streak, however, she was 2nd in a maiden special weight at Keeneland behind Bouquet Booth. Moving to an easier circuit (synthetic Presque Isle Downs) and trainer Charles Lopresti, Corleone did well, breaking her maiden by 5 lengths and placing in two first-level allowance. She built on the momentum once she came to Keeneland, finishing 3rd on the first Saturday of the meet, in addition to Saturday's placing. All of her Beyers with Lopresti have been better than what she did with Pletcher (that actually includes the Keeneland 2nd, which was, however, her best Beyer at 2).

If that Keeneland 2nd at 2 wasn't there, the improvement could be chalked up to the light bulb going on, or maybe even the trainer change, despite Pletcher's general success. But the good showing at Keeneland at 2 creates a seductive pattern (although one based on small sample size).

Another dimension to Corleone's record is that she was well received as a 2-year-old in training, bringing $325,000. She hasn't lived up to that: if she had, Pletcher would still be training her. By the way, where do you think she sold, and presumably worked, before bringing that big price? At Keeneland.

These text-book examples of synthetic horses are missing one key thing that keeps alive my skepticism of the veracity of "synthetic horses": they've never run on turf. That's hard to believe, with all of the running Agastache has done; his connections apparently aren't of the experimental disposition (unless he worked on turf and hated it, or something. Also worth mentioning that Agastache's first trainer was Asmussen, while his trainer has been Rick Hiles for at least the last 13 races). But simple logic would say that you need to see a horse on dirt, synthetic, and turf, to see if the synthetic form is really a separate phenomenon. Does Agastache just like synthetic, or does he dislike dirt (remembering he's still won over 100k there)? Which performances are the exceptions, the dirt ones, or the synthetic ones? Corleone isn't as experienced as Agastache, and maybe she'll get to turf in due time. The probability that these horses are truly "synthetic horses" is increased because their pedigrees don't look turfy at all: sires and broodmare sires are Mutakddim, Clever Trick, Indian Charlie, and Mining.

Might not be rational, but Miraloma feels good

Spanish Empiress looked good enough that she went off at 5-1 in a $30,000, nw2l claimer at Keeneland on Saturday, and ran well enough that she ended up in the winner's circle. So owner Ron McCauley may have claimed her for her racing potential. But one could do worse than adding a daughter of Stick to Beauty's stakes-winning daughter Miraloma to a breeding operation.

The problem is that Miraloma has not been a good producer. Even considering Stick to Beauty and not Miraloma, much of Stick to Beauty's punch is through Gold Beauty; Stick to Beauty lived to age 30 but had a pattern of producing very good horses, not monsters (although when you count Gold Beauty's race track achievements in there, perhaps I'm being a little tough).

I did a study looking at mares in the 13-year-old age range, and found their siblings were just about irrelevant to their auction value at that point. So the question for evaluating Spanish Empiress is really whether she is going to be a good producer, and you can weight Stick to Beauty and her clan any way you want in that speculation.

At least the owner of Spanish Empiress the mare will potentially be getting something special. Giving her a shot is a little bit like taking the NFL player with 4.3 speed for the 40-yard dash; there's a path where one can see this working.

This is really here nor there, particularly because Spanish Empiress doesn't trace to Gold Beauty, but Spanish Empiress's foals will show Stick to Beauty as their 3rd dam; Sky Beauty's 3rd dam was also Stick to Beauty. Horses like Pine Island and Tale of Ekati had/have Stick to Beauty as their 4th dam.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Dark Star....and not that far back in the pedigree

With past performances that made 61-1 appear the residue of unbridled optimism, the Unbridled's Song 4-year-old gelding Highlight blew away $40,000 maiden claimers at Keeneland Friday. For once, I would be just as happy to discuss Highlight if he'd paid $6.00 (or something unremarkable in the middle like $16.40) as $124.20.

My preoccupation this time is that his second dam is by Dark Star. His dam, Star of My Eye, was born in 1990, and her dam, Dangerous Star, was born in 1967. At 17, Dark Star wasn't remarkably old when he sired Dangerous Star, but old enough that the improbability of a 1967 second dam for a current 4-year-old still comes through. I challenge anybody to beat Dark Star for Highlight in any of the possible categories that come could from this game: a third-generation horse born 57 years before its relative; a sire of a second dam born 57 years before its relative; other active dams (or I guess sires) out of Dark Star mares.

The fact that Dark Star seems like he should have abandoned his place as a sire of second dams quite a while ago says something, because I think the tendency with these kinds of things is for us not to update our timeline sufficiently. When I became interested in pedigrees 20 years ago, Dark Star and other horses born around 1950 certainly were sires of second dams; this post wouldn't have worked then. I suppose in time we do start thinking of horses who weren't born when we became fans taking their place as sires of second dams, etc., and the previous horses in that position not showing up much anymore. But I don't think our expectations increase one year for each year we've lived. This is only speculation, of course.

I do know that I'm continually surprised, and feel old, whenever I see a sire who seems like he just had his first crop taking his position in the second generation, as a broodmare sire or a sire of sires. Thinking that the previous generation should stay in those slots is the corollary of not being ready for the new horses.

I wouldn't mind losing my challenge because I know soon enough there won't be any danger of it. The influence of horses born when Dark Star was is, inevitably, lessening.

A couple of other notes: Dangerous Star, Highlight's dam, presumably got sent to Unbridled's Song because she had produced multiple grade I winner Lady Tak. Dangerous Star was full sister to a couple of impactful Dark Stars, Heavenly Body and Hidden Talent. Heavenly Body won the Matron, while Hidden Talent won the Ashland and Kentucky Oaks, and produced the very good runner and better producer, Too Bald.

Stop at Scat Daddy

If I'm not sounding like a broken record at this point, I'm sure I will soon, but how did two Scat Daddy firsters get away at 15-1 and 54-1 in a maiden special weight at Keeneland on Thursday? I can understand missing dams who were standout runners or have been standout producers; there are so many to know that actual research might be necessary on that score. But Scat Daddy is not only currently the leading freshman sire, he's the current juvenile sire, too. As the second choice in the BC Juvenile, and the 3rd choice in the Kentucky Derby, bettors and fans had awareness of him before he began accumulating a record as a sire. Certainly they have noticed or read that he is doing well?

The funny thing is that I think they have. They know, but oddly separate the knowledge from the undertaking of making their bets. For some handicappers, they may relegate the sire information subconsciously. Perhaps they've just gotten accustomed to using jockey, trainer, workouts, and early betting as their guides. They have awareness of the good sires and sire lines, but the knowledge may not be solid enough in their brains to trust it, the same way that I've heard of actors and singers but can't place them. If you suggested that they should incorporate pedigree information, with some guidance, they would be open to it.

What flummoxes me is the people who have command of the pedigree information but still ignore it. There must be a fair number of these, or there would not be Scat Daddys debuting at 54-1. Most of us have encountered first-out winning percentages for sires and know there is considerable variability from sire to sire. If you know a sire is a 20 percent first-out win sire, why would you not think the information relevant to the race at hand? That 20 percent winning percentage was made up of races like the one you're examining: it has predictive, not just historical significance. I don't understand the intellectual argument for ignoring a variable that is, in fact, a variable. (I could make an intellectual argument for doing it, actually. I guess what I am saying is that, on face value, sire is obviously predictive. The onus needs to be on those who ignore it to demonstrate that their stance is logical. But when I cite discrepancies between odds and sire capability, I feel like I am being humored, and not presenting the bordering on overwhelming and unassailable.)

So, as for this race with the two overlooked Scat Daddys, 54-1 Daddy's Rose led for the first three calls and ended up second by a length behind Indyniable. The 15-1 Swaythisaway, long on pedigree even setting Scat Daddy aside (she's out of Dance Number's daughter Oscillate, and a half to Mutakddim) made it a Scat Daddy exacta for the first 3f or so of the 7f race before fading to 7th by 6 at the wire. Scat Daddys are instilling confidence that they will run well, or at the very least have speed. Sires are doing this or not doing this every day, and it's prudent to pay attention.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Several thrusts at a stake with Indiana-sired fillies

Well, I was preparing a post about the Indiana freshmen sire Article of Faith, who had the winner in the Indiana Stallion 2-year-old filly race at Hoosier on Sunday, and the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-place finishers in the colt and gelding affair. But once I figured out that the race was restricted to the offspring of Indiana stallions and not merely Indiana-breds, I just wasn't feeling it. I wouldn't want to react to success that is at bottom just a matter of numbers. While just five of the 23 starters in these races were by Articles of Faith, maybe the Articles of Faiths are out of the best mares bred to the Indiana stallions. He also has just three winners from 12 starters, and the Beyers found among these Indiana-stallion stakes 2-year-olds make it clear that Indiana-breds by Indiana stallions is a different world than 'A' track racing. I do like his pedigree; it screams speed, with Storm Cat his sire, and Santa Monica winner Nany's Sweep his dam. I have a weakness for her sire, End Sweep, and admire what he accomplished in so few American crops. Article of Faith was unraced, and shoot me, I find the mystery of what unraced sires might have been intriguing.

I mentioned the lousy Beyers in these Indiana-stallion 2-year-old stakes. Article of Faith's winner, Slacker, should have been by Peaks and Valleys. She got a 51 Beyer when airing by 8 lengths in her debut, then got Beyers of 0 or less in her next starts, as she finished up the track in stakes. Then on Sunday, there was the big rebound, with her odds 7-1 as she was coupled with the runner-up, a one-win-in-one-start filly named Indy Pie.

I suppose extreme fluctuation in performance is somewhat interesting by its lonesome, but what really got my attention here is that the two wins have been on fast tracks, and the two sub-zero Beyers on muddy, sealed tracks. I have found what I consider outstanding evidence that the role wet tracks play in performance is vastly overrated by most handicappers, and should perhaps be ignored entirely as a variable. But if ever a horse argues for the opposite, it's Slacker. While the track surface has been the constant in her vicissitudes, Slacker did add blinkers on Sunday, and pop right out to the lead. This suggests that the blinkers certainly had an effect, and may have helped.

I don't bet often, but at least with my for-entertainment-purposes-only selections, I still might be the only one shouting for Slacker down from the top of the grandstand if she ever faces a wet track again. (In true, I'd probably be the only one in the grandstand, but that's another matter.) On the face of it, a horse that can't handle mud is something to be skeptical about. Two awful races, even when the Beyers are down 50 points, really aren't anything that should turn a hair in racing, and require a special explanation. It's very possible that Slacker experienced physical or mental problems in her bad races that had nothing to do with the track surface.

A subtly good day for Street Sense

I encountered three first-time starters for him on Sunday. Here's how they fared:
Ice Cream Silence, 2nd in a 10-horse, 6 1/2 furlong maiden special weight at Keeneland; Toxis, 4th in the same race. Vionnet, 4th by 4 in a 7-horse, 5 1/2 furlong maiden special weight at Santa Anita. Ice Cream Silence broke slowly if not horrendously, but poorly enough that she was a good length behind the otherwise last away. Vionnet broke flat out horrendously, perhaps losing as much ground as she was beaten by.

A daughter of the neat turf sprinter Cambiocorsa, she went off a slight favorite. She took the far turn on the rail, though, and despite the bad break, oddly wasn't that impressive overall. She was dull in the stretch; "not doing enough," as Trevor Denman said. But mathematically, you know she ran pretty well, and against good competition.

That's one thing I like about what these Street Senses did: if they were running at 'B' tracks, and not against each other, they might all have been winners. Not that we expect anything less of horses out of these kinds of mares than to win at 'A' tracks.

Monday, October 24, 2011

Calculating Jimmy: a very vibrant 8-year-old

When I think of older horses who maintain their class as they age, I think of turf routers. It's not clear in my mind whether these are horses who could once compete at other games and switched to longer races on the turf, or if they were always turf routers, but the idea is there.

Calculating Jimmy, 2nd in a non-winners-of-two-other-than (nw2x) allowance on the turf at Keeneland Sunday, not only runs short as he pushes his 9th equine birthday, but usually dashes out to the lead. Of his last 13 races (which encompass his Sunday past performances and the Sunday race) he's been first at the first call eight times, and up by a length or more on seven of those occasions. It's one thing to lead early in routes, when many of the horses in the race can physically get the lead if their jockeys seek it, and another to lead early in sprints, when the run out of the gate is almost a race unto itself. As Calculating Jimmy has been a moderate horse, never trying a stake in 47 starts, he is clearly a horse who has maintained his speed.

And that makes me question my whole assumption. Do older really horses lose more ability in the early stages and in sprints than they lose overall? I know I've heard trainers talk about good older horses adopting a closer's role as they age, so I'm not making the idea up. But I also think of Caller One, the two-time Golden Shaheen winner, who eschewed other spots for the 2f Rocket Man Stakes at 7, 8, and 9, and won the race at age 10. And when a couple of our ex-horses have been considered as lead ponies, they've been described as still quick. So maybe the quickness remains, but not the speed, power, and soundness to run a good full 6f. Not that it's much different, but Calculating Jimmy's preferred distance seems to be 5.5 furlongs.

The story also falls a bit flat since I opened the post talking about older horses preferring long, turf races, and Calculating Jimmy was running on the turf Sunday. So he only defied the norm in one respect. However, 11 of his 12 races previous to Sunday's race were on synthetic, and he's been very competitive in his those races. He was 5-1 on Sunday off the synthetic form, and it would be premature at this point to conclude from the second-place finish that turf moves him up.

Calculating Jimmy's viability as an 8-year-old synthetic sprinter does beg the question of whether the theory of older horses maintaining their form on the turf also applies with synthetic. It's not as if Calculating Jimmy shifted to synthetic late in his career, though; he's only run on dirt four times in 47 races, and never hit the board on it. He's by Cozar out of a Housebuster mare, which fits with turf. We can't get anywhere comparing his dirt and synthetic performances as an older and younger horse, because there haven't been dirt races for him as an older horse.

Even setting aside distance and surface, Calculating Jimmy has aged well (how many 8-year-olds do you see almost breaking through in a straight nw2x allowance, not in a nw2x/optional claimer where they start by virtue of the tag?) This brings up the thought of whether Calculating Jimmy's durability has in some measure resulted from his unusual career of 64% synthetic races, 28% turf races, and 9% dirt races. We heard a lot about racing on the synthetic cutting down on injuries and breakdowns when it was first introduced, and a byproduct of that would be longer careers with less decline.

Calculating Jimmy's career has been noteworthy in one more respect: he's finished second 17 times and only won four times. If you're new to this kind of thinking, firsts and seconds should be more or less equal, if not for a trend or luck. There aren't many walkovers in racing, which means there are almost exactly the same number of firsts and seconds.

Calculating Jimmy didn't get stuck in race after race trying to break his maiden and just missing; that's often how a horse acquires a large number of seconds. He didn't finish second until his 14th start, and he broke his maiden in his seventh start. It doesn't appear he got stuck in pursuit of any other condition, either; he's an equal opportunity second-place finisher, with eight runner-ups in claiming races, seven in allowance races, and two in optional claiming races.

Getting back to the original direction of the post, Calculating Jimmy was 5th by
2 1/2 after 3/8ths of a mile on Sunday, unusual territory for him. He of course ended up performing very well. But it's too early to say that he's going over to the supposed norm for his age of relying on stong finishes in turf races.

My newfound interest in The Lone Ranger

Whether you want to cite a deprived childhood or just a narrow focus, I can't say that The Lone Ranger calls up many associations for me. The character is in that vast array of topics that I hope people don't pursue with such passion at a party that I'm required to do more than fake it and nod. But as far as the rest of the country goes, I gather The Lone Ranger is famous enough that a couple of successful eponymous thoroughbreds aren't going to affect his prominence much. They would probably make about as much difference for his popularity as my vote is going to make for the Presidency.

That said, we did have Sloane Ranger running 3rd in the newly ungraded DeFrancis on Saturday, while 2-year-old The Roan Ranger debuted to be 2nd in a maiden special weight at Santa Anita. I can't see that either horse gets his name from the pedigree, so the owners are presumably true fans of The Lone Ranger. I say fans, plural, because the ownerships of the horses are different. (If you want all of the stats, Sloane Ranger is by Parker's Storm Cat, out of Toppenish, by You and I, owned and bred by Vicki Schowe. The Roan Ranger is by Exchange Rate, out of Crafty Marian, by Crafty Prospector, owned by a group including Blinkers On Racing Stable, and bred by Nick Cimino.)

It would be maddening if The Roan Ranger were not in fact roan, and he is. It would seem Lone Ranger horses in general should be of that color, since The Lone Ranger's horse was Silver, but Sloane Ranger is dark bay or brown.

It would seem this period where only the clever can acknowledge The Lone Ranger may soon be coming to a close, as plain "Lone Ranger", a gelding who won 5 times and $75,000, last started in 2006. His name still appears in the Jockey Club list of names, but I would think it would be becoming available in 2012.

Now that I think of it, it's not clear to me that the five-year inactivity period guarantees that a horse will not start again. I know I've seen three-year layoffs, and maybe even four-year. Horses are coming back off longer and longer layoffs.

I'm sure if a horse hasn't run for years but records a workout, however, that the calendar starts anew. A racing layoff of multiple years usually involves failed comebacks and new injuries. For a horse not even to progress to working in a five-year stretch, but then to return successfully to the races, makes the prospect even more implausible.

Perhaps there is a rule that horses aren't allowed to return after more than five years' absence? If so, then The Jockey's Club's five-year moratorium makes sense. Obviously, safety and humane concerns should drive inactivity bans, though, not existing Jockey Club policy. But it makes sense for the two to be aligned.

If a comeback were attempted for a horse that had been off for more than five years, and the horse's name had been given away, I wonder if the horse would have to be renamed? Or if the Jockey Club would just live with the two horses with the same name? We see this all the time with foreign-bred horses running in the U.S. Two horses with the same name wouldn't present a practical problem, but it would be messy and out of place. We trust The Jockey Club not to let it happen.

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Can you blame anyone for thinking pedigree is BS?

Believe it or not, I am new to TVG. I'm something of a dinosaur generally. I'm not sure if I lived in places where I couldn't get it or I just didn't, but in any event, I'm finally experiencing racing the way many of you have for the last however many years.

Today the announcers (I believe two were Simon Bray and ex-major league catcher Paul Lo Duca) told us that Keeneland allowance starter Garnet Crystals, being by Lion Heart out of a Silver Ghost mare, had the pedigree to transition to turf. Or, to be more accurate, the announcers made noises that sounded like they were eating a really tasty sandwich, but I think I got the right idea.

I'm holding out hope against hope that they had some basis for this statement, were thinking of something definite in their minds. But I have my doubts. Lion Heart never ran on the turf. Neither did his sire, Tale of the Cat. I don't think Silver Ghost ran on turf. I don't think Silver Ghost's sire, Mr. Prospector did. About the most I can say is that Silver Ghost's broodmare sire was Halo (although this Halo dam, Misty Gallore fared extremely well in dirt races).

Now it's certainly possible that, despite not running on turf, some of these ifluences have proven good on turf through the years. I don't know what goes into Tomlinson ratings, but this possibility didn't show up there: Garnet Crystal's turf rating was 8th of 11 in the field. Lion Heart sired Breeders' Cup Turf winner Dangerous Midge, but Dangerous Midge was out of a turf mare. Lion Heart's list of top horses features a preponderance of dirt horses.

I'm sure my categorization of sires as dirt and turf is less than perfect, and not just because I am less than perfect, but because I don't work hard enough at it. My initial categorization based on the horse's race record probably persists in the face of evidence sometimes. I don't have a rule that it takes this percentage of turf stakes horses or that percentage of turf stakes horses to change my mind. I am sincerely curious to know how other people make their assessments.

But I am hoping they actually make assessments, rather than just chattering because it sounds good to say a horse is bred for the turf. I hope they are not chattering to create a mood, the same way Tom Durkin will proclaim sizzling fractions when nothing of the kind has been established. The more empty statements are made, the more confused fans new to pedigree assessment could be. I can't blame them for tuning out the pedigree aspect.

One way of telling whether a commentator is actually analyzing the pedigree or just adding to the hubbub is if he always says a first-time turf starter is bred for it. I do think the declared ratio of turf-bred horses to dirt-bred horses in first-time turf appearances is much higher than it could possibly be.

Garnet Crystals wasn't bad, by the way: 5th as the 9th choice (26-1) in the race. Just think what price she would have been if she didn't have that turf pedigree!

Will Straight Story be humbled by "now" horse?

Although a New York-bred, I think of Straight Story as having honorary membership among Kentucky breds as well. You know, he can hang out with them and they don't look down on him. First, he's by Giant's Causeway out of Take Charge Lady's half sister Eventail. As a lightly raced 3-year-old, he was 2nd beaten a head in the $500,000 Colonial Turf Cup, the $750,000 Virginia Derby, and the $300,000 Jamaica. What a succession of tough beats. Those were his biggest moments, but he's been far from inept since: he won the grade III Fort Marcy at Belmont on Derby Day this year.

One week later, Compliance Officer was 4th by 6 1/2 in a New York-bred, non-winners-of-two-other-than/$25,000 claimer. Bruce Brown claimed him that day, and he's 4 for 4 since, including wins in the West Point and Ashley T. Cole, a race in which Straight Story was 7th.

Today Compliance Officer is 8/5 on the morning line in the Mohawk Stakes, and Straight Story is 6/1. Who would have thought it five months ago? In any event, one of the horses seems in for a cold dose of reality, whether the Mohawk confirms how far Straight Story has fallen, or Compliance Officer comes back to earth.

NY Showcase Day duplications

You have to appreciate Flying Zee Stable starting (or at least entering) four 2-year-olds in the Bertram F. Bongard. They're all winners, so the substantial presence is earned.

In the turfy Ticonderoga, 3/4 sisters Risk a Chance and Mineralogist start right next to each other. Risk a Chance is 3 years old and Mineralogist is 4. Both are homebreds owned by the Bromans and trained by Kimmel. They are 15-1 on the morning line as an entry, and neither has established herself as a turf specialist. In fact, Risk a Chance hadn't run on turf until September 29, when she was 4th in an allowance. Kimmel tried to get Mineralogist on the turf September 25, but the John Hettinger was moved to the turf. Both fillies seem like they could handle 7f adequately, so it's interesting they're not in the Iroquois earlier on the program. They could get in that race; it only has nine entrants. A strong faith in pedigrees might make you think that both fillies will move up on turf, or both will not. But it is perfectly possible that one of the fillies will like the turf and the other will not. This would be true even if the fillies were full sisters and not 3/4 sisters. But clearly Kimmel and the Bromans think of the fillies together to some extent, or they would not be trying the same gambit with both.

No respect for Cute Cadet

The morning-line odds in New York are very aggressive, by which I mean that the oddsmaker doesn't mind putting longshots at higher odds than they go off, and favorites at shorter odds. He isn't trying to avoid hurting people's feelings, he's actually trying to get the odds right, and that means errors high and low for high and low odds horses. When I said he isn't trying to hurt people's feelings, I of course meant the connections of the horses, but strong opinions can resonate further. I, for instance, am right now bordering on indignant that a 2-year-old filly named Cute Cadet in the New York-bred only Joseph A. Gimma Saturday is listed at 50-1 on the morning line.

Even in New York, if we were to take all of the 50-l morning-line shots on the year, this would have to be one of the more plausible entrants. For she ran 4th by 2 1/4 last out -- and well may be taking a class drop! That result came in the $150,000, open Presque Isle Debutante. It was a 12-horse field, so 4th place was very respectable. She came from 10th place and adds blinkers today. The Gimma is a $100,000, state-bred race.

While the PID Debutante was on synthetic, Cute Cadet didn't run well in her other start on synthetic, and broke her maiden on dirt, so synthetic wouldn't seem to have been the driving force. She's also by Officer out of a Future Storm mare, with Carson City the sire of her second dam. Why can't she run on dirt?

I think what may have happened is that the oddsmaker looked at Presque Isle Downs and curled up his nose without thinking of the actual nature of the last spot. Additionally, the oddsmaker seems to go heavily on connections. Cute Cadet's trainer has only made 36 starts this year. For the 5th time in five starts, her jockey is Joel Sone. He's ridden her at Belmont, Finger Lakes, and Presque Isle. That's not wholly a bad sign.

Using speed and not class, I'm not sure what odds Cute Cadet deserves to be. None of her Beyers exceeded 35 before her last of 60. No horse in the race has a better last-out Beyer than 69, however. It's somewhat fluky that the last-race Beyers are so tightly condensed in a 2-year-old stake. Nine of the eleven fillies ran from 60-69 last out. It should make for the good proverbial betting race.

Friday, October 21, 2011

The occasional pedigreequery error (0 for 55, not 0 for 5) keeping life interesting

The 1st at Santa Anita Saturday is a $75,000 2-year-old maiden claimer at 6f, and I did some digging on the morning-line favorite, Shy Humor. He's a first-time starter, and a 45 2/5 bullet work at Santa Anita seems to have gotten him the projected favoritism. Even though Santa Anita is a fast strip, and $75,000 is a high tag, when I see a horse exposed with a 45 2/5 work, I wonder if he's right physically.

Shy Humor also has the redeeming characteristic of being a New York-bred. I don't think NYRA runs $75,000 state-bred maiden claimers (they save that for Monmouth), but I have to think this gelding would be in the straight maidens, and for a good deal more purse opportunity than the $30,000 he runs for Saturday.

He sold rather well as a 2-year-old in training, $58,000, and with a work that wasn't blazing. You generally wouldn't put $58,000 together with Sharp Humor and 10 3/5 and think of an unsound horse.

The dam, Black Barcardi, couldn't run much, running 42 times but earning less than $1,000 a start while running at a long series of tracks housing some of the slower horses in the sport. As a producer, she has likewise been ordinary, although 86 starts and counting for her Barco might allay some concerns on the soundness front. Another foal, Unwavering Spirit, was listed as 0 for 55 with no in-the-money finishes on pedigreequery.com. If true, that would have bolstered the soundness pattern, but raised alarms on the talent front. It turns, out, though, that Unwavering Spirit was just 0 for 5, not 0 for 55, and never in the money. I'm disappointed. Black Bacardi is out of a very good producer, Conquistress, who had Derby 2nd Invisible Ink, and is the 2nd dam of such as Dyna's Lassie.

As far as evaluating this colt, it's important to determine just how fast this 45 2/5 work really was. I'd have to review recent afternoon and morning times at Santa Anita (I know they're fast, but I'mnot sure how fast). Behind the 45 2/5, Shy Humor's next fastest works are two 1:00s for 5f and one 1:00 1/5.

If there weren't a flashy work in tow, a $75,000 maiden claimer would be an absolutely textbook spot for a $58,000 2-year-old purchase. I've seen enough horses with this profile that the work convinces me that he can run some, but doesn't convince me that the connections (including trainer Vann Belvoir) have him placed wrong. Even if he wins and he's brilliant, I'm holding out for the unsoundness theory rather than that they just dared other stables to take him. By the way, I do like what I've seen from Sharp Humor.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Hammers Terror was hammered

At first glance, there doesn't seem to be anything extraordinary about Hammers Terror's 2/5 favoritism in a Keeneland maiden today (which he only won by a half length, but with 6 1/2 lengths over 3rd in a track-record, decent-figure performance). However, I have a huge and far-reaching study of odds in the hopper, and I can tell you of 710 races with 12 betting interests over 2007-2008, the lowest-priced favorite was only 1-2. So I exulted when I saw the odds in this chart, and rushed to see if it was indeed unprecedented in my study, as I remembered it to be. It would have really been something if Hammers Terror were a first-time starter, but the support was more reason-based than that: he had been 2nd by a nose first out behind subsequent stakes winner Luke of York. At 79, his Beyer was certainly not otherworldy, though. The second choice in today's race was Colonel John's brother Bill of Rights, who had been 3rd first out at Woodbine. You had to fear him some; it's not like there was nothing else in this race. Hammers Terror actually was bet remarkably well in that debut, too, starting at 17-10 in another 12-horse field. Despite the close call, I liked his race today and think he has a good future ahead of him. The bigger lesson is simply that we (or at least I) tend not to make sufficient mental adjustments for field size when looking at odds. Twelve horses and six horses are completely different ballgames.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Ghostzapper

Sometimes my impressions of stallions are so strong that I feel like I have a handle on them and don't need to examine their numbers. My working idea of Ghostzapper as the epitome of the awful sire, as the ultimate disappointment, has run into a number of counterexamples on the track lately. Each time I encountered one of these, I found myself saying, "I guess this one is an exception, at least to a degree." I'd thought that enough times that it was time to examine the whole belief.

You probably know what can be said against Ghostzapper. He has 7.4% stakes winners from starters. Even for a stallion who received exquisite mares, this isn't historically bad, certainly not for the low rates we see in this era, and not for a third-crop stallion. But we'd be quibbling over the adverb; 7.4% is weak.

Stately Victor won the grade I Blue Grass, but hasn't shown himself of that caliber generally, certainly not outside of synthetic races. Ghostzapper's only other graded winner is recent Kentucky Cup Sprint winner Matthewsburg (Judy the Beauty did come close in the grade I Spinaway). So not only is Ghostzapper's percentage of stakes winners low, but he hasn't been awash in those really good horses that should come with the commensurate mares.

Now for the surprising virtues that I found. First, Ghostzapper's earnings this year place him #37 on the Blood-Horse's list, behind only Kitten's Joy among third-crop sires. There's a positive flip side to not having a big horse. No Ghostzapper has earned more than $195,897 this year, so Ghostzapper's ranking isn't driven by outliers. It's also important to emphasize how much of a disadvantage being just a third-crop sire is on the general earnings list. Of the top 150 sires by earnings, Ghostzapper ranks in a tie for 96th by number of starters. If earnings were just a redux of starters, we would expect Ghostzapper to rank 96th, but he ranks a lot higher than that. And #37 overall is nothing to dismiss, if the stallion can do it year after year. I would guess that ranking 37th annually might place a stallion somewhere from 15th to 25th cumulatively over a period of five years. Note there are very good stallions way behind #37 this year: Pulpit is 59th, with 32% more starters than Ghostzapper has; A.P. Indy is 75th, with just five fewer starters than Ghostzapper; Smoke Glacken is 93rd, with more starters than Ghostzapper.

For my favorite wins/starts, Ghostzapper over his career is exceptionally high at 21.3%. I didn't check every other stallion in the course of this research, but I didn't run across any better marks. I can tell you that in the top 150 sires by earnings, no stallion has a higher percentage of winners from 2011 starters than Ghostzapper's two-thirds. Behind him are Smarty Jones (62.1%), Saint Liam (61.8%), Flatter (61.3%), Peace Rules (61.1%), and Graeme Hall (60.2%). I have never been a big fan of winners from starters because to me merely winning at some point for some level is not much of an achievement. The rates are very high, meaning that the statistic tells you more about the proportion of really bad horses than really good horses. But to be #1 on any statistic -- would you have thought that of Ghostzapper? Smarty Jones ranking #2 throws the whole statistic into question, but really as a whole, the other five stallions as a whole are good sires, certainly of a type (which could be said to be a type beneath the most protected and pampered horses in the sport). Note, too, that Ghostzapper might well be #1 in another statistic, wins/starts, which does not have the indefinite period of time issue that winners from starters has. (Yearly winners/starters, actually, has some pluses and minuses as a good stat compared to plain winners/starters. The plus is that there is a time limit, as horses can only run so many times in a year. From that standpoint, it makes some sense that a high wins/starts goes with a high percentage of winners from starters in a year. The negative for winners/starters over just a one-year period is that soundness comes into the equation less, which is one thing some people really like about basic winners/starters).

To further the picture of an otherwise good stallion who is only bit by the lack of big horses, Ghostzapper's median earnings per starter of $33,846 is excellent. I don't have a ranking for you there, but it's better than many, many well-regarded stallions, often by a large margin, and worse than very few stallions. Ghostzapper's $53,566 average earnings per starter is more open to interpretation: it's not embarrassingly bad for a stallion with a $20,000 stud fee, but it's certainly not good. Certainly not for a stallion who received the opportunity that Ghostzapper did, a fact we should never lose sight of.

I was intrigued by the combination, the very high median earnings per starter, and the average-ish average earnings per starter. Is it the most extreme ratio of its type? Using the Blood-Horse advertised stallions in the top 150 by earnings, which I would guess would include a good 115, it's the third most extreme, behind Dance With Ravens (1.37 average earnings to median earnings ratio) and Closing Argument (1.57). (Ghostzapper's ratio is 1.58.) An advertised "big-horse stallion" like Tiznow has a ratio over 4 (80k average, 20k median).

I don't really see the ratio as ideally being on one end or the other. The ideal is high in both. A.P. Indy, with a 135k average and a 47k median, is a good model. Any ratio under 2 is low, and there are fine if not elite stallions who fit that (Harlan's Holiday, 1.89; Broken Vow, 1.92; Wildcat Heir, 1.77; Successful Appeal, 1.99; Not For Love, 1.85; Yonaguska, 1.85; Petionville, 1.98).

Ghostzapper's opportunity will be vastly reduced in the future, and that may be the dominant fact about his situation. But it seems to me the fundamental question is if he is simply siring cheap horses who aren't as cheap as some other stallions' horses, or if he is is siring horses with ability who haven't quite broken through and inevitably will. Coupling statistics and observation, I think it's the latter. The wins/starts, for one thing, would not be what it is if his horses were mediocre. Enough is also thought of the Ghostzappers that they would probably not be subjected to heavy campaigns in low-class races to prop up the median earnings. Acting as an advisor to my mother this summer, I crossed Ghostzappers off our yearling list. I'm convinced enough by my analysis that I wouldn't do that again.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Crossing The Line -- won a graded stake then never got back there

Crossing The Line, 2nd in a 22.5k claimer at Santa Anita yesterday, is like I'm Steppin' It Up, except the hiatus from good races now encompasses nine starts. There can't be many horses like this. After a winning effort in the Del Mar Mile in 2007, the ESPN telecast was buzzing about the Breeders' Cup. But Crossing The Line didn't run again until December of 2009. As you would expect, that wasn't in a stakes race; it was in a $32,000 claimer.

Crossing The Line won three times in 2010, all in consecutive starts, and all in mid-price claiming races. It's doubtful he would have ever found his way back to graded stakes if he had stayed in racing condition, although you never know.

But after just missing a fourth consecutive victory (he was 3rd by a head), the gelding was AWOL for another 15 months, concluding with a September 18 allowance/optional claimer race at Golden Gate. Yesterday was his second start back. So, at least in America, (he's a New Zealand-bred), Crossing The Line has run once in a stake, and he won. Most horses with that record are of the Eastern Echo variety, who get hurt afterwards and don't get to race again. Crossing The Line presumably got hurt but did get to race again (after all, he's a gelding, while Eastern Echo had stud duty waiting).

Crossing The Line reminds me of the baseball player who ends his career with a 1.000 batting average. I was listening to a game recently, and the announcer said one of the coaches had had this record of perfection when he was a player. I think he had more than one at-bat, too, with the 1.000 batting average.

Crossing The Line's outstanding record in the races he has been running in speaks well of John Sadler's/Doubledown Stable's decision not to run him in tougher races. His record also makes him a very appealing horse. He's nine years old, and with a 15-8-3-1 ledger (that's starts/wins/seconds/thirds).

It's kind of funny, though as fans or bettors or what have you, that we come to like these horses, while a horse aggressively spotted might show the same consistency but not be lauded for it. Getting beat five lengths every time doesn't make anyone wax poetic. Probably one of many examples of how we anthropomorphize race horses, thinking that digging deep every time only is notable if the horse is going for first

I'm Steppin' It Up won his race yesterday, going off as the third choice, as the track handicapper said he would. I certainly wasn't selecting him; handicapping isn't my focus. It just seemed like the polite or the complete thing to do to mention it. I didn't want to be remiss, you know, although I suppose the omissions really only reflect poorly on you when their airing might reflect poorly on you, at least in the eyes of people who think an errant prediction shows poor reasoning.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

I'm Steppin' It Up bowing to the condition book

If you're managing a horse's career, there's an unwritten but standard procedure for taking the previous results and finding the horse's next start. Specifically, if your horse won its last start, you run it at the same class level or higher next time (presuming the last start was recent). Like all rules and expectations, this one can be constraining, though. You don't want a previous win to be an albatross; a horse's ascending performance opens up the possibility of competing in better races, but it shouldn't consign the horse to those spots. So I like it when I see owners and trainers who flout the standard move.

I'm Steppin' It Up's presence in race 5, a $60,000 overnight stake at Belmont, is such an example. While the race was rained off the turf, he won the $265,000 Kent Stakes last out, and before that he was 3rd in the $300,000 Smarty Jones. Certainly, another rich but accessible race would be ideal, but one presumably isn't available. So I'm Steppin' It Up runs for $60,000, rather than staying on the sidelines. The morning line has him trailing Turbo Compressor and Bold Warrior, so who knows if running him in this race is the percentage move. But I see evidence of the connections thinking, and I like that.

A clarification. Winning a stake race is almost unambiguously good and expands the possibilities for the horse. I should hasten to add that this certainly isn't true for horses who win conditional races. Then the horses move up next time out of necessity. Even with stakes winners, if the horse is early in its career or was a squirrel finding an acorn in the victory, conditions which could be of value go by the boards with the win. And the horse will pay a price later for the win in terms of weight, whether it runs under allowance conditions, or handicap.

Keeneland workout times requires mental makeover

I know Keeneland's been extremely fast, with low-level allowances that generate ordinary speed figures seemingly threatening track records in every race. But seeing that today's first-time starter Coup (2-year-old filly in race 10) worked 59 4/5 last Sunday, and this only ranked 18th of 33 works on the tab, brings home the point.

Friday, October 14, 2011

Jay Em Ess + War Front = 32-1???

I spent some time today on Keeneland's two 2-year-old maiden special weights contested yesterday. Scatman won the first division in 1:09.19; Full won the second in 1:09.45. If we had had a special day of all 2-year-old races, as they do at Churchill, I don't think either race would have ranked in the top half of the day's races, time wise. The connections of Scatman might go home happy that they won the faster division, but the perspective of speed figures would eliminate the false comfort. The mediocre times do not mean Scatman and Full won't be good horses, though; I thought Scatman particularly gave an above-average performance using the eye test.

Scat Daddy, sire of Scatman, has obviously made a splash. Maybe a month or a month-and-a-half ago, I looked up his statistics, and was surprised to find that his offspring were only winning 11% or 12% of their starts. That's basically average; you can interpret winning percentage in terms of corresponding field size. (Twelve percent is an average percentage if the field has 1/.12, or 8.3 starters; 20% is an outstanding percentage, because the average race has easily more than 1/.2, or 5 starters.)

It's not an appealing statistic on the face of it, because it doesn't adjust for class, but total winning percentage does a good job of separating good and bad sires. Just run it on a bunch of sires and see. What it tells you more specifically is how quick or fast a sire's offspring generally are. There are some sires who get important horses, usually important distance horses, who don't have an impressive winning percentage. But producing fast horses is an important part of a stallion's evaluation, and wins/starts is very informative in this regard (the number is part of the free equineline.com reports available from the on-line Blood-Horse Stallion Register and other places).

So, because of his average wins/starts start, I had a closet theory that maybe Scat Daddy was a creation of his large number of runners, which are tops among first-crop sires. (See that list <a href="http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/thoroughbred-breeding/sire-lists/first-crop">here</a>). But through 10/10, not even including Scatman's win, Scat Daddy's winning percentage had rebounded to 19%. It appears this isn't a weakness of his, or a leading indicator of eventual anonymity. His wins/starts have caught up to the rest of his record.

Incidentally, I'm surprised the number has changed so much in a relatively short period of time. Have the Scat Daddys been winning at a torrid 30% or so since I last checked, or have Scat Daddy's numbers of starts increased quickly as he's had returning runners added to first-time starters?

The race behind Scatman was crazy bunched, with 2nd and 10th only separated by 3 1/4 lengths. Running 7th by 5 1/4 was Bold Front.

Scat Daddy will have to go a ways to overtake second-crop sire War Front in my eyes, War Front being the sire of Bold Front. War Front could be one of the sires we are talking about in 10 years.

The best owners of young horses in my mind are Jay Em Ess Stable. Their horses do well in absolute terms, and for the money paid, they are even better. They have talented, exciting horses. Couple War Front with Jay Em Ess....and a handicapper has to have a lot of confidence in such a 2-year-old, doesn't he? Bold Front also sold well, at $145,000 last September. Yet, making his debut, Bold Front was the longest shot in his race, an ice-cold 32-1.

I saw enough in his race to think he is going to live up to his stallion and owner. The chart says he "broke slowly." Now, there are countless degrees of this mishap, so one really needs to watch races and draw personal conclusions. The slow start in thus was not negligible. I also saw a horse finishing willingly. Bold Front's price will probably improve dramatically as he continues his career, and I think his finish position will as well.

It's frustrating to me, because I feel like I reliably pick out first-time starters from their profiles who are going to be much better than their starting odds would indicate. But the bettors do tend to know who is a threat on that day. Horses with strong pedigrees often run to their lackluster odds first time out, or at least don't run well enough to figure into the payouts, but continue on to be good horses.

Still, it's hard for me to believe the bettors are as smart as this pattern would suggest. It's hard for me to believe they wouldn't give a second look to a horse if they knew it was going to win a stake. I understand that certain stables aim for winning first out, but is first-out evaluation so exact that bettors can be extremely sure a good horse isn't going to win first out? It might just take a few Bold Fronts for the superior insight (if I do flatter myself) to pay mutuel dividends

Doing about as Bold Front did, that is to say running mid-pack in a bunched affair, was Fifty Five South in division two (to be precise, he was 5th by 3). This horse's pedigree caught my eye because he is a half to The Factor. His dam also was a half to the very fast Chief Seattle, who placed in the Breeders' Cup Juvenile, and got a shot at stud. Fifty Five South was only a $2,000 weanling, selling a couple of years ago, obviously before The Factor had made any noise. This was only so much of an oversight, as Fifty Five South is by Cuvee, and now gelded. But the good female families do hold up, and produce runners to one degree or another. Chief Seattle was also an inexpensive Seattle Slew, if I remember correctly, although again, I can't really term a $2,000 Cuvee weanling as inexpensive, or as underselling.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Baffert taking a $12,500 claimer, and Dave's Revenge

Representing Live Your Dreams Racing Stable, Baffert claimed the 4-year-old filly Lutess from a Santa Anita $12,500 claiming race on Monday. This strikes me as an unusual thing for him to do, to fish at the bottom of the pond. His stable isn't comprised of $12,500 claimers. Maybe he took this filly as a favor to the owners.

Oddly, Dave's Revenge finished 2nd in the same race. She was 4th in the 2008 Breeders' Cup Juvenile Fillies, which was quite a fast race, and only beaten a nose for 3rd that day. Yet she's gone on to run in 11 claimimg races, many of them cheap, and several more optional claimers, I think, with the tag active. I can't imagine she would have been in any of these races with an extra foot of speed on that day three years ago. If she does go on to be a broodmare, I wonder if anyone besides me will remember the 4th in the Breeders' Cup?

A legitimate question is if buyers should care. Even if Dave's Revenge had been 3rd in that Breeders' Cup, should they care? What is a better reflection of her ability: Breeders' Cup placed horse, or $25,000 claimer/ first-level allowance kind of horse? Would the Breeders' Cup placing signify more than a pretty line in the catalog?

Dave's Revenge has earned $242,160. The 4th in the Breeders' Cup was worth $102,000. Certainly someone has to look at that earnings number and think that she experienced some real success at some point, despite the fact that her name's not in black. The $138,000 in addition to the Breeders' Cup money also isn't anything to sneeze at. She's by The Cliff's Edge and doesn't have much speed, but it wouldn't be a surprise if she passed along some ability to her offspring.