Crist on # starts for HOY

[FenceBored]

If the four leading contenders for the HOTY honor in 2010 stick to their current schedules en route to a showdown in the Breeders' Cup Classic Nov. 6, they will have made only 5 (Blame), 6 (Quality Road, Zenyatta) or 7 (Lookin at Lucky)starts this year.
-- http://www.drf.com/blogs/less-less
Interesting chart on HOY starts included in his post.

[Steve R]

If the four leading contenders for the HOTY honor in 2010 stick to their current schedules en route to a showdown in the Breeders' Cup Classic Nov. 6, they will have made only 5 (Blame), 6 (Quality Road, Zenyatta) or 7 (Lookin at Lucky)starts this year.
-- http://www.drf.com/blogs/less-less
Interesting chart on HOY starts included in his post.
I don't quite get the point of focusing on HOY starts. The DRF's own American Racing Manual shows that in every decade other than the 1970s the average number of HOY starts was greater than the average for all Thoroughbreds. If he's simply concerned about fewer starts today than yesterday he should be addressing the general population, not HOYs who generally race more than the average for their time.

Also, the ARM data shows that the average field size dropped by only 4% between 1965 and 2009. And in 1965 the ratio of available races to starters was 1.27. In 2009 the ratio was only 0.76, a drop of 40%. Coincidentally (or not), the decline in average number of starts between 1965 and 2009 was 42%. So how do we know that the observed trend is due to increased fragility (not likely on an evolutionary time scale) and not simply less opportunity and, perhaps, overinflated purses that reduce the need to race as much to recoup expenses?

[the little guy]

I don't quite get the point of focusing on HOY starts.


I think you do actually. At least I hope you do.

[turfnsport]

So how do we know that the observed trend is due to increased fragility (not likely on an evolutionary time scale) and not simply less opportunity and, perhaps, overinflated purses that reduce the need to race as much to recoup expenses?

Because we have eyes?

[FenceBored]

I don't quite get the point of focusing on HOY starts. The DRF's own American Racing Manual shows that in every decade other than the 1970s the average number of HOY starts was greater than the average for all Thoroughbreds. If he's simply concerned about fewer starts today than yesterday he should be addressing the general population, not HOYs who generally race more than the average for their time.


Yes, fewer starts for HOY winners is intertwined with the broader trend toward fewer starts among the general population. However, there are good reasons to be particularly concerned about the trend at the highest level. If the purpose of the HOY Eclipse award is to highlight the best of the best, shouldn't durability be preferred, as stamina is through the preference of routers to sprinters in HOY voting? Does 5-7 starts in a calendar year scream durability?

[Phantombridgejumpe]

don't see it as being the number one factor.

If a horse went 3 for 5 say, and the 3 wins were all 3 triple crown races I have no issue with giving that horse HOY.

All things being equal I'd like to see more starts and would favor that in the voting, but if I had a vote I'd vote for the most impressive horse of the year.

Impressive would be defined as:

* Wins in big races
* Record
* Earnings
* Places and Shows in big races
* 'Wow' performances based on time and win margin/style
* Competition in races run (partially based on age and sex)

The last time I had a real problem with the winner was the year I would have given it to Awesome Again over Skip Away.

[Steve R]

I think you do actually. At least I hope you do.
You should read beyond the first sentence. The typical HOY races more than the average Thoroughbred. Fields are larger than they were 15 years ago. Because of the increase in the number of horses and the decrease in the number of races over the last half century there are fewer opportunities for individual horses and the decline in average starts per runner perfectly parallels the decrease in opportunity. So, no, I don't get Crist's emphasis on HOYs. If you want to infer something more fundamental, like increasing fragility in the breed, show me the data, not opinion. Evolution doesn't generally work that quickly for one thing. Or perhaps they are equally fragile but faster now and therefore more subject to injury. IMO Crist's data don't contribute at all to an understanding of the mechanism at play here, but I'm sure it will stimulate plenty of idle speculation.

[the little guy]

You should read beyond the first sentence.

Actually, I shouldn't have.

[BluegrassProf]

(not likely on an evolutionary time scale)Evolution doesn't generally work that quickly for one thing.You realize this is manipulated breeding, not natural evolution...right?

...right?

[Linny]

Modern Eclipse voters are in a "lesser of evils" situation. Sure, there may be some nice durable horse that they'd love to reward but those horses have come up wanting when faced with the elite.
The elite horses in the game are the ones that people follow and that generate interest in the game. What would baseball be if the A-Rods and the Ken Griffeys only played 6-7 times a year? If football teams only started their best QB in 4 games a season? That way those superstars would be fresh when the big late season events take place. Sounds absurd, but it's effectively what happens in racing.

Comparing HOY's to "all-TB's" is not valid as that latter category includes the many registered horses that never run, even those that were never intended to run.

I think that trainers (and owners) have developed a fear of losing to the extent that nothing is worse. Fans have picked up on it. Honestly, to hear some people talk after QR lost the Whitney, you would have thought he had DIED. Horses lose races. Even very good horses lose races. Trainer today seem very aware of their win stats as published in the DRF. I doubt that if you had asked the greats of yesteryear what their win % was that they'd have known. Frankly, if horses ran 10-15 race campaigns the loses wouldn't seem so bad. Today's trainer would rather go 4 for 4, leaving hundreds of thousands of $$$ on the table than go 7-10 and earn alot more $$$ for their owners.

[Steve R]

Yes, fewer starts for HOY winners is intertwined with the broader trend toward fewer starts among the general population. However, there are good reasons to be particularly concerned about the trend at the highest level. If the purpose of the HOY Eclipse award is to highlight the best of the best, shouldn't durability be preferred, as stamina is through the preference of routers to sprinters in HOY voting? Does 5-7 starts in a calendar year scream durability?
Five to seven starts per year doesn't scream anything other than reflecting the general trend in racing. Zenyatta will retire with 20 starts in four years, an average of five a year. Was she durable? She did survive four years of essentially uninterrupted training despite having relatively few starts. One's requirements for HOY depend on how each individual defines them. Native Dancer won way back in 1954 with just three starts. If he was the best, then he was the best. Same for Count Fleet which had only six starts even further back in 1943.

As to the preference for routers over sprinters for HOY, it's purely cultural and has no bearing on the differences in quality expressed. There are actually people who believe that 1999 HOY Charismatic was a better horse than Artax. Not I.

[saratoga guy]

I don't quite get the point of focusing on HOY starts... If he's simply concerned about fewer starts today than yesterday he should be addressing the general population...

You've missed the point of his piece. Read the last two paragraphs again.

He's talking about the STARS of the sport racing less -- and often shopping for less competitive spots when they do race - which is "diminishing the sport."

[Linny]

I don't think Native Dancer "earned HOY" in 1954. In fact he tied with Dedicate that year.
Count Fleet all but busted off a hoof in a 25 length rout in the Belmont to sweep the TC, so I can forgive him a bit more. He was 6 for 6 winning an allowance, the Wood the TC, with the Withers tossed in between the Preakness and Belmont. He'd get HOY today too. (Think if Eskendereya had won the TC with ease and broken down after te Belmont wire...)

[Steve R]

You realize this is manipulated breeding, not natural evolution...right?

...right?
It doesn't matter. It still won't be responsible for a 40% reduction in starts per year within two or so generations even if everyone began selecting specifically and purposefully for unsoundness. That clearly hasn't been the intent and the process is still evolutionary. Houseflies started to first show signs of DDT-resistance two years after its introduction. That's about about 35 generations and under extremely stressful environmental conditions. I think the greater probability is a combination of things like reduced opportunity, lower incentives, approaching the maximum speed consistent with the general physical state of the breed and perhaps even inferior training.

[Steve R]

You've missed the point of his piece. Read the last two paragraphs again.

He's talking about the STARS of the sport racing less -- and often shopping for less competitive spots when they do race - which is "diminishing the sport."
I was originally only referring to the significance of the data Crist presented, not his opinion about what diminishes the sport. If you separately want to address the issue of stars looking for softer spots or racing less, then simply don't reward them for doing so. I believe that had a role in Zenyatta not being named HOY last year. Beyond that, if you want the stars to race more in pursuit of the HOY award then dump the BC. That should help.

[Steve R]

Actually, I shouldn't have.
Play the ignorant fool. Be my guest. You have plenty of company.

[the little guy]

Play the ignorant fool. Be my guest. You have plenty of company.


Oh don't be so hard on yourself. Just because you can't seem to get past that whole dosage debacle doesn't mean others can't.

[46zilzal]

Oh don't be so hard on yourself. Just because you can't seem to get past that whole dosage debacle doesn't mean others can't.
Dosage worked well for a very long time until stamina disappeared from the equation. Keep shortening all the graded classics and in a few generations, 3 furlong stakes will be the standard.

I posted this to the Blood Horse the same year Unbridled won the Derby and it has only gotten worse since then.

[Steve R]

I don't think Native Dancer "earned HOY" in 1954. In fact he tied with Dedicate that year.
Count Fleet all but busted off a hoof in a 25 length rout in the Belmont to sweep the TC, so I can forgive him a bit more. He was 6 for 6 winning an allowance, the Wood the TC, with the Withers tossed in between the Preakness and Belmont. He'd get HOY today too. (Think if Eskendereya had won the TC with ease and broken down after te Belmont wire...)
Here's the thing. HOY honors are awarded, not earned. If you want things to be different, then get the voters not to vote for HOY contenders that don't race enough or look for easy spots in order to rack up the wins. Perhaps thay actually did that last year. And as for Count Fleet, he certainly may have been the absolute best horse of 1943, but I believe all of his races were age restricted so I have no idea whether he could have beaten Devil Diver or Market Wise at weight-for-age. We'd like to think so because he was a TC winner, but we don't really know.

[thespaah]

don't see it as being the number one factor.

If a horse went 3 for 5 say, and the 3 wins were all 3 triple crown races I have no issue with giving that horse HOY.

All things being equal I'd like to see more starts and would favor that in the voting, but if I had a vote I'd vote for the most impressive horse of the year.

Impressive would be defined as:

* Wins in big races
* Record
* Earnings
* Places and Shows in big races
* 'Wow' performances based on time and win margin/style
* Competition in races run (partially based on age and sex)

The last time I had a real problem with the winner was the year I would have given it to Awesome Again over Skip Away.
I think there should be a minimum number of starts to be eligible for HOTY.
8 starts which works out to one about every 6 weeks.
Now some may say, "wait a minute, this horse won 5 grade ones and a grade two, then finished seecond in the BC classic!!!!"..
Well ok, there can be exceptions.
No horse is going to win 5 grade ones unless he or she is an outstanding equine athlete with a very good trainer and rider..
IMO HOTY is like MLB's MVP award...It's given to the player who in the opinion of the reporter members of the MLB Writer's association is most valuable to his team and was the player which exempiflified whaty it means to be a MLB Player.
HOTY is an award given to the horse which best exemplifies a champion. Preferably one who beat other champion horses at varying distances and surfaces and large fields.

[Steve R]

Oh don't be so hard on yourself. Just because you can't seem to get past that whole dosage debacle doesn't mean others can't.
Which debacle is that? Last time I looked, all the major online databases (e.g., BRIS, Equineline, pedigreequery.com) were still publishing and/or selling Dosage figures as were the top end breeding software programs (e.g., TesioPower). And the data still hold up every year - the basic model is at least as accurate today as it was in 1981. Now if you are overly concerned with the Kentucky Derby, I'd have to conclude that you are too superficial a thinker to recognize that Dosage has actually captured the change in aptitudinal type of Derby winners over time. In fact, even Andy Beyer would have to (reluctantly) concur since his own figures show that in the last 20 years there is a direct correlation between the Derby-winning BSF and the Derby-winning DI. The more stamina-oriented half have an average BSF almost five Beyer points higher than the speed-oriented half and the two groups are different in a statistically significant way. Beyond that, the IV of Preakness and Belmont winners in the 1990s and 2000s is essentially unchanged since the 1970s. And if you had blindly (i.e., with no handicapping at all) placed a $2 win bet on all Dual Qualifier betting interests in all three TC races since 1990 (about when I'm assuming you would say the "debacle" began if Strike the Gold is the marker), today you would have an ROI of about 45%. IOW, you are absolutely clueless about what Dosage is, how it has evolved or how it has performed. All the data is publicly available and easily reviewed. You certainly are free to ignore it, which apparently you have. That's fine with me. After all, it is so much easier to listen to what other equally uninformed people tell you.

[classhandicapper]

I think one major contributor to fewer starts per year for major stakes horses is that many of the trainers of high quality stock these days believe in greater spacing as a way of keeping a horse sounder and fresher for the full length of a campaign.

When I first started following racing in the mid 70s, major stakes horses often ran every 3 weeks or so, got a mid season freshening somewhere along the line, and then picked up where they left off.

Now it's not unusual for a horse to get 6-8 weeks off per start throughout the season.

In our debates about how some of the current major horses are being handled I've often brought up the issue of the BC Classic. The BC Classic is such a prestigious race and carries so much weight in the HOTY voting, a lot of trainers are mapping out plans specifically designed to have their horse peak for that race and not earlier. So they are looking for easier spots and a lighter schedule.

[Linny]

The Breeders' Cup has been the tail that wags the "racing dog" for 20 years now. You could skip it with a very good horse and (as long as chaos prevailed in your division) still get honors. In fact RA is a perfect example last year. She was HOY because voters didn't like Z's perceived weak campaign.
Many times the HOY selection is a default vote because of chaos in the ranks of the most obvious horses. Was Charismatic "better" than Victory Gallop? Probably not, but VG was done after the Whitney and though he got "older male" the voters just couldn't give him HOY with an allowance, a G2 and a G1 win + a 3rd in the DWC. Thus they went to the default position of the colt that won 2/3 of the TC and was tragically injured struggling home in the Belmont.

[sandpit]

Five to seven starts per year doesn't scream anything other than reflecting the general trend in racing. Zenyatta will retire with 20 starts in four years, an average of five a year. Was she durable? She did survive four years of essentially uninterrupted training despite having relatively few starts. One's requirements for HOY depend on how each individual defines them. Native Dancer won way back in 1954 with just three starts. If he was the best, then he was the best. Same for Count Fleet which had only six starts even further back in 1943.

As to the preference for routers over sprinters for HOY, it's purely cultural and has no bearing on the differences in quality expressed. There are actually people who believe that 1999 HOY Charismatic was a better horse than Artax. Not I.

Zenyatta didn't make her first start til the latter part of November of her 3yo season, so that would up her average somewhat when you consider she's only run what will be a little less than 3 years.

[the little guy]

Zenyatta didn't make her first start til the latter part of November of her 3yo season, so that would up her average somewhat when you consider she's only run what will be a little less than 3 years.


Good point.

She's really had a very strenuous career.

[Irish Boy]

Good point.

She's really had a very strenuous career.
I'm not entirely sure why you had to make a smartass comment. He never said that it was a strenuous career, just that the average isn't quite accurate. Finding things to scoff at legitimately on this board isn't that difficult. Maybe go for the low hanging fruit next time instead.

[the little guy]

I'm not entirely sure why you had to make a smartass comment. He never said that it was a strenuous career, just that the average isn't quite accurate. Finding things to scoff at legitimately on this board isn't that difficult. Maybe go for the low hanging fruit next time instead.


Thanks for the unnecessary critique.

The joke is that Zenyatta-ites, or whatever they're called, often feel a need to point out the irrelevent in some unnecessary defense of her, while ignoring the obvious flaws all too often.

If I wanted to go for low hanging fruit I would have been meaner to you.

[cj]

I'm not entirely sure why you had to make a smartass comment. He never said that it was a strenuous career, just that the average isn't quite accurate. Finding things to scoff at legitimately on this board isn't that difficult. Maybe go for the low hanging fruit next time instead.

It also isn't accurate that her career began at the end of her 3yo season. She was in training well before that.

[Irish Boy]

Thanks for the unnecessary critique.

The joke is that Zenyatta-ites, or whatever they're called, often feel a need to point out the irrelevent in some unnecessary defense of her, while ignoring the obvious flaws all too often.

If I wanted to go for low hanging fruit I would have been meaner to you.
I get the joke. He wasn't defending anything. Just pointing out that the average is closer to three years than four years. The my-dick-is-bigger-than-your-dick routine over everything RA and Zenyatta on this board is quite tiring, especially when unprovoked and unwarranted. She's made 19 starts over about three years. That's just a fact. Draw from it what you will.

It also isn't accurate that her career began at the end of her 3yo season. She was in training well before that.
Sandpit didn't use the word career once.

[thaskalos]

I'm not entirely sure why you had to make a smartass comment. He never said that it was a strenuous career, just that the average isn't quite accurate. Finding things to scoff at legitimately on this board isn't that difficult. Maybe go for the low hanging fruit next time instead.Don't blame "the little guy" for going for the easy target. It was either that or tangling with Steve R...which would have been a much tougher task...

[the little guy]

Don't blame "the little guy" for going for the easy target. It was either that or tangling with Steve R...which would have been a much tougher task...


No, that already proved extremely easy.

I had moved on.....to, apparently, even lower hanging fruit.

[thaskalos]

No, that already proved extremely easy.

I had moved on.....to, apparently, even lower hanging fruit.Yeah...I saw.

You really showed him...

[46zilzal]

Too bad that there is so much riding on a single day's race outcome. So many uncontrollable things can happen.

[the little guy]

Yeah...I saw.

You really showed him...

His entire argument had zero to do with this thread and only existed because of the author of the blog this thread is about.

[thespaah]

Thanks for the unnecessary critique.

The joke is that Zenyatta-ites, or whatever they're called, often feel a need to point out the irrelevent in some unnecessary defense of her, while ignoring the obvious flaws all too often.

If I wanted to go for low hanging fruit I would have been meaner to you.:D ..
There are fans of the game. Then there are emotionally over exhuberant stick in the mud how dare you even critique my favorite( fill in the blank) people .
Seems the Zenayatta crowd fits right in with the latter description.
I cannot see getting all wrapped up in that stuff.

[classhandicapper]

The Breeders' Cup has been the tail that wags the "racing dog" for 20 years now. You could skip it with a very good horse and (as long as chaos prevailed in your division) still get honors. In fact RA is a perfect example last year. She was HOY because voters didn't like Z's perceived weak campaign.


The Breeder's Cup HAS been significant for a long time and does not always decide things, but the combination of trainers like Pletcher and others who believe in a lot of spacing plus the BC has not been around a long time. And it often DOES decide things (plus it's worth a ton of money).

The new style of training has actually caused tracks to shuffle the scheduling and spacing of many major stakes around the country.

More spacing = fewer starts.

The desire to peak in Oct/Nov instead of early summer = fewer and easier starts before then.

The combination of both = campaigns like Zenyatta & Ghostzapper, RA this year compared to last year etc....

So independent of issues like the breed itself, IMO trainer motive, goal, and belief is having a huge impact also.

[FenceBored]

Five to seven starts per year doesn't scream anything other than reflecting the general trend in racing. Zenyatta will retire with 20 starts in four years, an average of five a year. Was she durable? She did survive four years of essentially uninterrupted training despite having relatively few starts. One's requirements for HOY depend on how each individual defines them. Native Dancer won way back in 1954 with just three starts. If he was the best, then he was the best. Same for Count Fleet which had only six starts even further back in 1943.


This is why I really really hate sympathy awards, they get used as precedents for degrading matters further.

Don't have full charts in front of me, but I'll toss out High Gun as being more deserving of the 1954 HOY honors for his 1954 campaign (Belmont, Dwyer, Peter Pan, Sysonby, Manhattan, JCGC) than Native Dancer (Met Mile). But, given ND's 1953 campaign you got people who asked themselves: "how can we let such a brillant horse retire without having won HOY?" Answer: easily. If another horse's campaign is more deserving in each year, then the other horse is more deserving.


As to the preference for routers over sprinters for HOY, it's purely cultural and has no bearing on the differences in quality expressed. There are actually people who believe that 1999 HOY Charismatic was a better horse than Artax. Not I.

Yes, it's cultural, just like the preference for males over females and the one for dirt over turf in the US. And let's not forget the brownie points received for winning a TC race.

Perhaps if Artax's win record for 1999 had been better than 4 for 15, his brillance would have overcome the Charismatic sympathy/dual Classic winner voter combination.

[classhandicapper]

I think one of the reasons routers tend to get more recognition than sprinters for HOTY is that the best route races tend to be deeper and of higher quality than the best sprints.

There's some objective evidence to support that. But even without it, any trainer/owner that has a horse versatile enough to be competitive as both a sprinter or router is going to try to routes because there are more prestigious races and higher purses available for routers. So the talent tends to be more concentrated at the longer distances. In some ways it may be a chicken and egg situation, but that's the way it is.

[cj]

I think one of the reasons routers tend to get more recognition than sprinters for HOTY is that the best route races tend to be deeper and of higher quality than the best sprints.

There's some objective evidence to support that. But even without it, any trainer/owner that has a horse versatile enough to be competitive as both a sprinter or router is going to try to routes because there are more prestigious races and higher purses available for routers. So the talent tends to be more concentrated at the longer distances. In some ways it may be a chicken and egg situation, but that's the way it is.

Wouldn't it also be because that is where the most money is dished out?

[thespaah]

I think one of the reasons routers tend to get more recognition than sprinters for HOTY is that the best route races tend to be deeper and of higher quality than the best sprints.

There's some objective evidence to support that. But even without it, any trainer/owner that has a horse versatile enough to be competitive as both a sprinter or router is going to try to routes because there are more prestigious races and higher purses available for routers. So the talent tends to be more concentrated at the longer distances. In some ways it may be a chicken and egg situation, but that's the way it is.
It took a bit of time but I got a handle on graded stakes.
Looked on bloodhorse.com..
In 2010 there were 486 graded races scheduled to be run.
I excluded 2yo restricted races even though they are graded because 2yo's run shorter distances and most of those are of sprint distance.
Included are all graded races on all surfaces...of the remaining races not for 2yo's the number of graded races less than 1 mile is seventy races.
There are 48 graded stakes for 2yo....22 of distances 8f and greater..There are two 9f graded races for 2yo's

[sandpit]

Don't blame "the little guy" for going for the easy target. It was either that or tangling with Steve R...which would have been a much tougher task...

Now that hurts.:(

And I'm not a Zenyatta-whatever any more than I am for any other top-class horse, but in a practical sense, it's tough for me to see flaws when the mare in undefeated in her "career".

Ghostzapper was the one who had it strenuous, 11 starts in 4 seasons.

[mountainman]

Wouldn't it also be because that is where the most money is dished out?

Bingo. Does anyone seriously think that horses like Secretariat (whose pedigree, players now forget, was originally considered shaky at classic distance), Seattle Slew and Spectacular Bid- and many lesser middle-distance champs as well- could not have humbled the best sprinters of their respective eras? Forego and Precisionist both proved that point.

[eastie]

No, that already proved extremely easy.

I had moved on.....to, apparently, even lower hanging fruit.

It's not like you can reach the high branches though :)

[PaceAdvantage]

It's not like you can reach the high branches though :)Harvey you ain't....

[eastie]

Harvey you ain't....


we all know there's only one Harvey. I would almost be amusing if i weren't so pathetic. Maybe someday I'll get my groove back. I wasn't always this bad.

[classhandicapper]

Wouldn't it also be because that is where the most money is dished out?

Yes.

That's what I meant when I said it's a kind of chicken and egg situation.

There's more breeding value in horses that run well at a route of ground. So owners/trainers want to try to stretch their horses out. That in turn makes for stronger fields in routes, which in turn justifies higher purses and higher Grades for the races, which in turn makes owners and trainers want to stretch them out.....

[bisket]

Yes.

That's what I meant when I said it's a kind of chicken and egg situation.

There's more breeding value in horses that run well at a route of ground. So owners/trainers want to try to stretch their horses out. That in turn makes for stronger fields in routes, which in turn justifies higher purses and higher Grades for the races, which in turn makes owners and trainers want to stretch them out.....
which is why we have more and more 1 1/8 grade 1 "classic races" :rolleyes: sprinters have a shot in those...... unlike in legitimate 1 1/4 mile events

[WinterTriangle]

class, "stretching out" is more like to 1-1/8 here. so I have to agree with bisket.

everyone here already knows my thoughts about shortened races in the US and the "stamina" problem
There really is no money at the breeding end here for horses going long that I know about?