Shagfarms’ Sire Rankings

Breeding is one of, if not the most intriguing aspects of our great sim. It allows for an overlap between the real world and the sim, and adds a sense of realism that may not always exist in an enterprise such as this. People can spend days, weeks, months, or even years researching the different combinations to research what works and what doesn’t. It’s the most statistical area in the sim, as you can look at how different crosses have worked both in the sim’s past and in real life, and try to extrapolate from that how your new colt or filly will fare on the track. Dirt, turf, sprints, routes, claimers, stakes races. There are statistics that can tell you all of these things, and give you a jump start if you are looking for a particular type of horse.

When it comes to breeding in the sim, everyone has a different style. Some sit at their computers for hours on Sunday and Monday, armed with piles of credits, waiting for breeding to open so that they can grab the top sires for credits in the “Clickfest.” Others take their time, spending days (or weeks) putting together the perfect cross of bloodlines, regardless of how high or low the price is. Some wait until Sunday morning, looking through what remains to grab a bargain bred. The number of different strategies is endless. Do you want to breed cheap and make BPs in the claiming ranks? Do you want to go for that elusive Grade 1 win? Or do you just want to try different combinations to see if you can find a diamond in the rough?

But what if you just want the best horse available? Or you want to narrow your search from the over 20,000 sires to only the top 100 producers? Well, now your search just got a little easier. Introducing the Shagfarms Sire Rankings!

I’m not going to lie – I’m one of those people that is still looking for that elusive Grade 1 win. But I also don’t have the money, or the BPs, to get involved in the Clickfest and grab the top 1 or 2 sires every time. So late last year, I decided that it would be a good idea to create a list of what I considered the “top sires.” After writing out my own list of some that I believed, based on reputation, were top sires, I realized that this was leaving off a lot of sires that I had either forgotten about, or that I just didn’t know much about. So I turned to the sim’s breeding stats to help me compile a list that I could refer to any time I wanted to breed a new horse.

But even if you’re not one who wants to spend 499 BPs on a horse, the list has a second advantage. It identifies some of the top bargain breeding sires in the sim. Not all of these sires are high priced. In fact, some are very cheap, and can be had easily on a Sunday morning. At least, they could before this article was published.

***Warning: This section may be confusing. Read at your own risk.***

The Shagfarms Sire Rankings are based on five factors: Winning Percentage (Win%), Stakes Winning Percentage (SW%), Graded Stakes Winning Percentage (GW%), Percentage of Winners Who Are Stakes Winners (SW/W), and Earnings Per Runner ($/Rnr). This data was taken at the end of 2011, in order to make it as accurate as possible.

Statistics are based on the previous 3 breeding years. Thus, the statistics include horses who are 5yo in 2012, horses who are 4yo in 2012, and horses who are 3yo in 2012. There is no minimum number of runners required to include a horse in the rankings. However, the initial lists of 3yos, 4yo, and 5yo sires were limited to the Top 500 sires in Earnings for that year. Thus, Gio Ponti made the initial list for 3yos, even though he only had 2 runners. 6 runners was the minimum for the 4yo and 5yo lists.

Once three lists (2009 – 5yos, 2010 – 4yos, and 2011 – 3yos) were populated with the Top 500 sires by earnings for each respective year, scores were provided for each sire. These scores were calculated by the following weighting system:

• Win% – 40%
• SW% – 12%
• GW% – 10%
• SW/W – 20%
• $/Rnr – 18%

The scores were then normalized, so that the average score of the 500 sires would be a 100. Thus, a better-than-average sire would have a score higher than 100, and a worse-than-average sire would have a score below 100 (though as a caveat, this is based only on the top 500 sires by earnings, so even the “below-average” sires on the list may be above-average when compared to the sim as a whole).

Finally, the number of races run by the sire’s progeny in the year was considered, and the score was adjusted based on the number of races. If the sire’s progeny had run fewer than the average number of races for the Top 500 sires, the score that the sire received was reduced, based on how far below the average the sire was. For example, of his 2 runners born in 2011, 1 of Gio Ponti’s children was a Graded Stakes winner. Thus, the percentages were very high, skewing the results. However, his children only ran 15 times, when the average number of races was 174. Thus, his raw score of 1723.138 (which is based on the calculations in the example below) was reduced to 8.6% of that total (since his runners only ran in 8.6% of the races that the average had), and his raw score became a 148.4559, which ranked 39th for 3yos. In order to avoid weighting those this many runners too highly, this correction only applied to those who had a less-than-average number of races.

For an example on how this calculation works, I will take the example of Daiwa Major, the #1 ranked 3yo sire.

• The average Win% for the 3yo list was 41.15%. Since the goal was to make the average Win% worth 40 points (out of 100 total), every sire’s Win% was multiplied by 97.19684. Daiwa Major’s Win% of 54.80% gave him 53.287 points from Win%.
• The average SW% for the 3yo list was 2.80%. Since the goal was to make the average SW% worth 12 points (out of 100 total), every sire’s SW% was multiplied by 428.5714. Daiwa Major’s SW% of 9.50% gave him 40.71429 points from SW%.
• The average GW% for the 3yo list was 0.48%. Since the goal was to make the average GW% worth 10 points (out of 100 total), every sire’s GW% was multiplied by 2103.492. Daiwa Major’s GW% of 3.60% gave him 75.7257 points from GW%.
• The average SW/W for the 3yo list was 7.86%. Since the goal was to make the average SW/W worth 20 points (out of 100 total), every sire’s SW/W was multiplied by 254.4388. Daiwa Major’s SW/W of 17.39% gave him 44.25023 points from SW/W.
• The average $/Rnr for the 3yo list was $19,538. Since the goal was to make the average $/Rnr worth 18 points (out of 100 total), every sire’s $/Rnr was multiplied by 0.000921. Daiwa Major’s $/Rnr of $39,752 gave him 36.62 points from $/Rnr.
• In total, this gave Daiwa Major 250.5778 points for 3yos.
• Since Daiwa Major’s progeny ran 382 races, and the average was 174, there was no race adjustment.

Once points were assigned for 3yos, 4yos, and 5yos, the points were added together and averaged. If a horse was not on a particular list (either he was not in the Top 500 for earnings, or he was a sire not yet in the game, or retired from stud), he received a 0 for that year. Ranks were then given based on the average score for the three years.

There are a number of limitations on these rankings, so take them with a grain of salt.

First, the weighting system was my own personal opinion. To me, Winning Percentage is the most important factor (thus, it was weighted more heavily than the rest). As a risk-averse person, I would prefer a sire that is very likely to produce a winner of any type that one who will produce either a graded stakes winner or a lifelong maiden. Others may differ, and weigh Graded Stakes wins (or Stakes wins) more important. Or there may be additional categories (such as likelihood of winning allowances as opposed to claimers) that others would factor in as well. That is why I call this the Shagfarms Sire Rankings, rather than just general sire rankings.

Second, a noticeable flaw is the inclusion of only the Top 500 sires by earnings for each year. This actually caused two problems. For one, sires who may be very good percentage-wise, but may have a small number of progeny may have slipped through the cracks. But more importantly, the fact that sires did not make the list caused their score to be a 0. This (a) brought down their average, and (b) negatively affected new sires. I was unable to differentiate between a sire that was new to the sim (such as Sea The Stars, who did not have any 5yo runners as he was not yet a sire) and one that was not good enough to make the list (such as Storming Home, who ranked 221st with 5yos, 182nd with 3yos, but did not crack the Top 500 for 4yos). An attempt to adjust the rankings to properly place freshman sires, but only average the non-zero years, had an unfortunate side-effect of overvaluing horses like Cosmonaut, who had a good crop of 4yos but was not good enough to crack the Top 500 in 3yos (he was ranked 39th with the adjustment, rather than 209th in the current system, though his proper ranking is probably somewhere between these two).

Third, this data is based solely on the sim, and on top of that, does not take into account the DS or DDS of a horse. A horse who crosses very well with a certain line might not be caught by this system if too many other back-ends are used (or might be overvalued, if there are a very few number of progeny, but they all have a cross that works well). This also means that if simsters are not using the sire, regardless of how good or bad he is, this ranking will not pick it up. On the positive side, the use of 3-year data is intended to catch sire adjustments over time (in particular, a Mike upgrade or downgrade). Ghostzapper went from the #1 sire with 5yos, to the #69 sire with 4yos, to the #82 sire with 3yos. Whereas Elusive Quality went from the #63 sire with 5yos, to the #27 sire with 4yos, to the #5 sire with 3yos.

These limitations are designed to explain one thing: This list is not the be-all, end-all of sim sires. It is merely another piece of statistical data, to go along with everything else involved in choosing a sire. Can you just use the top sire on the list and get a stakes winner? Absolutely. But your chances significantly improve if you’ve put effort into determine the right mix of sire and back-end. You are more likely to get a stakes winner if you choose a sire near the bottom of this list, but find a cross that works very well, than just taking the top sire and using it with a cross that has failed 25 times in the sim and 15 times in real life (though you could argue that it’s “due”).

Below are the Shagfarms Sire Rankings, a chart of the Top 100 sires. Included on the chart are the sire’s name, the average point total over 3 years, and the Rank on the 3yo, 4yo, and 5yo lists (in order to spot trends). If you didn’t want to wade through the methodology, and you don’t understand what the points mean, it doesn’t really matter. Just take a look at the rankings and you can get the gist.

Because Freshman Sires are undervalued by the ranking, here are the top (current) Second-Year and Third-Year Sires:

Conclusion

It is important to keep in mind what these rankings represent. This is not my attempt to say “these are the 100 highest-rated sires in the sim.” Nor is it my attempt to say “these are the sires that you should consider bluebloods.” It is merely a ranking of all sim sires based on a personal preference of how to weight sim statistics. It is unlikely that many people would have considered Haradasun(AUS) a top-tier sire. Even with the large Aussie population that the sim has, Haradasun has been available for credits on Sunday morning time and time again. And yet he is ranked the #26 sire. What explains this seemingly large gap between reputation and ranking? It’s possible that Haradasun has been crossed with excellent mares, which improves his sim abilities (whereas a better sire, with the same mare, would have produced an even greater progeny). It’s also possible that Haradasun has a lower number of runners but still manages a good number of stakes winners and graded stakes winners (or that the owners of the horses just aim for high-purse races). This seems to be the case for his 3yo rank (#15), as he only had 60 runners, but 2 graded stakes winners, which gave him a top 15 GW%.

But it’s also possible that Haradasun(AUS) is a better sim sire than we previously believed. His rankings in the past 3 years (51, 60, 15) indicate that he is at least close to a top 50 sire (if not one of the top 50), and that no one year has markedly affected his ranking.

The rankings are also an attempt to flesh out any increases or decreases in sire ability over the years. But there is a caveat to this, in that there is somewhat significant yearly fluctuation. Ghostzapper was downgraded after his real life progeny performed more poorly than originally anticipated. This can be seen in his rankings, where he was the #1 ranked sire for 5yos, but fell to #69 for 4yos and #82 for 3yos. Similarly, Malibu Moon was upgraded once it became clear that his real life progeny were better than anticipated, which explains why he jumped from #99 for 5yos to #9 for 4yos and #44 for 3yos. But does that mean that Daiwa Major(JPN) was similarly upgraded, where his rankings went from #121 and #117 for 5yos and 4yos, respectively, to the #1 ranked 3yo sire? Or is it more likely that this one year is an outlier?

However, some are more difficult to determine. Pivotal(GB) went from the #18 ranked 5yo sire and #10 ranked 4yo sire to #84 for 3yos. Was this a downgrade? Was it a fluke year (which seems possible, as he was the 15th-ranked sire for Win% of sires with 10 or more races)? Or is it a sign of something else – Perhaps that Pivotal is more of a late-developing sire?

For horses further down in the rankings, it could be an indication of a potential breakout sire who has merely been underused in the sim. Take Husson(ARG) for example. Husson ranked #407 for 5yos. The reason, however, is that he only had 19 5yos, and none of those 19 were Stakes or Graded Stakes winners. However, he’s the #10 ranked 3yo sire, where his 29 children resulted in 2 Stakes Winners and 1 Graded Winner. The limited number of runners in each of these years makes it unclear which of the two ends of the spectrum Husson falls on, but he might be a sire worth taking a flyer on, as he has shown some promise in the last couple of years. Meanwhile, a horse like Sky Mesa, who ranked #245 for 3yos while having 79 runners (and no stakes or graded stakes winners among them) may throw up a red flag, as it’s possible that there was a downgrading, or that he was being given particularly good mares in previous years.

But however you use the rankings, it is no substitute for conducting your own research on the proper sire to use for a particular horse. The rankings could alert you to a horse such as Strategic Prince being a good bargain sire, but researching what crosses produced his five 4yo stakes winners (out of 35 runners) would significantly improve your chances of getting your own. So remember to use these rankings wisely, whether you’re looking for a 2500 credit blueblood or a 45 BP bargain.