The use of stats are often deceptive, especially so in horseracing. The number of starts per year has been decreasing since 1950, with horses going from 11 starts to 6 per year. Of course they forget to mention that field size has decreased from 9.06 horses per race to 8.17 last year. So the average race in 1950 had 9 horses and the average race in 2007 had 8. Seems to me that is a signifigant stat that never seems to be brought up. They way it is portrayed, in the 50's every field was 12 horses and they ran every week. The reality is that they raced less than once a month and the fields were roughly the same size as now. This of course is the reality of facts which are not to be confused with hysterical opinions that are being presented.
I especially liked where they used Unbridled Song as an example. They pointed out that his runners average 11 lifetime starts which is less than the avg stallions 16, which is not a big shock. But then they point out that of his top 20 runners (presumably in earnings) 7 had made over 20 stars and 15 had raced past 3. So were they surprised by the fact that the runners that made more money, ran longer?
I think it is amusing that no one (except me, naturally) points out that the campaigning of 2 year olds has dramatically changed which can also point to horses making less starts as a whole. In the 60's it was not uncommon for a 2 year old to have as many as 7 or 8 starts, not that different than the other age groups. Now it is rare for a 2 year old to make more than 2 or 3 starts. That alone probably shaves at least a start off, maybe more. But that would take a basic understanding of the sport and its evolution, which seems to be in short supply.
|