Is Moneyball Relevant on the Racetrack? A New Approach to Evaluating Future Racehorses

Abstract

The market for racehorses is volatile and inefficient, and the ability to identify and exploit undervalued characteristics which predict performance can be profitable. In this article, we evaluate whether quantitative measures of physical structure and movement can help predict racing success and whether these measures are appropriately valued by the market. We discover an interesting dynamic: One measure predicting late racing development is a significant predictor of career earnings but is not valued by the auction market; a different measure predicting early racing development is valued by the marketplace but does not predict career earnings.

Keywords

performance measurement performance prediction biomechanics volatile markets market valuation Thoroughbred racehorse

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brisnet.com. (n.d.). Brisnet.com American produce records. Brisnet.com. Retrieved January 10 to May 1, 2013, from http://www.brisnet.com/php/AprOnline/index.php/

Buzby

J. C.

Jessup

E. L.

(1994). The relative impact of macroeconomic and yearling-specific variables in determining thoroughbred yearling price. Applied Economics, 26, 1–8.

Chezum

Stowe

C. J.

Schuckers

(2014). Some evidence of information aggregation in auction prices (Working paper).

Chezum

Wimmer

(1997). Roses or lemons: Adverse selection in the market for thoroughbred yearlings. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79, 521–526.

Commer

Jr (1991). The effect of non-phenotypic data on thoroughbred prices in the MidAtlantic market. The Professional Animal Scientist, 7, 18–24.

Equibase.com. (n.d.). Equibase stats central-horse profile. Equibase.com. Retrieved January 10 to May 1 2013, from http://www.equibase.com/stats/View.cfm?tf=year&tb=horse

Gamrat

F. A.

Sauer

R. D.

(2000). The utility of sport and returns to ownership: Evidence from the thoroughbred market. Journal of Sports Economics, 1, 219–235.

Gillies

S. T.

(2011). Keeneland September preview: Flat is the new measure of success. The Blood-Horse Market Watch, 1–3.

Hakes

J. K.

Sauer

R. D.

(2006). An economic evaluation of the Moneyball hypothesis. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 173–185.

10.

Lewis

(2003). Moneyball: The art of winning an unfair game. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

11.

Neibergs

J. S.

Vinzant

P. L.

(1999). Maximum-likelihood estimates of racehorse earnings and profitability. Journal of Agribusiness, 17, 37–48.

12.

Oppenheim

(2015). Good gamble. Thoroughbred Daily News. Retrieved December 9, 2015, from http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/bill-oppenheim-good-gamble-shared-archive/

13.

Parsons

Smith

(2008). The price of thoroughbred yearlings in Britain. Journal of Sports Economics, 9, 43–66.

14.

Plant

Stowe

C. J.

(2013). The price of disclosure in the thoroughbred yearling market. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 45, 1–15.

15.

Simon

(1998, 4 4). All about purses. Thoroughbred Times, pp. 18–22.

16.

Robbins

Kennedy

P. E.

(2001). Buyer behavior in a regional thoroughbred yearling market. Applied Economics, 33, 969–977.

17.

Velie

B. D.

Hamilton

N. A.

Wade

C. M.

(2014). Heritability of racing performance in the Australian thoroughbred racing population. Animal Genetics, 46, 23–29.

18.

Vickner

Koch

S.I.

(2001, Fall). Hedonic pricing, information, and the market for thoroughbred yearlings. Journal of Agribusiness, 19, 173–189.

19.

Wimmer

B. S.

Chezum

(2003). An empirical examination of quality certification in a ‘Lemon’s market.’ Economic Inquiry, 41, 279–291.