final project term paper westminster bis

Westminster Kennel Club Best in Show 2012 Champion Breed

Predicting the 2012 Westminster Kennel Club Champion Breed

through Statistical Data Analysis,

Based Exclusively on the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI)

M. Scott Green

Golden Gate University, 2012 MBA Candidate

In Partial Fulfillment to

Meet the Requirements for the

Master of Business Administration Degree in Finance

Math 240: Data Analysis for Managers, 11SP.SF1

Professor William (Bill) Rhyne

Thursday, December 29, 2011

http://www.akc.org/breeds/labrador_retriever

http://www.akc.org/breeds/poodle

http://www.akc.org/breeds/bulldog

http://www.akc.org/breeds/german_shepherd_dog

http://www.akc.org/breeds/beagle

http://www.akc.org/breeds/shih_tzu

http://www.akc.org/breeds/dachshund

http://www.akc.org/breeds/boxer

http://www.akc.org/breeds/golden_retriever

http://www.akc.org/breeds/yorkshire_terrier


Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................2

ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................3

I. RESEARCH THESIS, UTILITY, AND DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY ............................5

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: .........................................................................................................5

DATA ANALYTICAL CONCEPTS, TECHNIQUES, AND APPLICATIONS USED: ...............5

RESOURCE MATERIAL DEVELOPMENTAL SCHEME: ........................................................5

STATISTICAL DATA TIMELINE: ..............................................................................................6

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS: ............................................................................................................6

II. HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS OF WESTMINSTER BEST IN SHOW COMPETITION ................6

III. TIMELINE OF PAST WINNERS .............................................................................................8

IV. RESEARCH COMPARATIVE ANALYTICS AND STATISTICAL RESULTS .......................9

DATA COLLECTION POOL FOR 168 AKC-APPROVED REGISTERED DOG BREEDS ........ 10

2010 U.S. METROPOLITAN POPULARITY RANKING CODED MATRIX COMPUTATIONAL

GRAPH .......................................................................................................................................... 13

V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 33

SOURCE CITATIONS: .................................................................................................................. 35

LITERARY RESOURCES: ................................................................................................................... 35

WEB RESOURCES: .......................................................................................................................... 35

APPENDAGES: GRAPHS AND CHARTS ................................................................................... 36


“Deep within the pound, a hound will abound to challenge rival, fiend, and foe; to

showcase struts, demeanor, and tempo, becoming undeniably the Best in the

Show.” – MSG

Abstract

This past February, 2011, a long-shot by the name of Hickory became the first

hound since 1983 to win the most venerable and regal dog competition in the world at

the Westminster Kennel Club’s Best in Show competition at the world-famous Madison

Square Garden in New York City. Only the third hound in the 103-year history of the

event to become champion, this large Scottish deerhound bitch displayed poise and a

unique disposition which are notably identified and reserved for smaller group breeds,

such as the beagle, poodle, and terrier - a group breed whose combined total of wins at

the prestigious BIS competition is the largest by far of any other breed. It is these

smaller group breeds which have not only dominated the BIS competition since

inception but has exponentially increased, among other similar-sized breeds, in

popularity among the general populous as well, particularly in the United States.

For example, during the past decade, the French bulldog and the Cavalier King

Charles spaniel had a remarkable increase of 469 percent and 209 percent in popularity

in the US, respectively. Yet, the top dog ruling the canine world in popularity during this

ten-year period remained the Labrador Retriever, largely due to its even temperament

and docility and better-than-marginal intelligence and low maintenance, a characteristic

commonly desired among most dog owners. However, in spite of its lengthy prominent

reign as the America’s top-ranked dog in popularity and registration numbers, ironically

and mystifyingly, the Labrador Retriever has never been crowned Westminster’s Best in

Show champion in the organization’s 104-year history.


Henceforth, in light of this unusual phenomenon, a very important question is

juxtaposed, would it be possible to predict the outcome of a BIS winner through the

combinative use of various statistical analyses encumbering a litany of variables

associated with popular breeds? Would there be strong, near-irrefutable evidence of

central tendencies and indirect and direct correlations between the overall registration

ranking of the top 167 breeds and the cumulative percentage of wins per breed group -

based on historical trends and data (a priori) - to sufficiently design a probability-based

analytical model, a regression model, and a forecasting model to successfully predict

future BIS winners?

In this comparison analysis research paper, we will attempt to construct an

analytical statistical model (s), incorporating a network of various data statistical

concepts and employing many of the data analysis tools learned throughout the

academic term, to configure a functional model (s) that will illustrate and demonstrate,

first, the possibility and, then, the probability that those questions can properly be

addressed and an adequate conclusion can be drawn to determine whether the

predictability of future BIS winners can be scientifically and legitimately proven.


I. Research Thesis, Utility, and Development Methodology

Research Objective:

By implementing a three-pronged statistical methodology, the primary goal is to

identify key independent variables, mostly externalities, which may significantly

affect the outcome of future winners of the BIS competition.

Data Analytical Concepts, Techniques, and Applications Used:

Ratings Percentage Index (RPI), Basic Probability (Categorical and Numerical),

Predictive, Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses, Linear and Multiple Regressions,

Hypothesis Testing, ANOVA, Chi-Square Tests and Nonparametric Tests, and Time-

Series Forecasting methodologies – all including corresponding graphs and charts

Resource Material Developmental Scheme:

Statistical data, content, and information are retrieved primarily from three reputable

and well-established organization sources: American Kennel Club Association,

Westminster Kennel Club, and U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics. Utilizing DCOVA

methodology (Description, Collection, Observation, Visualization, and Analysis) as

the statistical schematic, the purpose for the various testing procedures is to

determine the highest probability level of significance between all dependent and

independent variables, systematically filter, process, and factor all dependent

variables that are viably pertinent for inclusion of scientifically-preferred potentialities

during final selection stages, and to arrive at a sufficiently best choice and most

likely outcome.


Statistical Data Timeline:

Categorical and numerical raw data and information collected exclusively from

AKC’s top 168 breeds by annual ranking (1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007-’10) and

annual total registration (2001-2006) and from historical results (1907-2011) of the

Westminster BIS competition. Annual sales and sales-related figures are current.

Basic Assumptions:

All breeds are purebred and are certified by various regulatory-approved

associations and institutions worldwide, including the two entities for the basis of the

report, AKC and Westminster Kennel Club. Pricing and expenditures are

established at present market rates and values, which are also supported industry-

wide in whole part by approved governing bodies and agencies globally.

II. Historical Synopsis of Westminster Best in Show Competition

Started in 1877, the Westminster Kennel Club is the oldest club for purebred

dogs in America. Originally established as a high-end gathering hole at a Manhattan

hotel for hunting men to socialize, the organization in its very inception would soon host

the oldest and most venerable dog show in the world, a prestigious canine competition

held at another institution of world-renown prominence, New York’s Madison Square

Garden.

Over the next century and a quarter, this fabulous showcase of some of the

world’s finest and formidable purebreds would be on display before a panel of highly

competent and specialized judges whose sole purpose is to select the most gifted dog

and laud and award him and her and his breeder and handler the title of Best in Show,


the organization’s top prize for the best all-around dog. During this period, the

competition has seen a remarkable increase in the number of entrants for the event,

from 1,200 in 1877 to a current robust level of over 2,500 well-trained, meticulously

hygiene-centric canines from a 170 breeds, all vying to attain the throne as top dog.

Much like any high-intensive competitive sporting event in which the participants

are required to exhibit the fine-tuned nature of their athletic and artistic abilities in

multitudinous facets, in order to maintain a lifestyle catered specifically for world-class

competition, this standard of living usually involves enormous costs in nutrition,

education and both physical and mental training, personal care, and traveling expense:

These pets are bred to compete and nothing more. The following table on the ensuing

page provides past BIS winners for the Westminster event during its storied 104-year

history:


III. Timeline of Past Winners

1907 Fox Terrier (Smooth)

1938 Setter (English) 1967 Scottish Terrier 1994 Norwich Terrier


1939 Doberman Pinscher

1968 Lakeland Terrier 1995 Scottish Terrier


1940 Spaniel (Cocker)

Black 1969 Skye Terrier 1996

Spaniel (Clumber)


1941 Spaniel (Cocker)

Black 1970 Boxer 1997

Standard Schnauzer

1911 Scottish Terrier 1942 West Highland White Terrier

1971 Spaniel (English

Springer) 1998 Norwich Terrier

1912 Airedale Terrier 1943 Poodle

(Miniature) 1972

Spaniel (English Springer)

1999 Papillon

1913 Bulldog 1944 Welsh Terrier 1973 Poodle (Standard) 2000 Spaniel (English

Springer)

1914 Old English Sheepdog

1945 Scottish Terrier 1974 Pointer (German

Shorthaired) 2001 Bichon Frise

1915 Fox Terrier

(Wire) 1946 Fox Terrier (Wire) 1975

Old English Sheepdog

2002 Poodle

(Miniature)

1916 Fox Terrier

(Wire) 1947 Boxer 1976 Lakeland Terrier 2003

Kerry Blue Terrier

1917 Fox Terrier

(Wire) 1948 Bedlington Terrier 1977 Sealyham Terrier 2004 Newfoundland

1918 Bull Terrier

(White) 1949 Boxer 1978 Yorkshire Terrier 2005

Pointer (German Shorthaired)

1919 Airedale Terrier 1950 Scottish Terrier 1979 Spaniel (Irish

Water) 2006

Bull Terrier (Colored)

1920 Fox Terrier

(Wire) 1951 Boxer 1980 Siberian Husky 2007

Spaniel (English Springer)

1921 Spaniel

(Cocker) Parti 1952

Doberman Pinscher

1981 Pug 2008 Beagle (15 Inch)

1922 Airedale Terrier 1953 Doberman Pinscher

1982 Pekingese 2009 Spaniel (Sussex)

1924 Sealyham

Terrier 1954

Spaniel (Cocker) A.S.C.O.B.

1983 Afghan Hound 2010 Scottish Terrier

1925 Pointer 1955 Bulldog 1984 Newfoundland 2011 Scottish

Deerhound

1926 Fox Terrier

(Wire) 1956 Poodle (Toy) 1985 Scottish Terrier 2012 ?

1927 Sealyham

Terrier 1957 Afghan Hound 1986 Pointer

1928 Fox Terrier

(Wire) 1958

Poodle (Standard)

1987 German Shepherd

Dog

1929 Collie (Rough) 1959 Poodle

(Miniature) 1988 Pomeranian

1930 Fox Terrier

(Wire) 1960 Pekingese 1989

Doberman Pinscher

1931 Fox Terrier

(Wire) 1961 Poodle (Toy) 1990 Pekingese

1932 Pointer 1962 West Highland White Terrier

1991 Poodle (Standard)

1933 Airedale Terrier 1963 Spaniel (English

Springer) 1992 Fox Terrier (Wire)


IV. Research Comparative Analytics and Statistical Results

Qualitative and Quantitative Peripherals:

In reiteration, to predict which of the 168 AKC certified breeds will become the

Best in Show overall champion for 2012, comparative analysis for determination was

performed on the basis of three main categorical subjects: 1) Westminster Best in Show

performance results, 2) American Kennel Club’s ratings and registration, and 3) current

annual expenditures (i.e., puppy’s sale price, pet care costs, etc.). Moreover, the

analytical process was further enhanced and streamlined by delineating from the

aforementioned primary source material into relative subgroups, or substrates, for the

purposes of variable expansion and increased data points and to provide a legitimate

and plausible environment closely within the natural structures of consistency,

uniformity, and conformity rules. Before continuing further, the following relational

diagram on the proceeding page will provide a complete detailed illustrative orientation

of the project and how it was used to arrive at a final conclusion:


Data Collection Pool for 168 AKC-Approved Registered Dog Breeds

As indicated in the table above, several of the key areas that were factored

throughout the various analyses were transposed into percentage-based figures to

ameliorate the reporting of centralized tendencies and improve standard error reduction

percentages, due to a wide range of intermittent temporal spacing concerns obtained

from certain secondary data sources. It was extremely important that a fluid structural

and procedural continuum was in place at the outset of the analytical testing processes

to ensure that the validity of outcomes was at its highest degree of efficiency and that a

Westminster Best in Show Performance

Resuts

Best in Show Place Winners (Breed Group Identity)

Total Percentage of Overall BIS Placing (per group)

Best in Show All-Around Winners

Best in Show All-Around Winners (% of Total Wins)

American Kennel Club Canine Ranking and

Registration

Annual Ranking (1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007-2010)

Average Ranking for the Period

Average Ranking Percentage (Rank 1-168)

Breed Registration (2001-2006)

Total Registration (2001-2006)

Average Registration (2001-2006)

Total Registration Difference ± (2001-2006)

Total Registration Percentage Difference ± (2001-2006)

Current Price Points and Expenditures

Life Expectancy (average yrs.)

Average Sales Price (AKC Criteria)

Minimum Cost of Ownership (Lifetime Cost per Life Expectancy-

Average Years)

Minimum Cost of Ownership (Annual Cost Estimate)

Annual Minimum Cost to Average Sales Price (%)

Maximum Cost of Ownership (Lifetime Cost per Life Expectancy-

Average Years)

Maximum Cost of Ownership (Annual Cost Estimate)

Annual Maximum Cost to Average Sales Price (#)

Annual Maximum Cost to Average Sales Price (%)


proper conclusion could be made with relative success. Now that the tables are set, it is

time to give a step-by-step procedural breakdown of the entire analysis and explain how

a conclusion was derived from it.

Recapitulating briefly, the main objective for the research is to establish whether

or not future BIS champions can be predicted from relative independent variables that

are externalities, in other words, factors that are not directly associated with any of the

two major dependent variables in the Westminster competition – BIS overall winner and

BIS place winner per group. In order to establish a strong sense of integrity within the

reporting analysis, a percentage majority sampling was chosen from the list of 168

breeds to reflect purebreds that have either placed in

their respective groups or won the top prize as

Westminster BIS. Additionally, to effectively manage

the selection process, the last phases of the final

analyses were done according to breed group

classification (please see table no. 1). This method

not only proved to be highly pivotal in the final

outcome but it also helped offer a more concise and

precise roadmap for an effectively competent and

comprehensive trifurcated comparative analysis platform. There were 138 breeds out of

the 168 which met the specified criteria for the report analysis, based on this group

classification format.

Another categorical imperative crucial in the data analysis was extracted from a

2010 AKC report relating to the top 5 breeds in a select number of U.S.’s largest

Table No. 1

Dog Breed Classification List Group I - Hound/Sporting

Group II - Sport/Hound

Group III - Herding/Working

Group IV - NonSport/Toy

Group V - Terrier

Group VI - Toy/NonSport

Group VII - Working/Herd


metropolitan areas (see table no. 2).

Since dog preference among the populous

served as a key component in the

analysis, it became essential to gather this

information and transpose and convert its

ranking into an appropriate population

sampling category to diversify the

independent variable as a minor substrate

of one of the major subgroups shown

earlier in this report. The chart to the left

shows how one of the original (major)

subgroups, BIS Percentage of Placing (historical), is aligned directly with each

respective minor substrate under this U.S. popularity ranking externality. By coupling

and matching BIS percentage to popularity rank order, data analysis can be performed

by using both visual and numerical analytical tools such as single regression, graphs

and charts, etc., for these two variables and help assist with the observation and

assessment of the original hypothesis in this report.

For instance, according the graph below (chart no. 1), there is substantial

evidence to suggest that a strong correlation exist between the percentage BIS placing

for German Shepherd dogs (label code is GSD) at 101% and their regional ranking,

which secures a popularity ranking for the Southeast region between 1-3, but yet no

more than 3 on a scale of 1-5, with the strongest correlation occurring in the city of

Miami (Popularity Rank = 1; BIS Pct. Placing = 101%), followed closely by Raleigh, NC.,

Table No. 2 2010 U.S. Metropolitan Popularity Ranking Coded Matrix

Computational Example

Breed Label Code

Metro Label Code

Sectional Region

2010 Popularity Ranking

(1-5)

BIS Percentage of Placing (historical)

LR ALB NE 1 11%

GSD ALB NE 2 101%

GR ALB NE 3 26%

ST ALB NE 4 19%

YT ALB NE 4 24%

LR BAL SE 1 11%

GSD BAL SE 2 101%

YT BAL SE 3 24%

GR BAL SE 4 26%

RO BAL SE 5 6%

LR CHI MW 1 11%

GSD CHI MW 2 101%

GR CHI MW 3 26%

YT CHI MW 4 24%

BU CHI MW 5 46%


and Baltimore, MD (both at 2 and 101%). Although this report does not explore the

various reasons – largely cultural - the German Shepherd is one the most popular dogs

in the United States and also one of the most successfully awarded breed in its group

(Working/Herd) in the history of the Westminster BIS event. Yet, in spite of its domestic

popularity and success at BIS competition, it has only won the BIS top prize once in the

104-year of the event.

2010 U.S. Metropolitan Popularity Ranking Coded Matrix - Southeast

Conversely, when the rank and performance of German Shepherd dogs from the

Southeast are compared against the results displayed for the West Coast (refer to chart

no. 2), a remarkable observation is easily recognized. Despite the consistency of a

prevalent favoritism among dog owners and its solid 101% standard performance in the

BIS for the German Shepherd dogs for the western region - similar to the Southeast

with one exception: unranked in San Francisco – a surprisingly and alarmingly broad

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

11%

26%

101%

24%

57%

11%

101%

24% 26%

6%

101%

24%

6% 11%

22%

11%

24%

101%

6%

57%

11%

101%

24% 26% 24%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

ATL ATL ATL ATL ATL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL MIA MIA MIA MIA MIA ORL ORL ORL ORL ORL RAL RAL RAL RAL RAL

LR GR GSD YT BO LR GSD YT GR RO GSD YT RO LR FRB LR YT GSD CH BO LR GSD BE GR YT

2010 Popularity Ranking (1-5) BIS Percentage of Placing (historical)

Chart No. 1


correlation spread occurs from the most dominant BIS performance group: Poodles,

eclipsing the German Shepherd’s BIS percentage of total placing of 101% by 168%.

However, the most startling difference is seen in the regional ranking numbers for

the Poodle group. Out of the six metro areas selected for the West region, three of

them (Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle) have recorded a ranking for the breed

group of no lower than 4. Yet, more astonishing, this breed has won the Westminster

BIS top prize (9 titles) more than nearly every other breed or breed group, only to be

surpassed by the Wire Fox Terrier at a phenomenal record 13 wins.

Simply and somewhat strictly based on these graphical analyses alone, this

comparative observation is the first indication that a popularity ranking to BIS overall

wins total may be the weakest correlation of all the independent variables in this report.

Additionally, later in this report, further exploratory work and investigation will divulge

clear evidence that this slight anomaly may be attributed to characteristics or relative

aspects such as physical size, degree of personal maintenance, and expenditure and

may serve as the precursor to predicting future individual, or their correlating group,

winners. (The following chart list all-around winners throughout the history of the

Westminster BIS event.)

BREED

Best in Show All-

Around Winners BREED

Best in Show All-


Best in Show All-


Best in Show All-


Best in Show All-

Around Winners

Afghan Hounds 2 Whippets 1 Whippets 1

West Highland

White Terriers 2

Siberian Huskies 1

Scottish Deerhound

s 1 Airedale Terriers 4

Airedale Terriers 4

Wire Fox Terriers 13

Standard Schnauzers 1

Bichons Frises 1

Bedlington Terriers 1

Bedlington Terriers 1 Papillons 1 Collies 1

Bulldogs 2 Bull Terriers 2 Bull

Terriers 2 Pekingese 3

German Shepherd

Dogs 1

Clumber Spaniels 1

Kerry Blue Terriers 1

Kerry Blue 1

Pomeranians 1

Old English Sheepdogs 2


Terriers

Cocker Spaniels 4

Lakeland Terriers 2

Lakeland Terriers 2 Pugs 1

Siberian Huskies 1

English Setters 1

Norwich Terriers 2

Norwich Terriers 2

Yorkshire Terriers 1

Standard Schnauzers 1

English Springer Spaniels 6

Scottish Terriers 8

Scottish Terriers 8

West Highland

White Terriers 2 Collies 1

German Shorthaired

Pointers 2 Sealyham Terriers 4

Sealyham Terriers 4

Wire Fox Terriers 13

German Shepherd

Dogs 1

Irish Water Spaniels 1

Skye Terriers 1

Skye Terriers 1 Poodles 9

Pointers 3 Smooth Fox

Terriers 4

Smooth Fox

Terriers 4 Boxers 4

Sussex Spaniels 1

Welsh Terriers 1

Welsh Terriers 1

Doberman Pinschers 4

Beagles 1 Whippets 1 Whippets 1 Newfoundla

nds 2

2010 U.S. Metropolitan Popularity Ranking Coded Matrix - West

Now that a brief overview of the type of determinants, methodologies, and course

of actions that will be considered from this point forward in the data analysis to narrow

the field of probable prospects that ultimately composed the final group from which the

2012 BIS winner was predicted at the conclusion of this research project have been

made, the second phase of the project to conduct testing and empirical analysis was to

11%

101%

26% 46% 57%

11%

101%

19% 6%

26% 46%

101%

11% 24% 26%

11%

101%

26% 6%

168%

11% 26% 24% 22%

168%

11% 26%

46%

101%

168%

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3 3

4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

DEN

DEN

DEN

DEN

DEN

HO

N

HO

N

HO

N

HO

N

HO

N LA LA LA LA LA

PO

R

PO

R

PO

R

PO

R

PO

R

SFO

SFO

SFO

SFO

SFO

SEA

SEA

SEA

SEA

SEA

LRGSDGR BU BO LRGSD SI CH GR BUGSDLR YT GR LRGSDGR CH PO LR GR YTFRBPO LR GR BUGSDPO

BIS Percentage of Placing (historical) 2010 Popularity Ranking (1-5)

Chart No. 2


carefully disseminate and organize all data and information that would be used for

various testing procedures into the 7 separate dog breed subgroups, as indicated earlier

in table no. 1 of this report.

The brunt of the report’s findings revolved around these subgroups and permitted

the best reliable statistical methodology to effectively compute and calculate all data

points for a successful outcome. Nonetheless, each of the following procedures will

describe and explain how the final group was selected, yet, must be prefaced first by

rendering a visual account of various facts and figures to aid in the comprehension of

final conclusion. Therefore, the heart of the analytical process will begin by giving a

comparative group account representing the number of breeds BIS overall winners)

registered during a 6-year period from 2001-2006. These statistical graphs will serve as

backdrop and guide throughout the remainder of this report.

AKC Breed Registration Totals Comparison Graph for Group I – Hound/Sporting:

Selective Observable Findings and Brief Comment: The 2010 BIS champion breed,

the Scottish Deerhound, experienced very few fluctuations in enrollment numbers

throughout this time period, except for a significant proportional decrease in 2006.

2006 BreedRegistration






Afghan Hounds H 782 673 854 707 696 684

Scottish Deerhounds H 140 194 149 154 163 191

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Breed Registration Comparison Group I - Hound/Sporting ( BIS Champion Based)


Conversely, the Afghan Hound has experienced a significantly wider year-to-year

deviation form 2003-2006, with a noticeable uptick in 2006.

AKC Breed Registration Totals Comparison Graph for Group I – Sporting/Hound:

Selective Observable Findings and Brief Comment: The graph shows a steady

decline in registration numbers for the Beagle breed from 2001-2006 and slight increase

fluctuations to near flat-line totals for the Whippet breed during the same period stretch.







Beagles S,H 39,484 42,592 44,555 45,021 44,610 50,419

Whippets S,H 1,836 1,749 1,849 1,874 1,775 1,685

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

Breed Registration Comparison Group I - Sporting/Hound (BIS Champion Based)


AKC Breed Registration Totals Comparison Graph for Group II – Sporting:

Selective Observable Findings and Brief Comment: Every breed in this group has

held steady in registration totals from 2001 through to 2006 with the alarming exception

for the Cocker Spaniel breed, an astonishing 42% decline during this time period.

2006Breed

Registration

2005Breed

Registration

2004Breed

Registration

2003Breed

Registration

2002Breed

Registration

2001Breed

Registration

Clumber Spaniels S 266 266 235 239 196 166

Cocker Spaniels S 14,790 16,343 18,553 19,020 20,655 25,445

English Setters S 629 657 700 662 617 721

English Springer Spaniels S 8,205 8,749 9,376 8,859 9,128 10,180

German Shorthaired Pointers S 12,822 13,273 12,799 12,266 12,174 12,884

Irish Water Spaniels S 113 127 127 144 116 126

Pointers S 467 384 512 519 535 519

Sussex Spaniels S 79 78 45 92 108 56

0

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

17,500

20,000

22,500

25,000

27,500

Axi

s Ti

tle

Breed Registration Comparison Group II - Sporting (BIS Champion Based)


AKC Breed Registration Totals Comparison Graph for Group IV – NonSporting/Hound:

Selective Observable Findings and Brief Comment: A less than popular breed in

prior years, the Bichon Frise group has experienced a meteoric rise from 2001 to 2006,

with a noticeable and gradual leveling off between 2005 and 2006. Conversely, the

Bulldog, one of the more popular breeds not only America but worldwide as well, has

experienced a slow, laborious decline during stretch of time.







Bichons Frises NS 7,839 9,184 9,796 9,409 9,706 10,969

Bulldogs NS 21,037 20,556 19,396 16,732 15,810 15,501

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Breed Registration Comparison Group IV - NonSporting (BIS Champion Based)


AKC Breed Registration Totals Comparison Graph for Group V – Terrier:

Selective Observable Findings and Brief Comment: The largest group of all seven

classifications of dog breeds, the Terrier group, in general, experienced variable

fluctuations throughout the course of this time period, except for a substantial and highly

recognizable increase from the Bull Terrier breed group, now vastly becoming one of

America’s canine rising stars.







Airedale Terriers T 2,243 2,670 2,820 2,770 2,841 3,055

Bedlington Terriers T 192 275 208 251 217 203

Bull Terriers T 1,765 1,744 1,548 1,357 1,190 1,072

Kerry Blue Terriers T 361 442 488 475 464 395

Lakeland Terriers T 193 178 221 160 161 157

Norwich Terriers T 678 741 652 549 507 522

Scottish Terriers T 3,545 3,795 3,853 3,559 3,516 3,958

Sealyham Terriers T 68 75 76 75 89 70

Skye Terriers T 76 76 63 103 59 84

Smooth Fox Terriers T 522 481 553 553 589 669

Welsh Terriers T 705 724 805 739 617 673

West Highland White Terriers T 6,572 7,597 7,744 7,407 7,814 8,716

Wire Fox Terriers T 937 1,141 1,205 1,220 1,328 1,536

01,0002,0003,0004,000

5,0006,0007,000

8,0009,000

10,000

Axi

s Ti

tle

Breed Registration Comparison Group V- Terrier (BIS Champion Based)


AKC Breed Registration Totals Comparison Graph for Group VI – Toy/NonSporting:

Selective Observable Findings and Brief Comment: Dipping earlier in registration

numbers between 2001 and 2004, the Yorkshire Terrier breed has steadily climbed to

forefront of the Toy group as one today’s most popular breeds. None other breed within

this group has gained improvements in registration totals than the Yorkie. Most of the

other breeds in the group have marginally struggled to attain an increase in popularity

from the previous years, except for the slight uptick from the Papillon breed.







Papillons TY 5,673 6,005 6,019 5,143 4,547 4,438

Pekingese TY 3,155 3,441 4,335 4,768 5,822 7,798

Pomeranians TY 18,218 19,511 21,269 20,802 23,061 28,495

Pugs TY 20,008 22,064 23,152 21,337 21,774 23,769

Yorkshire Terriers TY 48,346 47,238 43,522 38,246 37,277 42,025

Poodles TY,NS 29,939 31,638 32,671 32,162 33,917 40,550

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Axi

s Ti

tle

Breed Registration Comparison Group VI - Toy/NonSporting Group (BIS Champion Based)


AKC Breed Registration Totals Comparison Graph for Group VII – Working/Herding:

Selective Observable Findings and Brief Comment: Literally and figuratively a

workhorse breed, it is not surprising to notice a steady equilibrium from year to year in

registration numbers from this highly popular breed group. Although one of the more

engaging and family-friendly breeds today, the group has received relatively little

success as a recipient of the Westminster Best in Show’s title as the overall top canine

in the 104-year history of the event.

Breed Expenditures and Other Related Pricings:

In 2010 in the United States, there were a reported 65,168,000 dogs, an increase

of .74% from a year earlier, costing $18,362,200,000 in both dog and cat food – an

increase of 3.75% from a year ago, as well. These are other independent numerical

variables which may have played some influential role in this predictive analysis report.







Boxers W 35,388 37,268 37,741 34,130 34,340 37,035

Doberman Pinschers W 11,546 11,662 11,724 11,549 11,829 12,570

Newfoundlands W 3,415 3,493 3,505 3,134 3,121 2,911

Siberian Huskies W 9,342 9,452 10,566 10,660 12,350 14,915

Standard Schnauzers W 584 585 590 614 512 597

Collies W,HE 4,711 5,098 5,485 5,679 6,252 7,340

German Shepherd Dogs W,HE 43,575 45,014 46,046 52,520 46,963 51,625

Old English Sheepdogs W,HE 1,403 1,460 1,494 1,466 1,501 1,590

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Axi

s Ti

tle

Breed Registration Comparison Group VII - Working/Herding (BIS Champion Based)


Yet, however, for the purposes of this research report, the most relevant information

regarding expenditures and pricings are those with reference to sale price of purebred

puppies (less than 8 months to 1 year old) and expected lifespan range and those

expenditures associated with it. It is here at this juncture in which basis of the argument

and original hypothesis is established to determine if there is sufficient evidence for

significance of correlation between sales price and expenditures, BIS performance

results, and breed ranking and registration figures.

Both dependent and independent variables were categorized and arranged in the

following manner:

Life Expectancy

(average yrs.)

Average Sales

Price (AKC Criteria)

Minimum Cost of

Ownership (Lifetime Cost per

Life Expectancy-

Average Years)

Minimum Cost of

Ownership (Annual

Cost Estimate)

Annual Minimum Cost to Average

Sales Price (%)

Maximum Cost of

Ownership (Lifetime Cost per

Life Expectancy-

Average Years)

Maximum Cost of

Ownership (Annual

Cost Estimate)

Annual Maximum

Cost to Average

Sales Price (#)

Annual Maximum

Cost to Average

Sales Price (%)

After executing a series of descriptive analysis procedures for these categories,

the one area obtained from the reports that may have been a precept indicator towards

comprehensive discoveries for subsequent analytical work in defining any meaning

correlation between the three primary groups was found in the Kurtosis results (see

related graphs below), which, due to a positive percentage number, would result in a

sharper bell curve that indicates a heavier distributive concentration of data points

around the median. The primary matter that is the focus of this section is the slight rise

of .22 percent in the Kurtosis output data for the variable labeled “Annual maximum

Cost to Average Sales Price Percentage” which could ultimately have been, in part


and partial, an influence throughout further data analysis in the trifold relational

observation study.


BIS Overall Champions to Total Wins per Group Ratio


Mean 0.09 Mean 0.326278723 Mean 14.73899097

Standard Error 0.019663842 Standard Error 0.075097742 Standard Error 1.755692177

Median 0.075 Median 0.272412085 Median 14.77098485

Mode 0.06 Mode #N/A Mode #N/A

Standard Deviation 0.048166378 Standard Deviation 0.183951149 Standard Deviation 4.300549979

Sample Variance 0.00232 Sample Variance 0.033838025 Sample Variance 18.49473012

Kurtosis 2.827734839 Kurtosis 1.4205948 Kurtosis 0.218983267

Skewness 1.643011864 Skewness 1.250134803 Skewness -0.717441065

Range 0.13 Range 0.511530857 Range 11.43387939

Minimum 0.05 Minimum 0.138664202 Minimum 7.705864198

Maximum 0.18 Maximum 0.650195059 Maximum 19.13974359

Sum 0.54 Sum 1.957672337 Sum 88.43394582

Count 6 Count 6 Count 6

Largest(1) 0.18 Largest(1) 0.650195059 Largest(1) 19.13974359

Smallest(1) 0.05 Smallest(1) 0.138664202 Smallest(1) 7.705864198

Confidence Level(95.0%)

0.050547514 Confidence Level(95.0%)

0.193044892 Confidence Level(95.0%)

4.513150419

The next data analytical tool used to locate any central tendencies or points of

significance that involved price and expenditures matters was to execute a correlation

analysis to evaluate any semblance of a relationship between the three groups with

price and expenditure serving as the dependent variable. After initiating the correlation

procedure, some interesting results materialize which gave a clear strength of

percentage account of which pairs showed any viable significance that could be further

exploited. The results are depicted in the following table:

Correlation Analysis

Total Percentage of Overall

BIS Placing (per group)

BIS Overall Champions

- Percentage

of Total Wins per

Group

BIS Overall Champions

to Total Wins per

Group Ratio

Average Ranking

Percentage (Rank 1-

168)


Annual Minimum Cost to Average

Sales Price (%)

Annual Maximum

Cost to Average

Sales Price (%)

Total Percentage of Overall BIS Placing (per group) 1

BIS Overall Champions - Percentage of Total Wins per Group 0.4071189 1

BIS Overall Champions to Total Wins per Group Ratio 0.473127399

-0.522164252 1

Best in Show All-Around Winners (% of Total 0.454858826 0.991666742

-0.429129651


Wins)


-0.088387473 0.000356056 0.309306084 1


-0.743295797 0.00081565

-0.665569158 0.118174844 1


-0.652546871

-0.749365623

-0.077331219

-0.302942229 0.538094802 1


-0.393967411

-0.795022242 0.206560134

-0.271362159 0.318859867 0.901648929 1

Although there is, once again, stronger relationship preponderance established

between price/expenditure and registration and ranking, the results also displays a

marginal relationship between annual maximum cost to average sales price and best in

show all-around winners percentage total wins, a relationship which may also be a mere

reflection of the slight increase in the Kurtosis results mentioned earlier. These

discoveries were later recalled as possible determinants of influence which precluded

the final predictive analysis and assessment.

The last series of major data analytical tools used confirm these findings and

determine whether enough sufficient evidence is present to proceed to the next stage of

narrowing the list of probabilities down to a select few were the Multiple Regression

Analysis model and Multiple Stepwise Regression model.

In all three reports located below, utilizing Annual Maximum Cost to Average

Sales Price (%), each one indicated that the all final results were caused by no less

than 80% of the variables used to generate the report. In other words, less than 20% of

the final results were caused by variables other those used in the analysis. Neither the

FSTAT regression (FSTAT = 164.2906 > Fα = 0.0000), P–value for the Average Ranking

Percentage (1-168) of 0.0135, nor the Annual Minimum Cost to Average Sales Price

(%) were not significant enough to bear any relational effect for the regression analysis I

report..


Regression Analysis I - Annual Maximum Cost to Average Sales Price (%)

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.9287

R Square 0.8625

Adjusted R Square 0.8572

Standard Error 2.4007

Observations 137

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 5 4734.2980 946.8596 164.2906 0.0000

Residual 131 754.9952 5.7633

Total 136 5489.2932

Coefficients Standard Error

t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept 1.2525 0.6699 1.8695 0.0638 -0.0728 2.5778


-2.1426 1.1223 -1.9091 0.0584 -4.3628 0.0776


5.6358 13.8988 0.4055 0.6858 -21.8593 33.1310


2.1087 0.8422 2.5036 0.0135 0.4425 3.7748


-2.3115 2.0226 -1.1428 0.2552 -6.3127 1.6898


22.6559 0.8463 26.7701 0.0000 20.9817 24.3302

Calculations

b5 through b0 intercepts 22.6559 -2.3115 2.1087 5.63583 -2.142617918

1.25248761

b5 through b0 Standard Error 0.8463 2.0226 0.8422 13.8988 1.122324763 0.66994344

R Square, Standard Error 0.8625 2.4007 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A

F, Residual df 164.2906 131 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A

Regression SS, Residual SS 4734.297975 754.9951912 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A

Confidence level 95%

t Critical Value 1.9782

Half Width b0 1.3253






The last of the analytical tools used prior to reducing the general population to a

select few, based on previous data and statistical analysis, is the covariance method to

strategically locate strength of percentage tendencies among individual breed groups

for whom either won the all-around BIS or placed in the event, strictly for the purposes

of identifying certain relational patterns that may provide clear cut favorites for the final

phase of the project.

Listed below on the next page is a series of illustrated examples of centralized

covariance tendencies tables for the breed groups, starting with the Hound group. The


reason for this exercise was done to quickly draw to a conclusion the final five that

would be chosen for the predictive decision and the breed group and individual breed

who will become crowned as the Westminster Best in Show for 2012. Most of the tallies

leading to this point have been calculated and formulated and the final five results have

been made.

From the original list including all certified Hounds accepted and approved by

both the American Kennel Club Association and the Westminster Kennel Club, the

Scottish Deerhound and the Beagle had the highest covariance relationship within its

group than any other breed within their respective group (see chart I below). Also

recognize a serendipitous key element from last year’s competition and it was the fact

that the Westminster BIS champion breed to win the overall competition came from the

Hound group, and that canine was none other than a Scottish Deerhound named

Hickory.

Hound Group Covariance Analysis Chart I

Basenjis Basset Hounds Borzois

Dachshunds

English Foxhoun

ds Harriers

Norwegian

Elkhounds

Rhodesian

Ridgebacks Salukis

Scottish Deerhou

nds

Afghan Hounds

Scottish Deerhounds

1544.833333

17163.91667

120.7222222

52848.77778

210.1111111

120.2222222

894.5833333

855.6388889

-103.333

333 420.472

2222

Beagles 594362.

6667 4931576

.917 78168.6

1111 1418684

7.72 43994.0

5556 31610.1

1111 304203.

4167 47051.1

9444 93382.1

6667 36197.3

6111

Whippets -5483

-69641.8

3333

-594.111

1111

-216417.

0556

-852.888

8889

-221.777

7778 -4249

-737.611

1111

-465.333

333

-1151.94

4444

Herding/Working Group Covariance Analysis Chart II

Bearded Collies

Belgian Sheepdogs

Cardigan Welsh Corgis

Bouviers des Flandres Collies

German Shepherd Dogs

Collies 46337.02778 25248.72222 -18843.3056 62030.94444 726548.4722 German Shepherd Dogs 132304.3611 89494.38889 22934.69444 128050.1111 2001493.972 11018720.47

Old English Sheepdogs 3044.388889 1953.111111 -1063.44444 4368.722222 45900.11111 116595.2778


NonSporting/Toy Group Covariance Analysis Chart III Bichons

Frises Boston Terriers

Chinese Shar-Pei

Chow Chows

Dalmatians Finnish Spitz

Keeshonden Lhasa Apsos

Schipperkes Tibetan Spaniels

Poodles 2803325 3352502 2264811 1360694 1442669 22989 426012.6 3426842 878528.8 207181.7

Terrier Group Covariance Analysis Chart IV

Bedlington Terriers

Border Terriers Bull Terriers Kerry Blue Terriers

Lakeland Terriers

Bull Terriers 1766.833 10553.33 69050.33 Lakeland Terriers -182.444 1026.722 3829.833 131.8333 521.2222 Norwich Terriers 793.1111 3742.944 21620.5 -628.083 1254.444

For the Stepwise Regression Analysis report, once again the FSTAT was greater

than the level of significance (.05), which means that the original general hypothesis,

which stated that the performance results of the BIS competition would not be affected

by the compilation of both registration totals and sales price and expenditure had to be

rejected.

However, a closer look at both Stepwise Regression models (I & II) results,

indicated in the charts below, clearly indicates that the p-values for BIS All-Around

winners, Average Ranking Percentage, and BIS Overall Placing Percentage showed

some levels of significance, meaning that the one-to-one relationship between the

dependent and independent variables involved in the analysis had enough evidence of

a cause and effect correlation that could be further explored. These favorable results

were enough to legitimize a continuance of the project research study and move

expediently towards the last few stages of the predictive analysis report to determine

next year’s champion breed group and individual canine.


Stepwise Regression Analysis I: Annual Maximum Cost to Average Sales Price (%)


Multiple R 0.8560

R Square 0.7327



Observations 6

ANOVA


Regression 2 67.7598 33.8799 4.1127 0.1382

Residual 3 24.7139 8.2380

Total 5 92.4737


t Stat P-value

Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept 25.6796 4.1118 6.2454 0.0083 12.5942 38.7651


-660.3708 242.7785 -2.7201 0.0725 -1433.0003 112.2587


-3.1504 5.1441 -0.6124 0.5836 -19.5214 13.2206

Calculations

b2, b1, b0 intercepts -3.1504 -660.3708 25.6796

b2, b1, b0 Standard Error 5.1441 242.7785 4.1118

R Square, Standard Error 0.7327 2.8702 #N/A

F, Residual df 4.1127 3 #N/A

Regression SS, Residual SS 67.75975045 24.71390014 #N/A






Stepwise Regression Analysis II: Annual Maximum Cost to Average Sales Price (%)


Multiple R 0.7987

R Square 0.6380



Observations 6

ANOVA


Regression 2 58.9967 29.4984 2.6435 0.2178

Residual 3 33.4769 11.1590

Total 5 92.4737


t Stat P-value

Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept 22.8378 3.9667 5.7574 0.0104 10.2141 35.4616


-7.5237 33.9574 -0.2216 0.8389 -115.5912 100.5438

BIS Overall Champions - Percentage of Total Wins per Group

-23.9965 11.9972 -2.0002 0.1393 -62.1769 14.1839

Calculations

b2, b1, b0 intercepts -23.9965 -7.5237 22.8378


b2, b1, b0 Standard Error 11.9972 33.9574 3.9667

R Square, Standard Error 0.6380 3.3405 #N/A

F, Residual df 2.6435 3 #N/A

Regression SS, Residual SS 58.99672155 33.47692904 #N/A






BIS Group Finalist Covariance Analysis Chart I Bull

Terriers Clumber Spaniels Lakeland

Terriers Norwich Terriers

Papillons Sussex Spaniels

Bull Terriers 19.52042

Clumber Spaniels 27.40469 38.532945

Lakeland Terriers 18.71792 26.30683292 17.98054

Norwich Terriers 10.95784 15.37920294 10.51083 6.154686

Papillons 22.83003 32.07241054 21.90946 12.81477 26.74682

Sussex Spaniels 27.65886 38.89631749 26.56139 15.523 32.37415 39.26762

BIS Group Finalist Time Series and Trend-line Analysis Charts for Breed Groups II, V, & VI:

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Y

X

Group II - Sport/Hound: Clumber Spaniels

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Y

X

Group V - Terrier: Bull Terriers


0

50

100

150

200

250

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Y

X

Group V - Terrier: Lakeland Terriers

Lakeland Terriers

Poly. (Lakeland Terriers)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Y

X

Group V - Terrier: Norwich Terriers

Norwich Terriers

Poly. (Norwich Terriers)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Y

X

Group VI - Toy/NonSport: Papillons


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Y

X

Group II - Sport/Hound: Sussex Spaniels


V. Conclusion

The subject of prediction is sometimes a compromisingly difficult task to

accomplish at any one given moment, and to dive into this area, and depending on the

severity of the circumstance involved, is not for the faint of heart. Yet, in this data

analysis report, attempting to determine whether sufficient raw data and information

obtained on purebred canines, would provide enough source material to formulate a

credible thesis on a number of correlating factors involving probability, quality and

quantity regression, covariance and correlation, and other closely-related data analytical

concepts, tools, and methodologies can be a tricky proposition to manipulate and

master.

Yet, from this report, it was sufficiently clear that the three primary sectional

variable groups – BIS performance results, AKC ranking and registration totals, and

breed price and expenditures - that would serve as a research platform to conduct

various analyses, perform a variety of testing/hypothesized procedures, build and create

a litany of statistical analytical models to address and test the hypothesis were

significant enough to fully complete the study with much success and provide a

plausible outcome, under a standard confidence interval of significance throughout the

report of 95%.

Much like the weather and epicurean splurge or two at one’s favorite resort

casino, choosing a winner is a 50/50 proposition and the chances of selecting the right

one, no matter how scientifically meticulously pure the process may be leading up to the

final selection phase, is simply just that: a 50/50 proposition, right or wrong.

Nonetheless, the leap of faith associated with this report to determine the predictive


outcome in the final analysis is based on some scrutinized degree of careful and

detailed research study and analysis, intuition, and last, but more importantly, an

educated guess.

So, who was chosen to become Westminster Best in Show top dog for 2012?

Only the final six hold the answer to this question as next year’s favorite. And yet one

sole individual breed will reign supreme and firmly stand prideful and tall, on all fours, of

course, to be elevated as the winner.

However, before the decision is rendered, it would be helpful to recapitulate and

review which group and breed emerged throughout the various processes in the report.

First, the BIS performance record one particular group has dominated the event

throughout the history of the event. Second, with regard to AKC breed registration

analysis, there was remarkable and unquestionable evidence, again under a confidence

interval of significance of 95%, that one breed did experience a sharp and

distinguishable rise in registration numbers from 2001 to 2006. And third, further data

analysis indicated the combination of life-expectancy, original sales price, and average

life-time expenditures were unmatched and undervalued the prospective breed for next

year’s throne.

Therefore, without further fanfare and delay, based on this report’s thorough

investigated research and statistical data analysis, next year’s Westminster’s Best in

Show champion breed will emerge among the Terriers, and the proverbial and symbolic

congratulatory paw to be extended to the one dog to take top prize will be the Bull

Terrier.


Source Citations:

Literary Resources:

American Kennel Club Gazette (1995- ). The Official Journal for Sport of Purebred

Dogs. New York: American Kennel Club

World Almanac Book of Facts (1923-). World Almanac: Book of Facts. New York: Press

Pub. Co. (The New York World).

Web Resources:

Anonymous. Dog Registration Statistics. (2009, March). AKC Gazette, 126(3), 84-

85. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from General Interest Module.

OECD/Eurostat (2011). Statistical Portal. Retrieved February 10, 2011, from

http://www.oecd.org/document/

PetStew.com© (2011). Pet Stew: Puppy Finder and Sales Listing. Retrieved February

10, 2011, from http://www.petstew.com/index.html

PuppyFinder.com© (2001-2008). Puppy Finder: Breed Locator. Retrieved February 10,

2011, from http://www.puppyfinder.com/AboutUs.php

U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics (2010- ).Databases, Tables, and Calculators by

Subject. Retrieved February 10, 2011, from http://www.bls.gov/data

Westminster Kennel Club (2011). The Westminster Kennel Club. Retrieved February

10, 2011, from http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org

http://www.oecd.org/document/

http://www.petstew.com/index.html

http://www.puppyfinder.com/AboutUs.php

http://www.bls.gov/data

http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/


Appendages: Graphs and Charts

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00%Tota

l Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f O

vera

ll B

IS P

laci

ng

(pe

r gr

ou

p)


Best in Show All-Around Winners (% of Total Wins) Line Fit Plot

Total Percentage of Overall BIS Placing (pergroup)

Predicted Total Percentage of Overall BISPlacing (per group)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

0% 500% 1000% 1500% 2000% 2500% 3000% 3500% 4000%Tota

l Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f O

vera

ll B

IS P

laci

ng

(pe

r gr

ou

p)


Annual Maximum Cost to Average Sales Price (%) Line Fit Plot

Total Percentage of Overall BIS Placing (pergroup)

Predicted Total Percentage of Overall BISPlacing (per group)


-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%

Re

sid

ual

s


Annual Minimum Cost to Average Sales Price (%) Residual Plot

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0% 500% 1000% 1500% 2000% 2500% 3000% 3500% 4000%

Re

sid

ual

s


Annual Maximum Cost to Average Sales Price (%) Residual Plot


-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

Re

sid

ual

s


Best in Show All-Around Winners (% of Total Wins) Residual Plot

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

0% 1000% 2000% 3000% 4000%Tota

l Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f O

vera

ll B

IS

Pla

cin

g (p

er

gro

up

)


Annual Maximum Cost to Average Sales Price (%) Line Fit Plot

Total Percentage of Overall BISPlacing (per group)

Predicted Total Percentage ofOverall BIS Placing (per group)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Tota

l Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f O

vera

ll B

IS P

laci

ng

(pe

r gr

ou

p)

Sample Percentile

Normal Probability Plot



Multiple R 0.814376604

R Square 0.663209254



Observations 6


Multiple R 0.538095

R Square 0.289546



Observations 6

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50%

An

nu

al

Min

imu

m C

os

t to

A

vera

ge

Sale

s P

rice (

%)


Best in Show All-Around Winners (% of Total Wins) Line Fit Plot

Annual Minimum Cost to AverageSales Price (%)

Predicted Annual Minimum Cost toAverage Sales Price (%)

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00%

An

nu

al

Min

imu

m C

os

t to

A

vera

ge

Sale

s P

rice (

%)


Total Registration Percentage Difference ± (2001-2006) Line Fit Plot

Annual Minimum Cost to AverageSales Price (%)

Predicted Annual Minimum Cost toAverage Sales Price (%)

final project term paper westminster bis

Documents

westminster kennel club

westminster kennel clubs

westminsters best

champion breedhenceforth

registered dog breeds

statistical data timeline

regal dog competition

smaller group breeds