Pletcher to have no horses in the Travers

[ELA]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

Actually, you don't feel the 2 for 41 (5%) in BC races is any sort of indicator of his abilities? I think we are in agreement that you'd be hard pressed to find someone on the earth with better stock for American racing, correct?

Here are a list of names of those with more BC wins to their credit, with number of starters in parentheses, and winning percentage.

Lukas 18 (146) 12%
McGaughey 9 (49) 18%
Mandella 6 (28) 21%
Drysdale 6 (33) 18%
Mott 5 (48) 10%
McAnally 4 (27) 15%
Frankel 4 (68) 6%
Byrne 3 (8) 38%
Bary 3 (8) 38%
Canani 3 (12) 25%
Boutin 3 (19) 16%
Stoute 3 (26) 12%
A O'Brien 3 (39) 8%
Baffert 3 (44) 7%

There are also 13 trainers that have won as many BC races as Todd (2), with none of them having started more than 26 horses. The list includes training icons like Janine Sahadi and Joe Orseno. Todd's 2 wins were with Ashado in 2004, who was favored, and Speightstown, who was 2nd choice by a dime to Midas Eyes. How many of his 39 other starters do you think were either 1st or 2nd choice? I'm guessing (because I'm not counting) quite a few.

Anyhow, IMO you can see how someone can state that maybe Todd is not a VERY good trainer, which may just be his way of saying the guy is VERY overrated, which is a statement I would agree with.

I know there are those that disagree and are awestruck by his overall numbers, but he's got a lot of the richest, active owners, who supply him with the best possible stock (and a lot of it) and has one of the top jocks riding for him almost all of the time, shouldn't he be that good numbers wise by default?

Actually, no, a one dimensional view of "data" -- your data in this case -- which is a very myopic view -- is not an indicator of his abilities . . . and you know that . . . oh no you don't . . . look at your handle, LOL.

Was BC day results an indicator of Bobby Frankel's training abilities, when he was 0 for 30 plus? It didn't keep him out of the Hall of Fame. Sure, there were his critics and their opinion counted for crap then, just like it does now. People who are in this business, who have been in this game a long time, who have paid their dues -- some of them know who good trainers are. Not someone who picks one stat and says "Hey, look what I found, and now my opinion counts".

We all know what they say -- Statistics don't lie, only statisticians do.

Listen, I am not a fan of Todd Pletcher. I have often said that in his position, and in his situation, going 0 for whatever in TC races can be an issue, especially for the critics. However, his owners don't seem to mind. That's neither here nor there. It's their issues -- not mine. I've often said -- do those owners spend that kind of money to win training titles, maiden specials, and "A other thans" or do they spend that kind of money to win the big dance? It's easy to be a critic, but that doesn't make Todd Pletcher "not a very good trainer" so to speak. Regardless, that one piece of data, is not an indication of his abilities.

Anyway, that is just one of the reasons he wouldn't be my choice to train a top 2yo or 3yo. I've never been a fan of corporate training per se. Although I have a trainer who has 200 or so horses, however, I view it as a different operation, set-up, different mindset, requirements, etc. I've spoke with several trainers, well respected horsemen, who question his operation, methodolgies, ability to manage an operation with that size and scope, and so on. Some think he does an excellent job, others think he's more of a CEO than a trainer. Still, others think he is not a good horseman and things must slip through the cracks. And still others think that the assembly line is not a way to train horses, and so on and so on. One of these opinions comes from a Hall of Fame trainer, one who I respect. When those opinions start being thrown around here, I'll listen to them -- not to one piece of myopic and one dimensional information.

In addition, I have also said, that aside from shooting incredible #'s, which has it's substance and it's distortions, and winning record #'s of Grade 1's -- if you look at the truly prestigeous big dance races, the most prestigeous G'1s, it was not often that Pletcher truly came over with "the horse to beat" so to speak. Ashado was of course, and there might have been another instance or two. However, it's not like he strolled into every prestigeous G1 -- the ones that count on a stallion's or mare's resume -- and was even money or 3-5. I get all that and have said that often. That might of changed the past year or so, but prior, even Pletcher said in an interview, this was the case.

However, to say that "Pletcher is not a very good trainer" or to look at one piece of data and make that statement -- well, I guess there is not only plenty of horse manure at the track, but here as well, LOL.

I'll leave the rest to the critics and the training icons.

Eric

[Thoroughbred Fan]

I think NoLuvForPletch summed up my opinon in the best way...Pletcher is a VERY VERY overrated trainer!

He starts with so much of the best bloodstock that the ones that get to the track and run under his name are actually a subset of what he is given. He sends some away which don't have much talent before they even get a chance to further reduce his stats.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Does anyone have these numbers/information:

How many drug positives does Pletcher have?

What was the infraction for each?

I'm not sure where you can get that information but it is something that should be made easily available through TOBA or NTRA for people looking to get into the game.

[Thoroughbred Fan]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Does anyone have these numbers/information:

How many drug positives does Pletcher have?

What was the infraction for each?

I don't but i'd also like to know how many 2yo started with him only to be retired early due to injury or end up being run down a la Flower Alley.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Riot

The horses don't train themselves.

Discreet Cat does.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

True, but he's like a New York bred, he "starts with an advantage". A really, really BIG advantage. Especially when you factor in that he has so much good stock and he prevents them from running into each other that his numbers and the numbers of his animals are a bit inflated.

To get successful athletic performance (be it humans, horses, or the best flying monkeys), you need three things:

1) Genetic potential: Conformation, cardiovascular and physiologic capabilities, muscle type, mental attributes

2) Optimal health: Nutrition, disease prevention, maintaining soundness

3) Training and conditioning practices: Training to perform a specific task, conditioning to appropriate fitness, mental preparation

The trainer is responsible for all of the above. Pletcher may maximize #1 (which goes to his ability to select or accept stock with appropriate potential), but he's still responsible for #2 and #3, too.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by ELA

Actually, no, a one dimensional view of "data" -- your data in this case -- which is a very myopic view -- is not an indicator of his abilities . . . and you know that . . . oh no you don't . . . look at your handle, LOL.

Was BC day results an indicator of Bobby Frankel's training abilities, when he was 0 for 30 plus? It didn't keep him out of the Hall of Fame. Sure, there were his critics and their opinion counted for crap then, just like it does now. People who are in this business, who have been in this game a long time, who have paid their dues -- some of them know who good trainers are. Not someone who picks one stat and says "Hey, look what I found, and now my opinion counts".

We all know what they say -- Statistics don't lie, only statisticians do.

Listen, I am not a fan of Todd Pletcher. I have often said that in his position, and in his situation, going 0 for whatever in TC races can be an issue, especially for the critics. However, his owners don't seem to mind. That's neither here nor there. It's their issues -- not mine. I've often said -- do those owners spend that kind of money to win training titles, maiden specials, and "A other thans" or do they spend that kind of money to win the big dance? It's easy to be a critic, but that doesn't make Todd Pletcher "not a very good trainer" so to speak. Regardless, that one piece of data, is not an indication of his abilities.

Anyway, that is just one of the reasons he wouldn't be my choice to train a top 2yo or 3yo. I've never been a fan of corporate training per se. Although I have a trainer who has 200 or so horses, however, I view it as a different operation, set-up, different mindset, requirements, etc. I've spoke with several trainers, well respected horsemen, who question his operation, methodolgies, ability to manage an operation with that size and scope, and so on. Some think he does an excellent job, others think he's more of a CEO than a trainer. Still, others think he is not a good horseman and things must slip through the cracks. And still others think that the assembly line is not a way to train horses, and so on and so on. One of these opinions comes from a Hall of Fame trainer, one who I respect. When those opinions start being thrown around here, I'll listen to them -- not to one piece of myopic and one dimensional information.

In addition, I have also said, that aside from shooting incredible #'s, which has it's substance and it's distortions, and winning record #'s of Grade 1's -- if you look at the truly prestigeous big dance races, the most prestigeous G'1s, it was not often that Pletcher truly came over with "the horse to beat" so to speak. Ashado was of course, and there might have been another instance or two. However, it's not like he strolled into every prestigeous G1 -- the ones that count on a stallion's or mare's resume -- and was even money or 3-5. I get all that and have said that often. That might of changed the past year or so, but prior, even Pletcher said in an interview, this was the case.

However, to say that "Pletcher is not a very good trainer" or to look at one piece of data and make that statement -- well, I guess there is not only plenty of horse manure at the track, but here as well, LOL.

I'll leave the rest to the critics and the training icons.


Eric

So after all of that, is it your contention that he is a "bad trainer", "so-so trainer", "good trainer", "very good trainer", "excellent trainer", "the best current trainer", "the best trainer of all time" or is he "more of a CEO"?

It was merely MY opinion that with all that he is provided by his owner in the way of bloodstock, his numbers in those races that he can't control the make-up of the race, like BC races (you can also throw TC races in there) his numbers are less than stellar. Hence MY contention that he might be slightly overrated.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Discreet Cat does.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

Actually, you don't feel the 2 for 41 (5%) in BC races is any sort of indicator of his abilities?

No i don't. i won't rehash the response because ELA has already given you the reasons why.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Riot

To get successful athletic performance (be it humans, horses, or the best flying monkeys), you need three things:

1) Genetic potential: Conformation, cardiovascular and physiologic capabilities, muscle type, mental attributes

2) Optimal health: Nutrition, disease prevention, maintaining soundness

3) Training and conditioning practices: Training to perform a specific task, conditioning to appropriate fitness, mental preparation

The trainer is responsible for all of the above. Pletcher may maximize #1 (which goes to his ability to select or accept stock with appropriate potential), but he's still responsible for #2 and #3, too.

So take the Barclay Tagg's of the world. What do you thing he might do with Pletcher's client list? Or how about Allen Jerkens? What do you think he would do with Pletcher's client list? I'm just tired of people making him to out to be some kind of superhero. Like he's reinvented horse training or something. He's a guy who trains horses. And most of the time they are the best horses.

[Riot]

I've never been a fan of corporate training per se. Although I have a trainer who has 200 or so horses, however, I view it as a different operation, set-up, different mindset, requirements, etc. I've spoke with several trainers, well respected horsemen, who question his operation, methodolgies, ability to manage an operation with that size and scope, and so on.

I've read somewhere (don't know if it's true) that you can give the name of any horse spread anywhere across the country in Pletcher's barns, and he can tell you all about that horses' current status, where it is in it's training, etc.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

So take the Barclay Tagg's of the world. What do you thing he might do with Pletcher's client list? Or how about Allen Jerkens? What do you think he would do with Pletcher's client list? I'm just tired of people making him to out to be some kind of superhero. Like he's reinvented horse training or something. He's a guy who trains horses. And most of the time they are the best horses.

Speculation is just that - nobody knows. We don't know how many great horses never made it to our radar as they were with a lesser trainer at a lesser track.

I agree with you - he's a guy who trains horses. No superhero. But he does very well for himself, and his owners.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Riot

Speculation is just that - nobody knows. We don't know how many great horses never made it to our radar as they were with a lesser trainer at a lesser track.

I agree with you - he's a guy who trains horses. No superhero. But he does very well for himself, and his owners.

Allen Jerkens is a "lesser trainer"? Wow!

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cardus

After the great "should Street Sense run in the Belmont Stakes" debate, I've tried to get out of the "(fill-in-the-blank)" should run in such and such a race. Question for you: has there been an instance in which you thought it was BS for a trainer to skip a race?

Great question -- very thought provoking, just in me having to think about giving you an answer. I really tend not to "worry" about other people's business, decisions, etc. -- I concentrate and have enough of my own, LOL. You make an excellent point with regard to the Street Sense debate; although I never viewed it has a debate. I didn't have a problem with the Nafzger/Tafel decision. Sure, like everyone, I would have loved to see him run. However, as I mentioned, I thought it was ludicrous to call them names or to say they don't care about the game, business or sport. I tought it nonsense to criticize them and their decision and say they are not "sporstmen" or anything of the like.

Be that as it may, although I can't think of the specific instance, I am sure there has been a case where my initial thought might have been that it was BS for a trainer to skip a race. But it's their decision. And if I did feel that way, it would have been myopic as well, due to the fact that it's his/her decision and I would have been completely unaware of the facts, circumstances, etc. Am I qualified to make such a decision? No, and I don't think many others are qualified as well.

I make my decisions based upon the input, advice, guidance, etc. from my own advisors -- primarily the trainer in question. If I don't trust that trainer, or his recommendation, then I have a much bigger problem.

Eric

[Riot]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

Allen Jerkens is a "lesser trainer"? Wow!

??? Heck no, where'd you get that from? ("We don't know how many great horses never made it to our radar as they were with a lesser trainer at a lesser track." was general, certainly no reference to Jerkens or Tagg!)

[Cannon Shell]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/mo..._eclipsed.html

[ELA]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

So after all of that, is it your contention that he is a "bad trainer", "so-so trainer", "good trainer", "very good trainer", "excellent trainer", "the best current trainer", "the best trainer of all time" or is he "more of a CEO"?

It was merely MY opinion that with all that he is provided by his owner in the way of bloodstock, his numbers in those races that he can't control the make-up of the race, like BC races (you can also throw TC races in there) his numbers are less than stellar. Hence MY contention that he might be slightly overrated.

I am not going to argue with you -- again, it's a fallacious argument. I am also not going to argue with you because you clearly have an orientation, and slant in your opinions -- to the point where you selected the handle you selected. I think that basically shows that you can't be truly objective.

You may have used the term "overrated" -- and I am not arguing that point. The other term or label states was that Todd Pletcher "is not a very good trainer".

I am not criticizing the opinion, although I disagree with the statement that he is not a very good trainer. I am questioning whether or not it's a qualified opinion and the mindset of using one piece of data, neglecting all other facts and knowledge, to substantiate that he is "not a very good trainer". That's all.

Eric

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Aside from the debate about Pletcher's ability, in one sense, NoLuvForPletch is consistent with some trainers and Eclipse Award voters: he is putting as much emphasis on the Breeders' Cup as do they.

Good point. However, hasn't Pletcher won numerous Eclipse awards despite his performance on BC day? How about Frankel? I am not sure if he won any Eclipse awards in years where he didn't win the BC -- and according to the stats, there were plenty of them, LOL.

Eric

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Riot

I've read somewhere (don't know if it's true) that you can give the name of any horse spread anywhere across the country in Pletcher's barns, and he can tell you all about that horses' current status, where it is in it's training, etc.

I've been told the same thing, and I believe it. I currently have a horse -- at best he's a 16 claimer -- with a trainer who has 200 horses. I bumped into him while the horse was in his barn and he told when when he worked, what equiptment he wore (changes that were made), the problems he had when he got there, what he did to address them, when the horse was going to race, where, the race and more!

I also bumped into him when the horse was turned out on a farm. He also gave me a detailed status report up through about 5 days earlier.

Eric

[Cannon Shell]

"Running him back in the Travers and then keeping him at that level for another 60 days is unrealistic, as opposed to backing off and targeting it directly."

This quote from Steve Assmussen is frightening. Now races in August are too stressful for races in November? If I was just a fan, I would probably find a new sport because this attitude is not only wrong historically, it is destructive for the sport of our sport. Not only are top horses going to be retired early, they are not even going to be campaigned much while running, just spotted randomly every 60 days or so.

I thought that Nafzger did the right thing by skipping the Belmont because of the grind of 3 races in 5 weeks without a chance for the Triple Crown. But this is entirely different. These are well rested horses that are at a point in their lives where they are maturing and getting stronger. Not running them is not only unsporting, it is disgraceful. And don't place all the blame on the trainers. The owners are as much to blame by captiulating and allowing this to happen. There is very little evidence that this style of training is sucessful in winning Breeders Cup races and as such is disheartening to see so many going down this path.