Saturday's Results

[blackthroatedwind]

First of all, I am surprised by Grasshopper losing, and at face value I guess I overrated him. Regardless of circumstances, I am surprised that Going Ballistic could beat him. But, one of the joys of the game is how surprising it can be.

However, the biggest story has to be the continuance of the Pletcher barn underperforming. Octave, not exactly one of my favorite horses, but still very much the one to beat, was a very pedestrian second in the Cotillion. As an isolated result one could easily say this is unsurprising, and perhaps it was, but considering how much many horses from that once invincible barn have been underperforming, it does at least raise questions.

Then there's Fairbanks. OK, he lost to a nice horse in Brass Hat, who received a poor ride in the Woodward where he easily could have been second, but considering the pace scenerio and his pps coming into the race I would say it is at least fair to say he also underperformed. Once again, taken in isolation, perhaps the result was far from shocking, but I don't think these results can any longer be taken in isolation.

Then there's Any Given Saturday. He won, just as he was supposed to, against a decidely sub-par group. However, he worked pretty hard to win rather unimpressively, and while maybe it is just what Pletcher wanted leading up to the BC, it hardly resembled his dominent performances in the Dwyer and Haskell. Maybe Helsinki is improving, but all things considered, one would have expected Any Given Saturday to have handled that one more easily.

Now, none of these horses ran poorly, and all at least showed up, but as a group, and in conjunction with the poor results that barn has shown in NY since the beginning of August, there has to be at least some question as to what is different from the last five years or so. After years of many horses seemingly overperforming they now seem to be consistently underperforming. Maybe it's just the law of averages catching up but after seven weeks of these kinds of results it's surprising that more people aren't at least discussing it.

I know, Lawyer Ron was great in Saratoga, as was Wait a While in her return to form in the Ballston Spa. Pletcher is to be congratulated for the terrific work he did with Lawyer Ron as he clearly has managed to turn this horse from a solid, if unspectacular, performer into perhaps the best horse in the country. I look forward to seeing if he can duplicate his sensational Saratoga form in another venue. No sane person would suggest that Todd Pletcher isn't a great trainer but for the last seven weeks his horses have been dramatically underperforming, especially in NY, and this weekend was yet another example.

Maybe we all just got used to him seeming invincible, and his extraordinary accomplishments leading up the TC races, and then leading up to the BC, were taken too lightly. Maybe some of us, myself included, should have been more impressed, and should thus be less surprised to see the recent more realistic results. I guess after all those years of dynamite results it's hard for me to not at least be confused by what's recently occuring.

One of the greatest things about this game is that it eventually humbles everyone.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

First of all, I am surprised by Grasshopper losing, and at face value I guess I overrated him. Regardless of circumstances, I am surprised that Going Ballistic could beat him. But, one of the joys of the game is how surprising it can be.

However, the biggest story has to be the continuance of the Pletcher barn underperforming. Octave, not exactly one of my favorite horses, but still very much the one to beat, was a very pedestrian second in the Cotillion. As an isolated result one could easily say this is unsurprising, and perhaps it was, but considering how much many horses from that once invincible barn have been underperforming, it does at least raise questions.

Then there's Fairbanks. OK, he lost to a nice horse in Brass Hat, who received a poor ride in the Woodward where he easily could have been second, but considering the pace scenerio and his pps coming into the race I would say it is at least fair to say he also underperformed. Once again, taken in isolation, perhaps the result was far from shocking, but I don't think these results can any longer be taken in isolation.

Then there's Any Given Saturday. He won, just as he was supposed to, against a decidely sub-par group. However, he worked pretty hard to win rather unimpressively, and while maybe it is just what Pletcher wanted leading up to the BC, it hardly resembled his dominent performances in the Dwyer and Haskell. Maybe Helsinki is improving, but all things considered, one would have expected Any Given Saturday to have handled that one more easily.

Now, none of these horses ran poorly, and all at least showed up, but as a group, and in conjunction with the poor results that barn has shown in NY since the beginning of August, there has to be at least some question as to what is different from the last five years or so. After years of many horses seemingly overperforming they now seem to be consistently underperforming. Maybe it's just the law of averages catching up but after seven weeks of these kinds of results it's surprising that more people aren't at least discussing it.

I know, Lawyer Ron was great in Saratoga, as was Wait a While in her return to form in the Ballston Spa. Pletcher is to be congratulated for the terrific work he did with Lawyer Ron as he clearly has managed to turn this horse from a solid, if unspectacular, performer into perhaps the best horse in the country. I look forward to seeing if he can duplicate his sensational Saratoga form in another venue. No sane person would suggest that Todd Pletcher isn't a great trainer but for the last seven weeks his horses have been dramatically underperforming, especially in NY, and this weekend was yet another example.

Maybe we all just got used to him seeming invincible, and his extraordinary accomplishments leading up the TC races, and then leading up to the BC, were taken too lightly. Maybe some of us, myself included, should have been more impressed, and should thus be less surprised to see the recent more realistic results. I guess after all those years of dynamite results it's hard for me to not at least be confused by what's recently occuring.

One of the greatest things about this game is that it eventually humbles everyone.

Andy....not trying to stir things up, but what do you attribute the decline in his winning % to?

[blackthroatedwind]

I have no idea. I'm just surprised nobody has really discussed it.

[zippyneedsawin]

I really think it is the law of averages. The guy has won at such a high rate and set such a high standard (for himself) it makes this stretch really stand out.

[GPK]

Didn't I read somewhere that he said his crop of 2yo's this year just really isn't as good as years past?

[GPK]

After the cobra venom found in Biancones barn...wonder if others sat up and took notice?

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by GPK

Didn't I read somewhere that he said his crop of 2yo's this year just really isn't as good as years past?

That's something else I was going to bring up.. TP certainly did not dominate the 2yo races at Saratoga this year. That's always been a major contributor to his winning %.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

That's something else I was going to bring up.. TP certainly did not dominate the 2yo races at Saratoga this year. That's always been a major contributor to his winning %.

Honestly....its the price he pays for having English Channel stabled at Belmont during the week I was at Toga.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by GPK

Didn't I read somewhere that he said his crop of 2yo's this year just really isn't as good as years past?

He only won with one firster on the dirt in 2006 at Saratoga.

Maybe his crop isn't nearly as good as it has been in the past, though he certainly has the numbers ( maybe more ), but he dramatically underperformed across the board in Saratoga.

Here are his numbers for the previous five years....


2007 13 / 115 11% Wins 36% ITM 0.75 ROI

2006 24 / 116 21% 50% 1.73

2005 22 / 100 22% 49% 1.60

2004 33 / 120 27.5% 56% 1.80

2003 35 / 125 28% 57% 2.21


Overall 127 / 576 22% 50% 1.63

[GPK]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

He only won with one firster on the dirt in 2006 at Saratoga.

Maybe his crop isn't nearly as good as it has been in the past, though he certainly has the numbers ( maybe more ), but he dramatically underperformed across the board in Saratoga.

Here are his numbers for the previous five years....


2007 13 / 115 11% Wins 36% ITM 0.75 ROI

2006 24 / 116 21% 50% 1.73

2005 22 / 100 22% 49% 1.60

2004 33 / 120 27.5% 56% 1.80

2003 35 / 125 28% 57% 2.21


Overall 127 / 576 22% 50% 1.63

HUGE dropoff doesn't begin to describe it.

[sumitas]

Is it the horses ? Does he have the same staff as last year ? Did his suspension change his methods ?

[blackthroatedwind]

Here are the 2YO numbers....



2007 3 / 47 6% Wins 30% ITM

2006 12 / 44 27% 55%

2005 7 / 38 18% 42%

2004 16 / 45 36% 60%

2003 13 / 46 28% 59%


Thus his non - 2YO numbers are


2007 10 / 68 15% Wins 40% ITM

2006 12 / 72 17% 47%

2005 15 / 62 24% 53%

2004 17 / 75 23% 53%

2003 22 / 79 28% 56%

[SuffolkGirl]

Maybe he is just spread a bit too thin. He gets great horses but really, they are just being thrown into the factory, albeit a formerly very efficient and effective factory.

I don't bet his horses to win, but I do need to remember to put them in exotics.

If owners come to the conclusion that he is spread too thin, maybe some other deserving trainers will get an opportunity.

[GPK]

hard to pin the blame on "lack of good 2yo's" in his barn. This guy is handed the best baby horse flesh year in and year out. Your numbers don't drop that dramatically from one year to the next based on that excuse alone.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by SuffolkGirl

Maybe he is just spread a bit too thin. He gets great horses but really, they are just being thrown into the factory, albeit a formerly very efficient and effective factory.

I don't bet his horses to win, but I do need to remember to put them in exotics.

If owners come to the conclusion that he is spread too thin, maybe some other deserving trainers will get an opportunity.

don't hold your breath hun...

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by GPK

hard to pin the blame on "lack of good 2yo's" in his barn. This guy is handed the best baby horse flesh year in and year out. Your numbers don't drop that dramatically from one year to the next based on that excuse alone.

However, his non-2YO numbers dropped of last year as well.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

However, his non-2YO numbers dropped of last year as well.

but not quite as dramatically...

you bring up a good point and like you, I am surprised it hasn't been discussed.

[GPK]

whats really odd to me...is not just the drop in win % and ITM %...but the dramatic drop in starters. What could be to blame there?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by GPK

but not quite as dramatically...

you bring up a good point and like you, I am surprised it hasn't been discussed.

When you compile an operation like the " Pletcher Machine " you have to expect to have your numbers scrutinized. In Baseball, small market teams that spend little money are expected to not do well ( especially these days ), but if teams like the Red Sox and Yankees underperform there's non-stop scrutiny ( probably too much ). It's just the nature of the beast. I'm sorry there isn't more of it in racing.

However, I'm sure that Todd scrutinizes them as well as anybody and perhaps he's his own harshest critic. He's a very smart person.....he knows what responsibilities he's placed upon himself and I'm sure he takes these numbers as seriously as anyone.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by GPK

whats really odd to me...is not just the drop in win % and ITM %...but the dramatic drop in starters. What could be to blame there?

The number of starters have been fairly consistent.