Pletcher to have no horses in the Travers

[Thoroughbred Fan]

This whole thread is from the Trivial Pursuit "Who Gives A ****" Edition. Todd Pletcher isn't even a very good trainer. He just gets most of the top bloodstock.

Now, the real question is, with 35,000 foals per year, why can't we find enough decent ones to fill these classic races?

Answer, breeders have bred out almost all of the stamina and durability for Thoroughbreds.

The thread should ask why are there only ever five good horses per generation.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Thoroughbred Fan

This whole thread is from the Trivial Pursuit "Who Gives A ****" Edition. Todd Pletcher isn't even a very good trainer. He just gets most of the top bloodstock.
Now, the real question is, with 35,000 foals per year, why can't we find enough decent ones to fill these classic races?

Answer, breeders have bred out almost all of the stamina and durability for Thoroughbreds.

The thread should ask why are there only ever five good horses per generation.

Another great revelation -- Pletcher isn't even a very good trainer, LOL.

Believe me, I am no fan of Todd Pletcher. However, to make a case that he isn't a good trainer is nonsense. If the guy came out of nowhere, didn't pay his dues, got lucky, picked up some strong backing from a client or maybe two, didn't have the background or credentials -- well, that would be one thing.

This is not the case here. And, everyone who has been around this game for a long time knows this as well. Like him or not, good for the business or not, and so on.

Eric

[Thoroughbred Fan]

Originally Posted by ELA

Another great revelation -- Pletcher isn't even a very good trainer, LOL.

Believe me, I am no fan of Todd Pletcher. However, to make a case that he isn't a good trainer is nonsense. If the guy came out of nowhere, didn't pay his dues, got lucky, picked up some strong backing from a client or maybe two, didn't have the background or credentials -- well, that would be one thing.

This is not the case here. And, everyone who has been around this game for a long time knows this as well. Like him or not, good for the business or not, and so on.

Eric

I could name at least ten trainers I think would do a better job with the same horses.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Thoroughbred Fan

I could name at least ten trainers I think would do a better job with the same horses.

just because you may think it doesn't mean its true, just your opinion.

whatever you have to say about Pletcher, you can't argue that he's not a good trainer. There is no evidence for that.

he gets good horses becasue he does well with them.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

just because you may think it doesn't mean its true, just your opinion.

whatever you have to say about Pletcher, you can't argue that he's not a good trainer. There is no evidence for that.

he gets good horses becasue he does well with them.

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?

[Riot]

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?

The horses don't train themselves.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Riot

The horses don't train themselves.

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.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Riot

The horses don't train themselves.

Discreet Cat does.

[Sightseek]

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?

Do you have the stats for the classics?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[ArlJim78]

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.

true enough. i think though a couple of solid BC days for pletcher and that whole argument goes away as his percentage could go up quite rapidly.

[Ronnie]

The Haskell was attractive this year because the Breeder's Cup is at Monmouth. NYRA doesn't have to worry about competing with Monmouth races next year.

[boswd]

Originally Posted by Ronnie

The Haskell was attractive this year because the Breeder's Cup is at Monmouth. NYRA doesn't have to worry about competing with Monmouth races next year.

I would have to slightly disagree with you on that, maybe 5 to 10 years ago that would have been true But the Haskell is no longer considered a "prep" for the Travers. It has developed into a marque race all it's own now.
It being a Grade I $1 million race that is raced in the begining of August will always make it a very attractive race for the the top 3 yr olds that raced and preformed well on the Triple Crown races. These horse have been sitting in the barn unraced for the most part since May and June and the timing of the Haskell is very attractive.

The bottom line when it gets to this time of year trainers are going to be looking for more space between races now adays and it's time for NYRA to adapt.

This is not your father's Travers anymore. It's very sad.
Especially when the The PA Derby I am willing to bet will get a field of 8 to 10 horse for a race that has no history or prestige but will offer a $million.

[Ronnie]

Originally Posted by boswd

I would have to slightly disagree with you on that, maybe 5 to 10 years ago that would have been true But the Haskell is no longer considered a "prep" for the Travers. It has developed into a marque race all it's own now.
It being a Grade I $1 million race that is raced in the begining of August will always make it a very attractive race for the the top 3 yr olds that raced and preformed well on the Triple Crown races. These horse have been sitting in the barn unraced for the most part since May and June and the timing of the Haskell is very attractive.

The bottom line when it gets to this time of year trainers are going to be looking for more space between races now adays and it's time for NYRA to adapt.

This is not your father's Travers anymore. It's very sad.
Especially when the The PA Derby I am willing to bet will get a field of 8 to 10 horse for a race that has no history or prestige but will offer a $million.

Last year Pletcher sent Bluegrass Cat there to prep for the Travers so he did not have to race Bernardini in the Dandy. The rest of the field stunk.