Pletcher to have no horses in the Travers

[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.

[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.

[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 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]

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!

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Riot

The horses don't train themselves.

Discreet Cat does.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

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.

[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

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by ELA

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

Whether my handle is NoLuvForPletch or WhoShotNellyInTheBelly makes no matter. I'm speaking as an owner and a fan of the sport. I do not like what is happeneing to the game in part because of the Pletchers of the world. Just because my original post didn't articulate everything yours did, and just focused on the point that in meaningful races where Pletch cannot control the framework of the race he seems to do significantly worse than every other day, why does that make my opinion that he is overrated less justified?

[ELA]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

Whether my handle is NoLuvForPletch or WhoShotNellyInTheBelly makes no matter. I'm speaking as an owner and a fan of the sport. I do not like what is happeneing to the game in part because of the Pletchers of the world. Just because my original post didn't articulate everything yours did, and just focused on the point that in meaningful races where Pletch cannot control the framework of the race he seems to do significantly worse than every other day, why does that make my opinion that he is overrated less justified?

Personally, I do think it matters, but that's neither here nor there. Plenty of people don't like certain aspects of the sport and/or the business; I am one of them. Some of these people might also be very passionate about some of these respective issues. Again, I am one of them. Apparently, you are as well. That's great.

Obviously, that doesn't mean your opinion is more or less justified -- at least not in your eyes; however, in my eyes, it might not be objective -- which is what I said. I looked at and viewed your initial point as a weak and myopic arguement attempting to substantiate Pletcher's capabilities, or lack thereof, and in my opinion it wasn't objective. That's all. In coming to that conclusion I also looked at your handle which obviously is reflective of something. That's all.

You want to say he's overrated, that's fine. Like I said, I am not going to argue with you. However, I just didn't think your initial -- single point -- was made objectively.

Eric

[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.