John Shirreffs

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

He "slayed the dragon" as a noted racecaller who frequents this site said in the Charlie Whittingham then he ran really well in the Eddie Read and Del Mar Handicap while accumulating wins at distances ranging from 8.5 to 11 furlongs. His trip in the Kelso could have been better as he was extremely wide coming off the turn and still finished up pretty well even with the pace collapse.

It's not a redboard but I had a future on Courageous Cat this year thinking that he might have a great transcendental experience heading west like his bro After Market. That and I thought Dominguez rode him like s.hit in the Jamaica.

I was a tad excited at the top of the stretch but piped down when I saw Goldikova in high gear.

NT

Lets be honest here Nick. You were a lot more then a tad excited. You thought you had it.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by JerseyJ

Please, take a look at After Market's PPs for a second...After Market finished a non-threatening 6th at 28-1 in the Kilroe Handicap and then was a non-threatening 5th with a perfect trip in a conditional money allowance. Finally he got into the winners circle in a weak 5 horse rendition of the Inglewood Handicap. Then he continued to get great setup, after great setup before coming home east and losing the Kelso BC Mile...Did he really improve that much out West or did he just beat up on crap out there???

That Inglewood Day was a very good day for me.

I After Market after that day.

[RolloTomasi]

After Market had bleeding issues that was reportedly the basis for his transfer out west.

As far as Shireffs ability as a debut trainer, where are your patented stats?

I think you might just be recalling top class sprinters Swept Overboard and Hook And Ladder (maybe a little Lethal Instrument and High Wire Act?) and somehow amplifying the actual numbers...

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by JerseyJ

Please, take a look at After Market's PPs for a second...After Market finished a non-threatening 6th at 28-1 in the Kilroe Handicap and then was a non-threatening 5th with a perfect trip in a conditional money allowance. Finally he got into the winners circle in a weak 5 horse rendition of the Inglewood Handicap. Then he continued to get great setup, after great setup before coming home east and losing the Kelso BC Mile...Did he really improve that much out West or did he just beat up on crap out there???

Well, to be fair, After Market was coming off a layoff or so in the Kilroe (not to mention he was about 40-1). I think those first couple of races were classic "prep" runs (with 4 or 5 wins under his belt in NY, he couldn't really start the season in soft spots).

For comparison, see Kotashaan's record off a long layoff in the fall of '02. He was UNP in an allowance, 4th in the San Gabriel at 20-1, before chasing Star Of Cozzene a couple of times and then going on a massive tear early in '03 that was only derailed by Luazur at Del Mar and Kent Desormeaux in Tokyo...

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

As far as Shireffs ability as a debut trainer, where are your patented stats?

Shirreffs with first time starters between '98 and '99 ...

24-14-4-0 (58.3% wins) $7.63 ROI.


At Hollywood Park: 12-8-2-0 $7.90 ROI

At Santa Anita: 9-6-2-0 $9.82 ROI

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I know a few people here who posted with me back in '05 remember how I married myself to Giacomo to win the Derby even after the SA Derby defeat when mostly all of his giant bandwagon fled.

They said I was stubborn, could never admit I'm wrong about anything, and made fun of me about Giacomo. They were right ... but he did win at 50/1. Giacomo had a terrible start coming out of the gate in the Derby .. and I threw up my hands, swore, and that was finally the point I had given up on him.. thinking everything has to go perfect for his bum ass to win.

I made fun of you all right, but having seen you pull rabbits out of your ass before, I wasn't too serious.

As for the rest of that, everything did go perfect for him, which is why he won.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I think you might just be recalling top class sprinters Swept Overboard and Hook And Ladder (maybe a little Lethal Instrument and High Wire Act?) and somehow amplifying the actual numbers...

Don't forget Shirreffs trained David Copperfield ... who won his debut by a neck over Fusaichi Pegasus. Less than 6 months later Fu Peg won the Derby as the post time favorite.

Also ... Shirreffs trained the beastly filly Manistique .. who won her debut by a pole with something like a 112 Beyer.

There were a few more who freaked in there debut as well for him.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Trivia...

Cliquot was a Shirreffs/505 first time starter from that time period who got beat a nose in his debut.

Name the eventual 7 time Graded Stakes winner who beat him.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Trivia...

Cliquot was a Shirreffs/505 first time starter from that time period who got beat a nose in his debut.

Name the eventual 7 time Graded Stakes winner who beat him.

General Challenge

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Yep.

It's too bad Rock Hard Ten '85 wasn't a big fan of his.

He could change his moniker to Generally Challenged 1985

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I don't know what he's doing... but he's got an edge. As a trainer, you don't produce a profitable ROI over a 14 year span without an edge.

He's a guy that consistantly would get horses to win there debut by 10 lengths with triple digit figures when he had 505.

Now he's totally opposite - but still an awesome horse trainer.

We really are to a point though where trainers with poor stats never have a top horse. That's why I was such a rabid fan of Rachel Alexandra back when Hal Wiggins trained her. Look at his stats ... they are bad!! You damn sure know that guy is 100% clean.

I would be an RA Super Fan if she stayed with Wiggins and did the same thing she did with Asmussen. It's possible she might have ... who knows. Her final start with Wiggins was amazing.

I think a really high winning percentage is much more indicative of a trainer having an edge than a high ROI. We all know who some of the trainers with an edge are. Most of them have really high win percenatges, but not necessarily high ROIs.

From what I know of Shireffs, he is the last guy in the world that I would suspect of having an edge. He is one of the most honest trainers out there. Not only that, he has always used the most conservative veterinarians. The cheating trainers use the agressive and cheating vets, not the conservative vets.

[10 pnt move up]

Part of the insane ROI has to come from Tiago winning at 30/1 and Giacomo winning at 50/1, he only has what about a 100 starts a year or so.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Part of the insane ROI has to come from Tiago winning at 30/1 and Giacomo winning at 50/1, he only has what about a 100 starts a year or so.

Yes, exactly right. A few big longshots can have a huge impact on ROI for a trainer that doesn't have a ton of starts.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think a really high winning percentage is much more indicative of a trainer having an edge than a high ROI. We all know who some of the trainers with an edge are. Most of them have really high win percenatges, but not necessarily high ROIs.

No. The guys who I'm assuming you're thinking of may have really high win percentages, but not necessarily high ROIs right now ... but only because their reputation has been so strong that there horses get overbet.

Guys like Dutrow Jr., Mullins etc.

However, before those type of guys get the big win percentages, and develop big reputations with bettors, they all had dazzling ROI's. ALL of them.

The win percentage stat is more about trainers placing horses in the right spots. The ROI is a pretty good statistical indicatior of production versus expectations.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

From what I know of Shireffs, he is the last guy in the world that I would suspect of having an edge. He is one of the most honest trainers out there. Not only that, he has always used the most conservative veterinarians. The cheating trainers use the agressive and cheating vets, not the conservative vets.

I've been a big fan of his almost from day 1... and he sounds like a good guy. However...he's a guy that has an overall flat bet profit with EVERY single horse he's saddled since '96. He's a guy who's had a flat bet profit with every single horse he saddled in 8 different years since '96. He's a guy that won at a 40% clip with every horse he saddled in 1999.

He was the best trainer I've ever seen with having a debuter ready when he had 505's horses. Now he's really one of the best - if not the best - out there at getting good horses to peak on the right day.

Having an edge doesn't have to mean using illegal drugs, aggressive vets, and cheating. There might be guys who are doing those three things and not getting much production from them.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Part of the insane ROI has to come from Tiago winning at 30/1 and Giacomo winning at 50/1, he only has what about a 100 starts a year or so.

He's had a flat bet profit in 8 of the last 13 years.

Even if you take away the two Tiago and Giacomo years and pretend both never happened .. that would make him profitable in 6 of 11 years. And one of the two years taken away, he still would have showed a FBP without the aid of the longshot winner.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I don't know how anyone could have bet Tiago in the SA Derby... I agree it was a bad field ... but he never did anything to suggest he was any good beforehand.

Drugs, This is the stuff that LEGENDS are made of.

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11676

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

Drugs, This is the stuff that LEGENDS are made of.

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11676

Nice.

I have no idea what in the hell you, Phil, and Hockey saw in Tiago .. but every one of his races seemed terrible to me.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Nice.

I have no idea what in the hell you, Phil, and Hockey saw in Tiago .. but every one of his races seemed terrible to me.

It was over 2 years now, but I remember thinking this horse should love 9 furlongs and I only have to beat these 2 Pletcher SLOBS.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

He's had a flat bet profit in 8 of the last 13 years.

Even if you take away the two Tiago and Giacomo years and pretend both never happened .. that would make him profitable in 6 of 11 years. And one of the two years taken away, he still would have showed a FBP without the aid of the longshot winner.

whats his violation record? I dont remember seeing anything the last decade or so but...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

No. The guys who I'm assuming you're thinking of may have really high win percentages, but not necessarily high ROIs right now ... but only because their reputation has been so strong that there horses get overbet.

Guys like Dutrow Jr., Mullins etc.

However, before those type of guys get the big win percentages, and develop big reputations with bettors, they all had dazzling ROI's. ALL of them.

The win percentage stat is more about trainers placing horses in the right spots. The ROI is a pretty good statistical indicatior of production versus expectations.





I've been a big fan of his almost from day 1... and he sounds like a good guy. However...he's a guy that has an overall flat bet profit with EVERY single horse he's saddled since '96. He's a guy who's had a flat bet profit with every single horse he saddled in 8 different years since '96. He's a guy that won at a 40% clip with every horse he saddled in 1999.

He was the best trainer I've ever seen with having a debuter ready when he had 505's horses. Now he's really one of the best - if not the best - out there at getting good horses to peak on the right day.

Having an edge doesn't have to mean using illegal drugs, aggressive vets, and cheating. There might be guys who are doing those three things and not getting much production from them.

I totally agree with you that a cheating trainer will obviously have an extremely high ROI to go along with his high win percentage initially. But as you said, once everybody catches on, they will bet his horses and he will no longer have a really high ROI. The high ROI will disappear after a few years (maybe 3-4 years at the most).

I agree with you that Shireffs is great at pointing a horse for a certain race and getting the horse to peak for that race. That type of trainer should have a higher ROI than average because when people are handicapping a race, they are looking at a horse's PPs and are not expecting a horse to improve. They are expecting the horse to possibly repeat the best race he has ever run. They are not expecting the horse to step up and run much better than he's ever run before. Trainers who are pointing for a certain race, may indeed get the horse to step up in that race and run better than they've ever run before. That would give that type of trainer a much higher ROI than your average trainer.