34 Derby/Oaks runners from 18 trainers..

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by pointman

Are you saying that because Baffert only has 2 in this group this year?

How is Baffert different than Pletcher?

Baffert wins these races, recently won the Oaks and had how many Derby wins? Pletcher runs a lot of hopeless horses just to run.

[Dahoss]

I was sort of wondering how you would avoid answering that question. Well done.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I was sort of wondering how you would avoid answering that question. Well done.

I think I answered it. I'm open to discuss it more.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

I think I answered it. I'm open to discuss it more.

Think again. You avoided it.

How is Baffert any different than Pletcher when Baffert gets so many horses also?

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Think again. You avoided it.

How is Baffert any different than Pletcher when Baffert gets so many horses also?

Big picture it's no different. I do believe Baffert has run more well intended horses in triple crown races then Pletcher.

[Kasept]

If you're looking for differences between the two, Baffert doesn't have anywhere near the stock in number that Pletcher does. Over the last 4 years, Baffert has averaged 500 starts while Pletcher averages 1,000. To put that in perspective, Mott has 600/year, McPeek 500/year, McGaughey 250/year. Interestingly, Baffert over that period outperformed Pletcher, averaging $24,364 in earnings per start while Pletcher averaged $18,923.

[Sightseek]

It is wishful thinking, but hopefully the media focuses more on the tradition and history of Phipps, Stevens, Lukas etc. in the Derby than Baffert and Rodriguez.

I could watch hours of Easy Goer and Winning Colors between races.

[3kings]

Originally Posted by Kasept

If you're looking for differences between the two, Baffert doesn't have anywhere near the stock in number that Pletcher does. Over the last 4 years, Baffert has averaged 500 starts while Pletcher averages 1,000. To put that in perspective, Mott has 600/year, McPeek 500/year, McGaughey 250/year. Interestingly, Baffert over that period outperformed Pletcher, averaging $24,364 in earnings per start while Pletcher averaged $18,923.

I know they both get the high end horses but it seems to me Baffert only trains these while Pletcher has a wider range of horses. Is this factual or just my perception?

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Kasept

If you're looking for differences between the two, Baffert doesn't have anywhere near the stock in number that Pletcher does. Over the last 4 years, Baffert has averaged 500 starts while Pletcher averages 1,000. To put that in perspective, Mott has 600/year, McPeek 500/year, McGaughey 250/year. Interestingly, Baffert over that period outperformed Pletcher, averaging $24,364 in earnings per start while Pletcher averaged $18,923.

24k per start is just an unbelievable number. Wow

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Kasept

If you're looking for differences between the two, Baffert doesn't have anywhere near the stock in number that Pletcher does. Over the last 4 years, Baffert has averaged 500 starts while Pletcher averages 1,000. To put that in perspective, Mott has 600/year, McPeek 500/year, McGaughey 250/year. Interestingly, Baffert over that period outperformed Pletcher, averaging $24,364 in earnings per start while Pletcher averaged $18,923.

It could just be my perception but it seems like they both get a ton of precocious 2 year olds, which turn into stakes caliber 3 year olds.

When Pletcher is winning every MSW at Saratoga and Belmont, then the first level allowances at Gulfstream, Baffert is doing the same at Del Mar and Santa Anita.

No arguing that Pletcher has more horses, but they are spread out over a few states whereas it seems like Baffert almost has a monopoly on a certain type of horse in California. Again, could just be perception, but often times for people perception is reality.

I don't see how either is actually "good" for the game by having so many horses, but it is also hard to argue with their success, which is the rub.