Plether and Mott
 

Just looked at the Trainers standings at Belmont so far and I noticed that Pletcher was 1 for 16 and Mott was 1 for 10. I know this is a small sample but I do not remember ever seeing these two men so cold at the same time. I hope they find a way to get into the winners circle more often. I thought Mott would have been able to carry over his success from Saratoga to Belmont but I was way way way off.

I didnt expect for Mott to stay that hot. However, I would have bet a large sum of money he would have more than 1 winner out of 10 starters.

Is it a coincidence that those two guys were at the Keeneland Yearling Sales and their stats dropped off?

This is Maria's Mon all over again...

I think the catalogs for the sale came out 2 months ago.

Food for thought...

He's also pooped alot during that time.

Food for thought...

Oh...we were talking serious?

I was really just poking fun at that Maria's Mon thread from earlier today.

My bad, that Orioles fan dude can come here and award me dumbest post of the day award if he likes (once he's done eating Super Frolic).

What are you saying here?

That you watch Pletcher's bowels move and then eat the proceeds?

Take me to your leader...

I'm going to let you do the backpedalling for me. You're good at it.

That's gonna be tough. Coprophagy is still considered taboo here in North America.

I'd just change your screenname to Turdd Burglar and call it good...

1 for 10 and you are ready to declare him cold? He was on fire during the Saratoga meet. Eurobounce, you can take Pletcher and use that as further support for his Saratoga slump but to think a 1 for 10 start for Mott is proof of a cold streak after a dominant Saratoga meet? Well that is insane even for you.

For Mott -- who personally, I've always thought is a great trainer and an excellent horseman -- it has more to do with the horses he's bringing over. At the Spa, he burned a lot of conditions across the board. People tend to not only not think about it, but they don't realize this aspect.

Part of the reason why Pletcher could produce meet after meet, #'s after #'s, is because of the masses and the multiple strings. Shuffling, moving horses, taking advantage of angles in the book, etc.

As far as the sale -- extremely little, if not zero. When Pletcher was shooting good, the #'s continued while he was on vacation. In addition, wasn't at the sale for that long a period of time. He also doesn't work the sale alone, and most of his buyers/clients have advisors, agents, etc.

Eric

Fair enough, but what would you call a 1 for 10 start?

10% in a wicked small sample. I can understand it as supporting evidence for Pletcher who is already in a slump. Doesn't make much sense for Mott who has been on fire.

Also, Mott has 1 win, 2 seconds and 3 thirds in 10 starts (not counting today where I know he had one second). Its not like his stock isnt firing.

1 win short of a 2 for 10 start, which is 20%, and would've made half of this thread disappear in a flash.

where is Zito on the list?

As for Mott, I agree entirely with Eric that it's tough to keep it going after so many horses (and he won with a lot of maidens and allowance horses at the Spa) are forced to move up into higher conditions. Still, he's had 60% of his runners hit the board at Belmont, so it's not like his horses aren't running.

As for Pletcher, when a trainer with the stock that he has isn't winning races, they are usually piling up a lot of seconds and thirds. That was the thing that was so striking about his Saratoga meet; not only were his horses not winning, most weren't running at all, and he had an ITM% at Saratoga in the 30s. Am I the only who thinks it is not a coincidence that the first real cold spell that Pletcher has had occurred in the aftermath of the Biancone situation?