Beyer pens post script after sit-down with Wolfson

[Danzig]

i read the article, but have yet to read any of the replies...perhaps beyers intent was to say that maybe we have to give benefit of the doubt unless/until we know otherwise? i thought it was hilarious when dutrow cried foul over that article a few weeks back. the self-righteous anger, the 'how dare beyer' bit....how many positives does dutrow have? horns holding up that halo for sure.
but like beyer said in this article, wolfson has never had an overage. so i guess until he does, all you can do is wonder. a lot.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Scav

Or Sammy Sosa

No.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by philcski

are you sure they have the same trainer? Tiger's trainer is Keith Kleven, I couldn't find any links that suggested A-Rod has used him.

Apparently, this is the only mention I could find on a google search.

http://theglobalexpress.blogspot.com...-baseball.html

I suspect we may hear more in the future.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

No.

Ok, Sosa's increase was much more dramatic

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Scav

Ok, Sosa's increase was much more dramatic

Actually it was almost exactly what Drugs said.

Averaged in his first 7 seasons with 100+ games:

.257 with 27.8 HRs and 86.3 RBIs

Averaged in his next 4 seasons:

.310 with 60.8 HRs, and 149.3 RBIs

[saratoga guy]

Originally Posted by philcski

Great comparison.

I'm not sure that it is...

Maybe a better comparison is to Mike Krzyzewski or Bobby Knight. Both coached at Army early on and both had winning records there.

Mike Krzyzewski was about 55% at Army. Knight was 59%.

Krzyzewski moved on to Duke where he's more like 77%. Knight went to Indiana University where he won around 73%.

They won at Army where they attracted the attention of bigger programs -- with more money and recruiting power. Plus, it's probably safe to assume that, like anything else, the more time you put in the more you learn about the process.

Sure, we shouldn't be naive and not at least question some of the numbers the so-called "super-trainers" put up -- but by the same token, we should also question our suspicions and be fair about painting with a broad brush.

I don't have year-by-year Wolfson stats in front of me in order to address the turnaround asserted by Indomitable -- but certainly Wolfson didn't just appear on the scene a couple of years back to make an impression. He's been around and training at a high-level for quite some time. For instance, Chaposa Springs was a prolific stakes winner (including a couple of G1s) for Wolfson in the mid-90s.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by CSC

Apparently, this is the only mention I could find on a google search.

http://theglobalexpress.blogspot.com...-baseball.html

I suspect we may hear more in the future.

Unless there's something he knows that we don't, that guy is categorically incorrect. There is no print record of ARod using Kleven that I could find.

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

I'm not sure that it is...

Maybe a better comparison is to Mike Krzyzewski or Bobby Knight. Both coached at Army early on and both had winning records there.

Mike Krzyzewski was about 55% at Army. Knight was 59%.

Krzyzewski moved on to Duke where he's more like 77%. Knight went to Indiana University where he won around 73%.

They won at Army where they attracted the attention of bigger programs -- with more money and recruiting power. Plus, it's probably safe to assume that, like anything else, the more time you put in the more you learn about the process.

Sure, we shouldn't be naive and not at least question some of the numbers the so-called "super-trainers" put up -- but by the same token, we should also question our suspicions and be fair about painting with a broad brush.

I don't have year-by-year Wolfson stats in front of me in order to address the turnaround asserted by Indomitable -- but certainly Wolfson didn't just appear on the scene a couple of years back to make an impression. He's been around and training at a high-level for quite some time. For instance, Chaposa Springs was a prolific stakes winner (including a couple of G1s) for Wolfson in the mid-90s.

You're kidding me right?!?!?

Winning at 55% or 59% at ARMY is like winning at 90% at Duke!!! It's the most impossible program to coach in Division I Basketball!

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

I don't have year-by-year Wolfson stats in front of me in order to address the turnaround asserted by Indomitable

From an earlier post of mine in a different thread ...

From a decade long span between 1996 through 2005 - Wolfson has year in and year out been very consistant. His win % was between 15-to-23% - and his yearly ROI had never once risen as high as $1.80 in any of those 10 years.

Basically, the guy was just your solid 20% trainer who placed horses in spots they could win - but who's horses typically were overbet.

From '96 to '05 he was 374-for-1,869 (20% wins) $1.54 ROI.

Now, the same consistant guy who shows a 23% loss on the betting dollar over an entire decade - and never once raises his ROI as high as $1.80 for 10 straight years does the following....

2006: 44-for-168 (26% wins) $2.89 ROI
2007: 52-for-191 (27% wins) $2.15 ROI
2008: 62-for-204 (30% wins) $1.98 ROI
2009: 4-for-23 (17% wins) $2.69 ROI

From '06 to '09 he is 162-for-586 (27% wins) $2.32 ROI

A solid seven percent spike in win percentage and an otherwordly $0.78 spike in ROI!!

You ought not be a genius to see that something happened precisely between 2005 and 2006 that shifted Marty Wolfson from a solid dependable trainer into an absolute super trainer who's stable yields huge win percentages and spectacular profits from a betting standpoint.

He's obviously one of the trainers out there who has a real edge right now. Is it something illegal? Who knows. Is it something detectable? .. who knows. It would be extremely irresponsible to pretend that he doesn't.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by philcski

You're kidding me right?!?!?

Winning at 55% or 59% at ARMY is like winning at 90% at Duke!!! It's the most impossible program to coach in Division I Basketball!

That was a pretty amusing comparison he made.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Actually it was almost exactly what Drugs said.

Averaged in his first 7 seasons with 100+ games:

.257 with 27.8 HRs and 86.3 RBIs

Averaged in his next 4 seasons:

.310 with 60.8 HRs, and 149.3 RBIs

I didn't have the time to check the stats on it but I thought it was.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Scav

Ok, Sosa's increase was much more dramatic

I just thought the topic was one-year juicers.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I just thought the topic was one-year juicers.

It was really hilarious to see Sosa deflate in a matter of 3 months when everything went down.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by philcski

Unless there's something he knows that we don't, that guy is categorically incorrect. There is no print record of ARod using Kleven that I could find.

Perhaps, I should have mentioned that I first heard of this on a national radio show. I highly doubt they would have blurted out something that could be so damaging without a little fact checking first. Look I am a big fan of Tiger's and I dearly hope it isn't true. However if it was proven true one day, I honestly wouldn't be surprised when you look at the way he is able to train, he's the hardest worker, most talented, smartest golfer I have seen. That coupled with the changes in his physique and you wonder? I would also like to stress the hardest worker part, you sound like a golfer Phil, so you know there are alot of aches and pains associated with golf, you also know the baseball swing and the golfswing are very identical motions. There are some simularities here, anyone who says hitting the ball farther without as much effort doesn't improve you as a golfer are kidding themselves.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

That was a pretty amusing comparison he made.

Considering Army has an average record over the past 10 years of 6-20 having a winning percentage of 55% would be like getting Zippy Chippy to win the Kentucky Derby.

[saratoga guy]

Originally Posted by philcski

You're kidding me right?!?!?

Winning at 55% or 59% at ARMY is like winning at 90% at Duke!!! It's the most impossible program to coach in Division I Basketball!

Uh, yeah, that's kinda the point!

These guys didn't magically become "super-coaches" by "juicing" their players -- they were good coaches before but their circumstances changed. They moved on to schools with money and recruiting power.

(But, if you prefer -- you can use Rick Pitino at Boston University, a school that has won their conference a number of times. Pitino was 64% at BU, and a couple of years later moved to Kentucky where he won 81%)

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

Uh, yeah, that's kinda the point!

These guys didn't magically become "super-coaches" by "juicing" their players -- they were good coaches before but their circumstances changed. They moved on to schools with money and recruiting power.

(But, if you prefer -- you can use Rick Pitino at Boston University, a school that has won their conference a number of times. Pitino was 64% at BU, and a couple of years later moved to Kentucky where he won 81%)

You're mixing your analogies. Wolfson's ROI has also gone through the roof so you can't just say it was better stock. The better analogy would be a coach that is winning against the spread 49% of the time for a 10 year period suddenly goes on a 3 year run where he wins against the spread 59% of the time every year. Even though everyone knows his team keeps beating the spread and the spread adjusts he somehow maintains his percentage. Highly unlikely that would ever happen.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

From an earlier post of mine in a different thread ...

From a decade long span between 1996 through 2005 - Wolfson has year in and year out been very consistant. His win % was between 15-to-23% - and his yearly ROI had never once risen as high as $1.80 in any of those 10 years.

Basically, the guy was just your solid 20% trainer who placed horses in spots they could win - but who's horses typically were overbet.

From '96 to '05 he was 374-for-1,869 (20% wins) $1.54 ROI.

Now, the same consistant guy who shows a 23% loss on the betting dollar over an entire decade - and never once raises his ROI as high as $1.80 for 10 straight years does the following....

2006: 44-for-168 (26% wins) $2.89 ROI
2007: 52-for-191 (27% wins) $2.15 ROI
2008: 62-for-204 (30% wins) $1.98 ROI
2009: 4-for-23 (17% wins) $2.69 ROI

From '06 to '09 he is 162-for-586 (27% wins) $2.32 ROI

A solid seven percent spike in win percentage and an otherwordly $0.78 spike in ROI!!

You ought not be a genius to see that something happened precisely between 2005 and 2006 that shifted Marty Wolfson from a solid dependable trainer into an absolute super trainer who's stable yields huge win percentages and spectacular profits from a betting standpoint.

He's obviously one of the trainers out there who has a real edge right now. Is it something illegal? Who knows. Is it something detectable? .. who knows. It would be extremely irresponsible to pretend that he doesn't.

drugs it might be very simple , isn't he geting better horses now?

i'm sure if you did a stat check on d wayne he would probably show great stats in the mid 90's and then a big fall off during the last 5 yrs - becuase the good horses got taken away from him

[saratoga guy]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

It would be extremely irresponsible to
pretend that he doesn't.

"Doesn't" what?

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

You ought not be a genius to see that something happened precisely between 2005 and 2006.

That's the point: What changed? You seem to be implying that it's likely that what changed is something nefarious. Perhaps. But isn't it also possible that what changed in that 2005-2006 period was the impending introduction of slots to Florida -- which brought an influx of trainers and owners to the state to "cash-in"?

And if you're new to the Florida circuit and you're looking for a trainer -- wouldn't a 20% guy attract your attention.

So isn't it possible that Wolfson attracted new owners who perhaps had more money and better stock.

And -- in regard to the ROI -- with better stock, couldn't Wolfson be more competitive in some races that he wouldn't have had the stock to compete with before. And, particularly in the winter, isn't it possible that many bettors across the country would still ignore him when he's up against higher profile trainers and horses. So an It's a Bird wins at 11-1 -- which certainly skews the 2009 ROI...

[3kings]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Or Brady Anderson.

To me he is the poster boy of steroid users. Had gap power most of his career, juiced and hit 50 homers, and went back to gap power. The Giles brothers are an example of family that juiced together, than drug testing started and there #'s get cut in half.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy[B

]"Doesn't" what?[/b]



That's the point: What changed? You seem to be implying that it's likely that what changed is something nefarious. Perhaps. But isn't it also possible that what changed in that 2005-2006 period was the impending introduction of slots to Florida -- which brought an influx of trainers and owners to the state to "cash-in"?

And if you're new to the Florida circuit and you're looking for a trainer -- wouldn't a 20% guy attract your attention.

So isn't it possible that Wolfson attracted new owners who perhaps had more money and better stock.

And -- in regard to the ROI -- with better stock, couldn't Wolfson be more competitive in some races that he wouldn't have had the stock to compete with before. And, particularly in the winter, isn't it possible that many bettors across the country would still ignore him when he's up against higher profile trainers and horses. So an It's a Bird wins at 11-1 -- which certainly skews the 2009 ROI...

have an edge