That's a fair point Brough. Maybe I wasn't looking at that argument from both sides but i still think the point remains that if you have multiple horses running in races your winning percentage will not reflect the fact that you have had multiple runners and the inevitable losers. There's been plenty of races where he's had three or four runners in big, big races and had the 1/2/3 or the 2/3/4/5. This is an incredible training performance but would show as several losing runners.
For instance just from the Derby in 2000's:
2002 with High Chaparral and Hawk Wing first and second
2003 2nd and 5th
2006 - 3rd less than a length with Dylan Thomas
2007 - 2nd and 5th
2009 - 6 of the first 10 home including the 2nd,3rd,4th, 5th and 7th.
2010 - 2nd, 4th and 5th
2011 - 2nd, 4th and 6th
2012 - 1st and 3rd
So in 2000's he's had the winner twice which is very good by anyone's standards but he would hope for more I presume. However, if you dig a little deeper he's also had the second 6 times and the third 3 times not to mention the fourth and fifth place finishers. That's just from one race and that surely does the job of explaining the reason why I think using his win percentage as a stick with which to beat him is wide of the mark.