[Mark]

I don't see why the use of accumulative trainer stats can't be a very valuable means of identifying the bottom end of trifectas and superfectas. There usually are only a very few horses entered in any race regardless of class that can't run 4th. Often these are just slow race horses that these minor placings are all that stand between them and the boat to France. One can argue that trainer stats are 90% horse stock and 10% trainer talent but that is an overstatement and simplification. If you play a steady diet of minor league tracks in the south or eastern seaboard you will see how can train a horse. Training any animal is both art and science, but particularly for a sport where the animal is required to move their 1000-1200 lb mass across surfaces of varying hardness on a regular basis. All to often we see the result of desperation or just poor training skill in a disabled animal or premature death.
The goal then of every trainer is to bring their charge to an acceptable level of fitness and condition to allow him to race every 2 to 3 weeks over campaigns of 6 months to a year and not break him down or injure him to a degree that he has to remain in the barn or go to the ranch.
While it is easy to spot the trainers with the best horse flesh, they will not last if they are crappy trainers. Others with more limited stock will pick their spots, care for the animal and nurture him into a feed bill and training fee paying vehicle.
So in this instance, the use of trainer stats is most likely as good an indicator of picking the bottom side of exotics as any. The search though is to determine in your own mind if a trainer is competent. When you see him/her send out a horse does the animal have the necessary foundation of work to make him marginally competitive. How do they run? Do they try? How many furlongs of workouts and races do you normally see his horses have when they are run? Cheap slow horses find their way into 5th, 4th and 3rd just because they are fit.