Bob Baffert’s record in the Belmont

[Redboard]

Not very good. Nine starts with only one win, Point Given , 2001. The other day, Bob said that AP is holding his weight. Most, he claims, lose weight after the Derby. Dortmund has lost 40 pounds, he claims. Point Given was one of the few who actually held his weight, and gained a little.

Anybody see this as a significant sign? Or just noise.

Does anyone know if California Chrome, Big Brown , or Smarty Jones lost weight before running in The Belmont?

I remember Smarty look a little rank, but not sure if he actually lost weight, but he sure looked it.

[SkunkApe]

Not very good? Why?

Since 1996 (the year of Baffert's first entry), 199 horses have run in the Belmont Stakes. 19 won (9.5%.) Baffert entered 9 horses, 1 won (11.1%.) Baffert's a little better than random chance in the Belmont, for winners.

Baffert's also got 2/9 places, and 0/9 shows.

Overall, he's 3/9 in the money (33.3%). Of the overall field, 57/199 were in the money (28.6%.) Again, he's a little better than blind luck.

Like I said in another post: taking a win statistic without the contenders' statistic as a control group is meaningless.

For example, in the last 50 years, only two gray horses have ever won the Badatmath Stakes. But in the last 50 years, only two gray horses were entered in the Badatmath Stakes. See why the second part matters?

[ronsmac]

Not very good. Nine starts with only one win, Point Given , 2001. The other day, Bob said that AP is holding his weight. Most, he claims, lose weight after the Derby. Dortmund has lost 40 pounds, he claims. Point Given was one of the few who actually held his weight, and gained a little.

Anybody see this as a significant sign? Or just noise.

Does anyone know if California Chrome, Big Brown , or Smarty Jones lost weight before running in The Belmont?

I remember Smarty look a little rank, but not sure if he actually lost weight, but he sure looked it.He had a horse lose by a nose and another by 3/4 of a length. Both Real Quiet and Silver Charm ran their race.

[pandy]

Not very good? Why?

Since 1996 (the year of Baffert's first entry), 199 horses have run in the Belmont Stakes. 19 won (9.5%.) Baffert entered 9 horses, 1 won (11.1%.) Baffert's a little better than random chance in the Belmont, for winners.

Baffert's also got 2/9 places, and 0/9 shows.

Overall, he's 3/9 in the money (33.3%). Of the overall field, 57/199 were in the money (28.6%.) Again, he's a little better than blind luck.

Like I said in another post: taking a win statistic without the contenders' statistic as a control group is meaningless.

For example, in the last 50 years, only two gray horses have ever won the Badatmath Stakes. But in the last 50 years, only two gray horses were entered in the Badatmath Stakes. See why the second part matters?

You're right. Most trainers would love to have Baffert's record in the Belmont.

[BlueChip@DRF]

I'm going with Gary Stevens.

[ILovetheInner]

If that's "good"....then what of Pletcher? Past ten years has been close to 43% in *exacta* finishes. He's won two, and lost two more by less than a length. The three last years he has participated, he has won one and been a close 2nd in the other two. If you toss 2013, where he entered a preposterous five (and won with one of them), six of the nine horses he has entered over the past decade have hit the board, and none (if memory serves me correctly) was the choice. People generally spend so much time justifiably snickering at his KYD record and moaning that he skips the Preakness that they may not pull back far enough to see his Belmont record is more than solid. It's the leg of the TC he has mastered. I don't think as much can be said for Baffert. His live horses can run live, but it has brought him more heartache than victory.

[pandy]

I still can't believe what Woody Stephens did in the Belmont. It defies reality.

[SkunkApe]

If that's "good"....then what of Pletcher? Past ten years has been close to 43% in *exacta* finishes. He's won two, and lost two more by less than a length. The three last years he has participated, he has won one and been a close 2nd in the other two. If you toss 2013, where he entered a preposterous five (and won with one of them), six of the nine horses he has entered over the past decade have hit the board, and none (if memory serves me correctly) was the choice. People generally spend so much time justifiably snickering at his KYD record and moaning that he skips the Preakness that they may not pull back far enough to see his Belmont record is more than solid. It's the leg of the TC he has mastered. I don't think as much can be said for Baffert. His live horses can run live, but it has brought him more heartache than victory.

Interesting. I didn't do the math for Pletcher and the Belmont. I was mostly trying to make a point regarding bad statistical methods.

[nijinski]

I still can't believe what Woody Stephens did in the Belmont. It defies reality.

A record for the ages . He had a lot of long winded turf horses too.

[RXB]

The other day, Bob said that AP is holding his weight. Most, he claims, lose weight after the Derby. Dortmund has lost 40 pounds, he claims. Point Given was one of the few who actually held his weight, and gained a little.

Anybody see this as a significant sign? Or just noise.


To my eyes, American Pharoah looked really good in his workout at Churchill on Tuesday. He appeared very fit, his stride had its usual ballet-like fluidity and he looked like he'd have happily gone around the whole track again if Garcia had let him.

[pandy]

To my eyes, American Pharoah looked really good in his workout at Churchill on Tuesday. He appeared very fit, his stride had its usual ballet-like fluidity and he looked like he'd have happily gone around the whole track again if Garcia had let him.


I felt the same way. He's certainly doing great so I hope that if he gets beat we don't hear these lame excuses about there not being enough time between races. Three weeks is plenty of rest for a thoroughbred.

[NY BRED]

MY THOUGHT IS , FORGET THE TRAINER AND THE
TOUGH LOSSES HE HAD IN PRIOR TRIPLE CROWN RACES.
MR.ZAYAT HAS HAD ROUGH LUCK WITH SOME OF HIS SUPERSTARS,
AND YET, HAD A MIRACLE HAPPEN WITH THE RECOVERY OF PAYNTER.

PERHAPS AP WILL BE THE SECOND MIRACLE IN ZAYAT'S LIFE?



AP HAS ALREADY PROVEN HE IS A SPECIAL HORSE, IS MULTI
DIMENSIONAL IN HIS RUNNING STYLE, AND QUITE FRANKLY
WHICH HORSE IN THIS FIELD CAN ACTUALLY BE MATCHED UP TO
THIS SUPERSTAR/FREAK?

FINAL STATEMENT IS ASHFORD DIDN'T PURCHASE THE BREEDING RIGHTS
TO AP WITH OUT DONG THEIR DUE DILLIGENCE IN ASSESING AP
AND AS IMPORTANT HIS OPPOSITION IN THE BELMONT STAKES.

[ronsmac]

I still can't believe what Woody Stephens did in the Belmont. It defies reality.
Woody will always have a place in my heart. My Dad crushed Conquistador Cielo in 1982 and I had the late DD in 1983 when Caveat won and I was only 15. May still be the happiest day of my life.

[ILovetheInner]

I still can't believe what Woody Stephens did in the Belmont. It defies reality.

I consider it vastly more likely that I will see another Secretariat in my lifetime (who did, after all, come a half century after Man O'War) than I will see Woody's term replicated. One of the most impressively unlikely things in horse racing ever.

[Psychotic Parakeet]

California Chrome definitely lost weight before the Belmont. He looked dull too.

[pandy]

California Chrome definitely lost weight before the Belmont. He looked dull too.


I don't remember it that way at all. In fact, here's a quote from the exercise rider just prior to the Belmont. This was published in many newspapers. I also recall Art Sherman saying similar things.

"He pulled up and he wasn't even blowing out a match. Fitness wise, he's fit," Delgado told reporters. "He's really, really improving. Like I've always said, after each race he got better. He's put on weight, he's gotten stronger."

Here's another article published before the Belmont and it's titled, CALIFORNIA CHROME TRAINING LIKE A MONSTER. In this article, Sherman says that he's put on weight since the Preakness and seems to be getting stronger.

Let's not forget that Chrome got stepped on at the start and cut his foot and raced well in the Belmont. He looked great prior to the race.

http://www.belmontstakes.com/story/2014/05/25/california-chrome-continues-to-train-like-a-monster-for-june-7-belmont/

[Robert Fischer]

California Chrome didn't lose because of fitness, he lost because the things that he was going to be asked to do in the Belmont Stakes completely nullified his advantages.

Chrome was able to win the Derby and the Preakness because he had superior tactical speed, agility, and a sudden, strong response.


In the Belmont he was going to have to ride a patient race "near the pace", run for 30 additional seconds than the Derby, and then was going to be asked to out-finish other horses who were better finishers.

It had nothing to do with physical condition, and everything to do with losing all the advantages that brought him there as the favorite.

^^And having an eventful start, with getting stepped on, certainly didn't help his cause.

[Robert Fischer]

Unlike California Chrome, American Pharoah could actually have his advantages magnified by the Belmont Stakes.

In addition to being a class level above California Chrome, and/or any of the 2015 entries on talent alone, American Pharoah is relaxed and efficient on the backstretch. He has an edge in head-to-head talent and in the fundamentals.
If he gets a good trip and a well timed ride, he could stride away from the pack, and win in a hand-ride.

[BlueChip@DRF]

Unlike California Chrome, American Pharoah could actually have his advantages magnified by the Belmont Stakes.

In addition to being a class level above California Chrome, and/or any of the 2015 entries on talent alone, American Pharoah is relaxed and efficient on the backstretch. He has an edge in head-to-head talent and in the fundamentals.
If he gets a good trip and a well timed ride, he could stride away from the pack, and win in a hand-ride.

If he makes an honest but comfortable one-pace run regardless of position until the real running begins, he could very well take it.

[pandy]

Unlike California Chrome, American Pharoah could actually have his advantages magnified by the Belmont Stakes.

In addition to being a class level above California Chrome, and/or any of the 2015 entries on talent alone, American Pharoah is relaxed and efficient on the backstretch. He has an edge in head-to-head talent and in the fundamentals.
If he gets a good trip and a well timed ride, he could stride away from the pack, and win in a hand-ride.


I wouldn't say I disagree with you, he may be a better horse than Chrome, but I don't see how he is more relaxed or efficient. Chrome rates beautifully, is handy, stalks and pounces. Chrome's only inefficiency is that he hates being on the rail. When he's off the rail he's damn good.

[Tom]

I still can't believe what Woody Stephens did in the Belmont. It defies reality.

Amen - I remember the 5th win - un-bee-lee-va-bull!

[affirmedny]

I still can't believe what Woody Stephens did in the Belmont. It defies reality.

Also Conquistador won 5 days after his previous race and Creme Fraiche won 7 days after his last race!

[pandy]

Also Conquistador won 5 days after his previous race and Creme Fraiche won 7 days after his last race!


You would think that trainers would be copying Woody Stephens and giving their horses more work closer to the Belmont. He had the right approach for this race.

[NY BRED]

[QUOTE=affirmedny]Also Conquistador won 5 days after his previous race

I was there for CC's win, have been telling all my friends
that if there is heavy rain on Saturday AP could be winning
the Belmont in similar fashion.

[Robert Fischer]

I wouldn't say I disagree with you, he may be a better horse than Chrome, but I don't see how he is more relaxed or efficient. Chrome rates beautifully, is handy, stalks and pounces. Chrome's only inefficiency is that he hates being on the rail. When he's off the rail he's damn good.

California Chrome wasn't horribly inefficient or anything, he was obviously pretty good. While Chrome isn't aesthetically on par with American Pharoah, Chrome did accomplish all of the core fundamentals.
Chrome could rate very well, and although his stride looked a little choppy, he would then surprise you with how much more he had to give.
American Pharaoh is the opposite. AP looks like an oil painting, and he's got those rare, relaxed ears, and when he's getting a good trip there is a danger of thinking that he has much more in the tank, although he's already running close to maximum.

[pandy]

California Chrome wasn't horribly inefficient or anything, he was obviously pretty good. While Chrome isn't aesthetically on par with American Pharoah, Chrome did accomplish all of the core fundamentals.
Chrome could rate very well, and although his stride looked a little choppy, he would then surprise you with how much more he had to give.
American Pharaoh is the opposite. AP looks like an oil painting, and he's got those rare, relaxed ears, and when he's getting a good trip there is a danger of thinking that he has much more in the tank, although he's already running close to maximum.

I agree on one thing, American Pharoah is a better looking horse than Chrome. Whether he is actually a better horse than Chrome, the Belmont will hopefully help answer that question. But even though I was very against Chrome to win the Belmont, and I liked Tonalist, I respect California Chrome. With the exception of that race at Parx last year when he was empty, he always fired and he proved that he is a very good horse. Looks don't matter much. There have been many horses that looked beautiful and had smooth well balanced strides that weren't great horses, and vice versa, there have been great horses that looked like mutts and didn't have smooth action.