In comparison, there's been only one such winner of the Derby in the past 39 years (that was Giacomo).
I can't tell you how long it's been since a Maiden winner won the Preakness (I went back to 1979 and failed to find a single one.)
Clearly, based on this data, "Back Class" is not as important in the Belmont as some other handicapping factors (perhaps pedigree?), while Class appears to play a larger role in the other Triple Crown races.
Here's the basic data, again for horses with only a Maiden win to their credit entering the triple crown race being analyzed, going back to 1979:
Derby = 48 starters and 1 Winner (2.1%)
Preakness = 26 starters and 0 Winners (0.0%)
Belmont = 43 starters and 5 Winners (11.6%)
Grade 1 Winners still perform better, as should be expected:
Derby = 184 starters and 20 Winners (10.9%)
Preakness = 94 starters and 23 Winners (24.5%)
Belmont = 94 starters and 17 Winners (18.1%)
Just for sake of comparison, here's how the Grade 2 Winners looked:
Derby = 153 starters and 11 Winners (7.2%)
Preakness = 63 starters and 7 Winners (11.1%)
Belmont = 68 starters and 5 Winners (7.4%)
So, percentage-wise, Maiden Winners (11.6%) have outperformed Grade 2 Winners (7.4%) in terms of actually winning the Belmont.
This, of course, just don't "make sense", using a normal handicapping approach.
Breaking down the Maiden Winners to those who've had prior Grade 1 experience is also eye-opening: For the Belmont, 27 of the 43 runners had prior Grade 1 experience, and all 5 Winners came from that group. In contrast, 16 of the 43 had never raced in a Grade 1 before the Belmont, and none of them even hit the board ...
What's this mean for 2015? I really don't know.
But, if you fancy Tale of Verve, I wouldn't let his lack of a Graded stakes win scare you off.
If you have any similar "off-the-wall" handicapping angles you'd like to share for the Belmont, please do so
