Quote:
|
Originally Posted by miraja2
Let's say the KY Derby was limited to the top 12 graded stakes winners instead of the top 20. Neither of the horses that defeated AA in the '05 Derby would have even been in the race. Therefore it is reasonable to accept that the field size of the Derby MAY have prevented a TC winner that year.
|
You are saying the more horses we put on the track the more random the winner becomes? ANd so TC is less likely. Yeah I guess.
OTOH if you shorten the field you might also be leaving out a potential TC winner. Charismatic did not win a TC but would not have had a shot if they went by potential earnings? I dont know how much he had, but the argument can be turned around. Perhaps I dont have a good example.
I can see your argument, I think in reality it is a good argument. But I dont know how we are going to figure that out, just be going with math and probabilities. I mean how are we going to crunch the numbers and "PROVE" that Afleet Alex had the best chance to win the TC? I mean I think he did, but can you really prove that with number crunching?
Another problem: what happens when we do crunch the numbers are we gong to get an impact value? We are going to get like 50% chance of winning two in a row w/ 18.5 horse fields...What does it mean?