Will we ever see another Triple Crown Winner?

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by easy goer

No. The field size of the Ky Derby is irrelevant to all this. The field size of Prekness is as well as Belmont, the only question left in my mind is whether the field size of ALL belmonts is important or only those Belmonts w/ a TC on the line.

The reason if the field size of Ky derby is irrelevant. Imagine a Ky derby w/ 100 horses. Horse "X" wins. Okay now imagine the Preakness has only two runners, the Belmont has only one runner. Okay so what were the odds of horse X winning the TC? Make up a number say 50%...

NOw, imagine a derby w/ 1000 runners. Horse "Y" wins. Now Preakness has two runners and Belmont only one. Whats the difference with the chanes of horse "X"? Nothing I can see.

Or a derby w/ 10,000 runners, or one w/ 20 or one w/ 10, etc. The size of the Ky derby field makes no difference in all this.

It seems non intuitive but it makes sense. Why does it seem to violate common sense? Because the odds of a SINGLE horse winning the TC would change depending on the size of the derby field. Hence our "Common sense' view that the size of the derby matters. But the question was does the chance of a horse winning the TC depend on field size....


Hmmm. Okay I see the problem, there is an ambiguity posed in the original question.

Holland: here is the question back to you: Is your question: does the chance of an INDIVIDUAL horse winning the TC change w/ field size? or is the question: Does the chances of the public seeing a TC change with field size?

Two different questions, right? If the first question, then "yes" derby field does matter, if the only question is will the public see a TC then the answer is "no" derby size does not matter.

Yes, but doesn't it stand to reason that the size of the Derby might matter because if you had say your hypothetical Derby with 1000 starters, it would significantly decrease the odds of the best horse (and therefore the horse with the best chance of also winning the other two legs) winning.
The larger the field size, the less chance the best horse wins right?
Your argument that the field size of the KY Derby is irrelevant is simply not correct in my mind. You are obviously correct in your argument about horse X and horse Y's mathematical chances of winning, but what you seem to be forgetting is that field size in the Derby could prevent the horse most capable of winning the TC from winning the first leg. Therefore, it matters as much as the field size in the rest of the races.
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.

Please understand Miraja; I had to re think my thinking in the middle of that last post. I hope I got that across in the last post, I didnt feel like retyping all of it.

think your idea is correct if we are asking the question what are the chance of an INDIVIDUAL horse winning a tc?

If we ask the question what are the chances of the public seeing a TC, then it is different, because in that case, no matter what the size of the KY derby, the public is always going to get a winner out of that race...

I know it sounds like semantics, but a lot of mathematical questions come down to semantics. So I dont feel it's a cop out or anything, just comes with the territory I guess.

You can chime in now, I was going to post more but will see what you say...

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?

Okay here is some raw numbers, doing it my way w/o counting W-x-W or x-W-W types....

SInce 1930, 77 horses have won the derby and 29 have followed with win in the preaknes. Percentage: 26.5%

Of 29 winners of the first two legs, 10 have won the TC. Percentage 29%.


Dont know what the fields were someone can find that info...

The 28 double winners are 1930, 32, 35, 36, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 58, 64, 66, 68, 69, 71, 73, 77, 78, 79, 81, 87, 89, 97, 98, 99, 02 , 03, 04

Umm some of the fields in the 30s were large, 18-20. The 40s the fields got way smaller so maybe something there. I think they were larger again in the 50s, they were up and down in the 60s, the '69 field was like 8, they started getting bigger in the early 80s, then smaller some for Alysheba/S.Silence, they got bigger in the early 90s...

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by easy goer

Okay here is some raw numbers, doing it my way w/o counting W-x-W or x-W-W types....

SInce 1930, 77 horses have won the derby and 29 have followed with win in the preaknes. Percentage: 26.5%

Of 29 winners of the first two legs, 10 have won the TC. Percentage 29%.


Dont know what the fields were someone can find that info...

The 28 double winners are 1930, 32, 35, 36, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 58, 64, 66, 68, 69, 71, 73, 77, 778, 79, 81, 87, 89, 97, 98, 99, 02 , 03, 04

So in other words, bet the 2 and the 9? J/K

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by easy goer

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.

Yeah this is exactly what I am saying. Actually you did a much better job of summing up my argument than I did at any point in this thread!
In 1973 Secretariat dropped back to last in a field of 13 and had to pass every single horse to win. If there had been 20 horses in the race, instead of 13, this would have been a more difficult task because it increases the chances of him running into traffic. Therefore an increased field size in the Derby could have prevented a TC that year.
That's my basic argument.

Originally Posted by miraja2

Yeah this is exactly what I am saying. Actually you did a much better job of summing up my argument than I did at any point in this thread!
In 1973 Secretariat dropped back to last in a field of 13 and had to pass every single horse to win. If there had been 20 horses in the race, instead of 13, this would have been a more difficult task because it increases the chances of him running into traffic. Therefore an increased field size in the Derby could have prevented a TC that year.
That's my basic argument.

well it might have prevent a TC that year but you have to look at it in terms of all the years.

Are you saying only closers can win the TC? If large fields hurt closers then a large field must be helping need to lead types. That only stands to reason. So I dont see this part of the argument at all.

Increasing fields would simply promote need to lead type winners. But empirically that is not what is happening at CD on the first saturday in May. Closers are winning close 50% of the races. So that seems to contradict your argument in terms of the data that we have...


There is an idea that more traffic hurts closer, but hell you can see front runners getting buried by horses lugging into the rail: Wheelaway 2000; Candy Spots 1963; Diabalo 1975, perhaps 2001 as well. You can see this a lot on the films...So I dunno, it's one idea, perhaps anohter idea is that closers can see what is happening ahead of them. Carry Back avoided a lot of traffic troubles on his way to the front...

My guess is that large fields finds more cheap speed types that set it up for closers. There certainly were some cheap speed types in Secretariats race, SHecky Green, etc.

The random winner argument makes sense to a degree but if you exclude horses there is a counter argument that you might exclude a possible winner.

More difficult question than it seems at first...

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by easy goer

Are you saying only closers can win the TC?

Oh come on. You know I am not saying that. The '73 TC was just one example.
A bigger field does not increase the chances for a good need-the-lead type either. The odds of the horse with the best overall chance at winning the TC are reduced by an increased size of the field in any one of the three TC races. That is my basic point, and I think that it pretty undisputable.
You said it best in your earlier post:
"The more horses we put on the track the more random the winner becomes. And so TC is less likely."
Now I am really done with this thread. Why we have engaged in this discussion for two days is beyond my comprehension.

Well I thought you want to make a pt. about 1973 and closers in general when it seems the main pt. should have to do with all types of runners. Its possible to take the argument about Sec. and stand it on its head, if larger fields hurt closers they should help need to lead types...

Not INDIVIDUALLY but rather need to lead types on the WHOLE. Agree? So if this hypothetical large field, produces a need to lead type winner, then with another large field in hte Preakness perhaps it helps him as well. I just dont know if this argument about closers is all that relevant and it maybe a contradiction.

The main pt, is "yes" a large field should impact the odds of any SINGLE horse.

And if we are to imagine that one horse is really a "favorite" for that race, then a large field would hurt his odds. We speak of favorites all the time, but do we really know this for sure? Im Not sure it's possible to really know for sure one horse is favored but okay maybe...

But if we ask what are the chance of the public seeing a TC, then the argument is a little different.

See in your mind, if Alex does not win the first leg then in your opinion he was the best shot and now the odds of a TC go down.. But I am thinking well,the first leg will produce a winnner no matter what. So at least the public has a winner any winner. And he only has to win two legs now...

So..which is better:

The favorite wins leg one and then what are his odds of winning the next two OR....

Any old, mediocre horse wins leg one (the public will always get a derby winner no matter whtt) and can he win only two more? He only has to win two more whereas Alex (or the hypothetical favorite) has to win all three.

I dunno if we can answer that..