Will we ever see another Triple Crown Winner?

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..