Will we ever see another Triple Crown Winner?

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by easy goer

I think that's a good pt. so at that pt. we would be down to simply comparing the Belmont fields of those who won TC vs Belmont fields of those who had 2 but failed at Bel. I guess.

That doesn't seem like a good point to me at all.
A full field of 20 in the Derby COULD certainly prevent a horse from winning the Derby compared to say the average field size for the Derby in the 1940s. It doesn't really matter which leg they lose, because a large field COULD be responsible for them losing any of the three races. Horses that win the Derby and Preakness were not actually any closer to the TC than horses that win two of the other races. It may seem that way because they were live going into the final leg, but that doesn't mean they were actually closer.

[randallscott35]

You'll see one in the next 3 years.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by miraja2

That doesn't seem like a good point to me at all.
A full field of 20 in the Derby COULD certainly prevent a horse from winning the Derby compared to say the average field size for the Derby in the 1940s. It doesn't really matter which leg they lose, because a large field COULD be responsible for them losing any of the three races. Horses that win the Derby and Preakness were not actually any closer to the TC than horses that win two of the other races. It may seem that way because they were live going into the final leg, but that doesn't mean they were actually closer.

How does this make any sense? If a horse wins the Kentucky Derby, then he automatically has a chance to go on for the chance to win the Triple Crown. If he loses the Derby (like Alex did), then he has no chance to win the Triple Crown.

I see what you're saying about 2 legs being 2 legs, but a horse has to be live out of the Derby for them to even have a chance at winning the whole thing. That's not the case if they only win the Preakness and Belmont.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

but a horse has to be live out of the Derby for them to even have a chance at winning the whole thing.

Oh but if they lose the Preakness, that is okay?
Thay have to win all 3 races. The original poster's question is about how the number of horses competing in ALL 3 races affects any individual horse's chances of winning the TC. It doesn't matter which race it is. Just because the Derby is first does not make it ANY more important in the TC series. Each race is 33.3333333333% of the whole thing.
Facing a large field in the Derby could prevent a horse from winning the TC for exactly the same reasons that it could in either of the other races.
Afleet Alex was just as close to winning the TC as Funny Cide was. The race he lost came first.....but that is completely meaningless.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Oh but if they lose the Preakness, that is okay?
Thay have to win all 3 races. The original poster's question is about how the number of horses competing in ALL 3 races affects any individual horse's chances of winning the TC. It doesn't matter which race it is. Just because the Derby is first does not make it ANY more important in the TC series. Each race is 33.3333333333% of the whole thing.
Facing a large field in the Derby could prevent a horse from winning the TC for exactly the same reasons that it could in either of the other races.
Afleet Alex was just as close to winning the TC as Funny Cide was. The race he lost came first.....but that is completely meaningless.

I'm not arguing about which 2 of the 3 were most important or that the percentages are distributed any differently than what you are saying. Funny Cide was in contention for it BECAUSE he won the first leg (as well as the 2nd.) Afleet Alex was not. If the Preakness or Belmont was 1st, I'd say the same thing.

As for facing a large field, I agree completely with you. I think it's much more difficult nowadays to win the Derby with a 20 horse field than it was when they were facing smaller fields.

[miraja2]

Yes but since the question was about winning the entire TC it only makes sense mathematically to treat all 3 races equally. Your suggestion that ONLY horses that won the Derby and Preakness should be considered makes no sense mathematically since the large fields in THOSE races are just as likely to prevent a horse from winning the TC as a large field in the Belmont.

I dont think the answer to this is as simple as all that and/or I dont think we are looking at it the right way.

At first, I was going to agree w/ Miraja, on the basis that if say there was a short field in the derby, say 4 horses, well wouldnt that make it easier to have won say both the derby and Belmont? (W-x-W) And shouldnt we factor that short field in?

But then Im thinking, well doesnt that same logic apply if a horse won only one leg of the TC? Didnt the short field help him win the derby?? A horse that went W-x-x. Isnt that data pt relevant to the question as well?

Perhaps a better way to look at it is this:

Start with a horse that wins the derby, obviously someone has to win the derby. So that doesnt eliminate any horses, we've got the entire set of Ky derby winners to start with. Second step: did this horse win the second leg? Okay so we've got say 25 horses win the second leg and 50 did not. And then we look at average field size. Third step: Take the horses that won two legs and did they win the 3rd leg? again what percentage and what field size...YOu are going to get two numbers from this process but so be it...

This way you would still be factoring those horse from the "Miraja set" i.e. those that won the first and third (Win-x-Win)...Only we would have factored them in when we did step two (the question of did they win the second leg?).

RIght? SO what is then the objection Miraja? SUrely you wont argue that we used equally horses that went W-x-x (Won-didnt-didnt) as those that went W-x-W (Win didnt Win)

You would be arguing that the data pt. of horses that won derby/Bel is more important then the horse that merely won the derby only (Won-x-x). Are you going to argue that the data set of horses that won the derby only does not matter to the question?

See? Thats the fallacy in your reasoning; you are assuming that the data set of W-x-W is more important then the data set of W-x-x. But it is not.

Why not? Because those horses that Won the derby but lost Preakness were also possible TC winners. The fact that they did not win at Belmont does not alter the fact that at one pt. they were possible TC winners.

Take Fu Peg. He won derby, lost PReakness, did not compete at BElmont. Are you saying he does not count as a data pt? WHy not? HE could have won the TC. What if the field for Preakness was only 3 horses? And say Fu Peg won? Obviously the field size of Preakness affected Fu PEg's chances.

ANd it follows, therefore that the field size of Preakness affected the TC chance of every horse that won the derby.

The entire fallacy in the reasoning is not that W-x-W is not a valid data set, it is relevant, the fallacy is in assuming that winning two races is more relevant that winning the derby only. It is not.

THe original post started with the assumption that he would only count those horses that won 2 legs of the TC. What was the reason? The poster does not say, presumably he doesnt want to deal with all the data pts. Then most of us assumed that that made sense as 2 legs are better than one.... But it's really a bad assumption.

To ask the question: HOw does field size affect TC chances? One has to look at those horses won only the derby..I.e. those that only one the first leg. Obviously field size in Preakness affects their chanes for the TC How can you argue that?

Side note: YOu will have to toss out the 1985 series as Spend a BUck did not compete in the second or third legs of the TC.

[miraja2]

In fact, I believe the way to do this that makes the most sense is simply to examine the average field size of all three races for every single year. Then you could identify trends between "TC decades" like the 1940s and the 1970s, and compare them to the last 25 years and see if the data is important.
Here is why: Field size COULD be responsible for preventing a horse from winning the TC even if that horse didn't win the Derby AND didn't compete in all 3 races.
For example, in recent years horses such as Empire Maker and Birdstone did not win the Derby, skipped the Preakness, and then won the Belmont. It is pretty safe to assume however that if those horses had won the Derby, they wouldn't have skipped the Preakness. I am not saying that either of those two lost specifically because of field size, BUT the field size of the Derby in these years is just as important as the field size in the Belmonts from those years that "prevented" Funny Cide and Smarty Jones from winning.
My response to Cajungator26 was based solely on her argument that we should NOT consider horses that won two of the other legs but not the Derby. My argument there was that IF we were limiting the discussion to horses that won 2 out of 3 legs, then it only made sense to consider horses that won any of the 2 legs. If, however, we are not limiting it in that way (which, as easy goer correctly points out, makes the most sense) then I think it only makes sense to always examine the field size of all three races for every year.
I have now officially spent WAY too much time on this thread.

[Holland Hacker]

Originally Posted by easy goer

THe original post started with the assumption that he would only count those horses that won 2 legs of the TC. What was the reason? The poster does not say, presumably he doesnt want to deal with all the data pts. Then most of us assumed that that made sense as 2 legs are better than one.... But it's really a bad assumption.

You are correct I did not want to analyze every single triple crown race over a period of time to compute the number of runners.

Perhaps I could have taken the average runners in each leg of the Triple Crown and and compared the 11 years with Triple Crown winners to all other years. Still that is more work than I have time for or care to do. I just found it curious that during the 11 years that there was a triple crown winner that the average was 10 horses less than when two horses won two legs. If some one else wants to continue the exercise and analze the data differently please do so.

Just thinking about it I originally thought that the field size was simply a matter of time. But than I saw some of the #s from earlier years and was suprised War Admiral and Gallant Fox. I have listed what could be some of the reasons for the field size of the races:

1. Crop sizes are getting larger.

2. The purses, prestige and value as a stallion prospect have increased for winning any of the "classic" races.

3. Some trainers and or owners may have entered horses to prevent others from winning. (ie 1988 when Woody Stevens entered and sacrificed 49er in the Preakness to run with Winning Colors to prevent DWL from having a shot at the Triple Crown)

4. More International entries and interest in the races.

5. Perhaps the breed isn't being bred to excel at "classic" distances any more. It is my opinion that horses are being bred for speed instead of stamina lately. Hopefully a trend which will self correct before it is too late.

6. Derby Fever the popularity of the Derby has caused some people to enter their horses even though the horse has little or no shot.

One of the reasons I posted this was to foster discussion and get ideas and thoughts from other individuals and not necessarily to make a point.