Will we ever see another Triple Crown Winner?
 

I have been wondering about this for a while now and last night I finally had a chance to summarize some data. Based on some quick information taken from Champions it appears that a Triple Crown winner has faced approximatley 10 horses less than those that have won only two legs of the Triple Crown. For the winners of 2 legs I started with 1981. Please let me know if I left anyone out.

Year Horse Derby Preakness Belmont TOTAL
TRIPLE CROWN WINNERS:
1919 Sir Barton 12 12 3 27
1930 Gallant Fox 15 11 4 30
1935 Omaha 18 8 5 31
1937 War Admiral 20 8 7 35
1941 Whirlaway 11 8 4 23
1943 Count Fleet 10 4 3 17
1946 Assault 17 10 7 34
1948 Citation 6 4 5 15
1973 Secretariat 13 6 5 24
1977 Seattle Slew 15 9 8 32
1978 Affirmed 11 7 5 23
Average 26.45454545

WINNERS OF 2 out of 3:
1981 Pleasant Colony 21 13 11 45
1984 Swale 20 10 11 41
1987 Alysheba 17 9 9 35
1988 Risen Star 17 9 6 32
1989 Sunday Silence 15 8 10 33
1995 Thunder Gulch 19 11 11 41
1997 Silver Charm 13 10 7 30
1998 Real Quiet 15 10 11 36
1999 Chrismatic 19 13 12 44
2001 Point Given 17 11 9 37
2002 War Emblem 18 13 11 42
2003 Funny Cide 16 10 6 32
2004 Smarty Jones 18 10 9 37
2005 Afleet Alex 20 14 9 43
Average 37.71429

Any thoughts

Your 2 out of 3 list doesn't include many other horses: Nashua, Tim Tam, Carry Back, Kauai King, Native Dancer, Northern Dancer, Majestic Prince, Little Current, others.

Sorry, my bad.

Citation faced the least # of horses. He stunk.

I don't think that horses like Alex should count...

IMO, only the horses that won the Derby and the Preakness should be listed. In reality, those were the only ones that had a shot at the Triple Crown to begin with.

Yeah he did stink. He couldn't even win 17 races in a row. Sure he won 16 in a row, but if he had actually been good he would have won at least 17. Plus he only raced 45 times in his life but he still managed to finish off the board in one of those starts. What a mule.

As for the question, competing against more horses and larger fields does make it more difficult. But if another truly special horse comes along....it still could happen.
Look at War Admiral. He faced a number of horses that certainly compares to what the horses today run against....but he managed to do it, because he was simply a better horse than the Funny Cides and Real Quiets of the world.

Some of that difference may be due to the Triple Crown winners scaring off horses in the later legs. The Derby also -- who knows how many trainers kept their horse home instead of running against Slew in the 1977 Derby? Trainers probably weren't exactly looking forward to running against Secretariat at Pimlico or Belmont after he demolished the Derby field in record time.

Plus, trainers of today may be more willing to run horses in races where they don't have a chance anyway. Look at some of DWL's Derby entrants over the last couple of years. All the major trainers lately have slung some real bombs at the Derby.

In terms of since 1981, you left out Tabasco Cat who won the second and third legs in 1994. I think that's right, lots of people forget him. I know I had to look this up at least once...

Also left off Hansel, 1991.

I dont know if this is as certain as you are making it to be.


For instance if Nerud was having this discussion in the first place, doesnt it mean that some owners at least thought they had enuf pull to insist on it? IF it was such a foregone conclusion then why would Nerud have to tell this to his owner?


Or take the case of Majestic Prince in the Belmont that was pure owner driven. That was 1969 probably the same approx. time as they Nerud story. Need to do some more research on this before it looks like a viable theory.

The bottom line is that 10 out of the last 13 years a horse has won two out of three. One of these years - either because of a particularly talented colt, or a good colt in a particularly weak crop - it will happen.

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.

You'll see one in the next 3 years.

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.

NO

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.

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.

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.

You would think... yet this exact situation applied in '04 and '05 and (unfortunately) circumstance prevented either of occurring. SJ and AA were so much better than any of their generation yet they missed by a combined 2 lengths.

In '97, the opportunity was there with an outstanding colt but there were several others nearly equally talented; in '98, same deal.

It'll happen within the next 10 years... but it will require quite a bit of luck as well as talent.

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.

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.

Lots of horses still win three Grade I races in a row, so it certainly seems possible to me. I realize that the Triple Crown is the toughest challenge, however. I predict a sire line descendant of Triple Crown winner Seattle Slew will win the Triple Crown. It is coming soon.

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...:cool:

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...

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

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...

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..