The 1 in 129 statistic regarding a NY-bred winning the Kentucky Derby is meaningless...
There is an old saying used in the study of probability that "statistics never lie."

The 1-129 stat is a perfect example of this.

The relevant number is the percentage of winners from total starters.

I have no idea how many NY-breds have gone to the post in the Kentucky Derby but I would imagine that it is a small fraction of the total number of Kentucky-breds who have run in the race. If NY-breds averaged one starter per year for the last 129 years then the number of NY-bred winners is about what should be expected. If the race had consisted of 10 or 12 NY-breds and one or two Kentucky-breds for the last 129 years, how many Kentucky-bred winners do you suppose there would have been?

There is no question that over the years NY-breds haven't been on a par with Kentucky-breds but that is to be expected considering that Kentucky is the home breeding state for the vast majority of the so-called "blue-blood" breeding stock.

Over the years had the race consisted of an equal number of starters being Kentucky, New York, Florida and California bred , I believe that you would have seen more than a fair share of the winners coming from states other than Kentucky.