Discrete or Statistical Errors on Cards

[brunswickreeves]

Anyone ever notice discrete or statistical errors on cards?

Mickey Mantle's last card #500 from 1969 Topps contains a statistical error. YEAR 1955 notes AVG. of .307, when in fact is actually .306. All prior Topps cards with this year's stat. correctly note .306. And interestingly enough, the Major League Totals line on Mick's 1969 Topps card correctly reflects lifetime AVG. of .298 (which would be derived with a 1955 AVG. of .306 (not
.307 as noted on the card).

Fun Fact: If Mick had only 1 additional hit in each of his 18 seasons, he would have ended up in the 300 Club, with a career total of 2433 hits from 8120 at bats!

[ALBB]

yea..true...and the other one about if an everyday player got one more hit a week...a 275 hitter would be a 300 hitter.....?..or something like that ??

[brunswickreeves]

Applying to Mick, 1 extra hit per week for 24* weeks of baseball per year over 18 years would yield 432 additional hits, totaling 2847 hits during 8102 at bats, resulting in a .351 AVG. That'd put him 4th behind: Cobb @ .366, Hornsby @ .358 and Shoeless Joe @ .355.

*Assumes played all of 1951 and 1963 seasons.

[G1911]

There are a ton of errors like this in the vintage Topps sets. Which makes sense, they weren’t a secret or anything but before the baseball encyclopedias came out historical records were more difficult to access, and also manually input (I assume that Topps today is just drawing from a database and using automation to fill out card back statistics) which is always prone to error.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by G1911

There are a ton of errors like this in the vintage Topps sets. Which makes sense, they weren’t a secret or anything but before the baseball encyclopedias came out historical records were more difficult to access, and also manually input (I assume that Topps today is just drawing from a database and using automation to fill out card back statistics) which is always prone to error.

I have a list of more than 80 statistical errors, and I find new ones whenever I go through a number of cards.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by John1941

I have a list of more than 80 statistical errors, and I find new ones whenever I go through a number of cards.

I used to note them on my master set spreadsheets, but then gave up and removed that column. Whenever I see one now, I just go check other copies and see if it was ever corrected. The answer is always "no, there's not a new variation!"

[JollyElm]

s-l1600.jpg

[Exhibitman]

Greatest. Error. Ever.

[Tyruscobb]

Nice catch, and interesting thoughts. I’ll never own the 1969 Mantle. First, it is not a playing days Mantle. He retired after 1968 season. I don’t see how it is any different than a modern Mantle insert. Secondly, the Mick looks old and worn out.

[Bill77]

I caught the error on the 2002 Marty Cordova card and got my name in the August 2002 Beckett for it.

[brunswickreeves]

The great thing about his 1969 Topps is it captures stats from his final 1968 season (unlike 1968 Topps which is only up to 1967 season stats) and thus culminates his career grand totals and averages.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by Bill77

I caught the error on the 2002 Marty Cordova card and got my name in the August 2002 Beckett for it.

Hey I know the guy who wrote the article

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

One of my favorite stats errors that I've come accross reading the backs of my cards is the 198 RBIs attributed to Roy Campanella on his 1952 Bowman card.

Not knowing a ton of stats by heart, I'm sure there are many minor stat errors that I never notice on my vintage cards. But 198 RBI is hard to miss

camp2.JPG

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

One of my favorite stats errors that I've come accross reading the backs of my cards is the 198 RBIs attributed to Roy Campanella on his 1952 Bowman card.

Not knowing a ton of stats by heart, I'm sure there are many minor stat errors that I never notice on my vintage cards. But 198 RBI is hard to miss

Attachment 514854

Damn I would have had so much fun with that article back in the day!

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Damn I would have had so much fun with that article back in the day!

Haha! Well, then that was a missed opportunity for both of us...if you would have written a fun article on it for Beckett back in the day, then maybe I would have gotten to see my name in print just like Bill Avery did for pointing out the Cordova error

[Bill77]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Hey I know the guy who wrote the article

It always amazes me how closely connected the collecting community truly is, or how fast time passes for that matter. Those were some of my favorite articles in Beckett at the time.

[mikemb]

Originally Posted by Bill77

It always amazes me how closely connected the collecting community truly is, or how fast time passes for that matter. Those were some of my favorite articles in Beckett at the time.

Mine too.

Mike

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

Haha! Well, then that was a missed opportunity for both of us...if you would have written a fun article on it for Beckett back in the day, then maybe I would have gotten to see my name in print just like Bill Avery did for pointing out the Cordova error

I had two stints writing E&V -- the 1st was just a bear trying to keep up with all the errors on the new cards (at the time) and it was difficult to make them real interesting.

The 2nd stint was more fun for all concerned and I wrote three side bar aritcles a month (Almanac Set of the Month, Auction Item of the month (Not usually the most expensive of course, and E&V Card of the month. As you see, people remember and loved the 2nd iteration of E&V because there was a chance their name, like Bill's would end up in print. And a side note, the article which drew the most reaction from readers via email was one I did on a typo in the Nolan Ryan RC text. It took several reprint sets before the typo was corrected.

The whole key to these stories was for the item or the player to have an interesting back story which made the card even more interesting. As you see on the Cordova, I referred to an earlier error with just as amazing as a stat goof.

Rich

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I had two stints writing E&V -- the 1st was just a bear trying to keep up with all the errors on the new cards (at the time) and it was difficult to make them real interesting.

The 2nd stint was more fun for all concerned and I wrote three side bar aritcles a month (Almanac Set of the Month, Auction Item of the month (Not usually the most expensive of course, and E&V Card of the month. As you see, people remember and loved the 2nd iteration of E&V because there was a chance their name, like Bill's would end up in print. And a side note, the article which drew the most reaction from readers via email was one I did on a typo in the Nolan Ryan RC text. It took several reprint sets before the typo was corrected.

The whole key to these stories was for the item or the player to have an interesting back story which made the card even more interesting. As you see on the Cordova, I referred to an earlier error with just as amazing as a stat goof.

Rich

That's some interesting insight into a little bit of what went in to creating content for a magazine that I assume was a big part of the collecting lives of many of us on this board. Thanks for sharing that!

I don't really follow modern now, but I wonder if newer sets still have such random statistical errors and variations, and if collectors still chase them. Yeah, I know there are INTENTIONAL short prints, image variations, color swaps, etc. (especially in Heritage). But do people still notice and/or chase "mistake" errors? I'm guessing not as many collectors even read the backs of their cards anymore, as there are much more efficient ways of finding baseball stats now.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

I don't really follow modern now, but I wonder if newer sets still have such random statistical errors and variations, and if collectors still chase them. Yeah, I know there are INTENTIONAL short prints, image variations, color swaps, etc. (especially in Heritage). But do people still notice and/or chase "mistake" errors? I'm guessing not as many collectors even read the backs of their cards anymore, as there are much more efficient ways of finding baseball stats now.

Yeah. In 2019 Topps, there were some cards where they calculated career WHIP and ERA wrong. Forget the details of why, but they had Josh Hader with a career 2.37 WHIP and 6.23 ERA.