Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1
>> but scales of probability in between that then invite one to consider other factors...
My understanding has been that the guy holding the ball in these earlier 19thC team photos is THE pitcher (or maybe I should say "probably" the pitcher.) Your "Anson" is holding the ball and I can only find mention of him playing 2nd base at Marshaltown. I can't find mention of him being the team's pitcher, though my 10 minutes of research has not been exhaustive. So how does does this factor into your probabilities?
|
He's holding a ball and a bat, the props of the game, as one would expect the team's best player to do. Interesting coincidence, by the way, that the team's best player happens to be an Anson look-alike.
We can go on and on about this. But, to repeat my main point, photo ID in this instance is
inconclusive. We are in the area of shades of gray. To some it could be a dark gray, to others a light gray. Once you transverse out of the area of science to the area of art, subjectivity comes in and different people can reasonably have different opinions. You made a comment earlier about your aptitude. I don't question that you have knowledge in this area.
But, and I say this respectfully, you might want to consider that another sign of increased knowledge is an increased appreciation of what you don't know and the limitations of what available evidence can conclusively tell you.