Discrete or Statistical Errors on Cards

[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

[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.