T206 Demmitt & O'Hara....are they 350-only Series cards ?

[ethicsprof]

My ole friend, Ted, I've love to win your house but you, as an engineer, know as well as I -- that in the amazingly elusive arena of the Monster-- there is no way to unequivocally verify your contention.
Still, I find your evidence very compelling and for me the best answer i've seen. But unequivocal verifiability breathes better in logic and epistemology
classes, and even has trouble 'breathing' there.

best,
barry

[buymycards]

Hi Ted,
If I read your numbers correctly, the numbers seem to indicated that Demmitt and O'Hara were printed in approximately equal quantities. I have been watching these cards for quite a while, and it seems that I see many more Demmitt's come up for sale, and the O'Hara's cost roughly 1 1/2 times as much as a similar grade Demmitt. Do you have any research on the Demmitt/O'Hara ratio's?

Thanks!


Rick

[tedzan]

Rick

Although every survey indicates that the availability of these two cards are the same, I agree with you that Demmitt
appears to be more available. My experience in collecting (or selling) these 2 cards tells me that Demmitt is somewhat
more available than O'Hara.

I like Frank Wakefield's explanation for this...."when BB player's Major League careers end, kids threw away their cards".

Demmitt returned to the Major Lges. after a stint with Montreal. Plus he was pictured on subsequent T-cards.

O'Hara's BB career ended with Toronto (Eastern Lge.).

Anyhow, that's my best answer. Perhaps, some one else here has a better explanation ?


TED Z

[tedzan]

Thanks for reprising my thread on this subject from 2 1/2 years ago. It provides some very worthwhile added info on Demmitt and O'Hara.

TED Z

[tedzan]

".....but I've got one more question
Can you confirm that none of the the PB cards that we know are 350/460 cards showed up only 5 times in your sampling? "

And, your contention......
"If they all showed up at least 6 times and the O'Hara and Demitt showed up only 5 then I think you've proven it as best as
you can statistically, but if some/several of the 350/460 PB cards appeared 5 times then the O'Hara and Demitt showing 5
times doesn't prove they are 350 only cards."


This argument of yours, Matt, is not a statistically valid one.

Incidently......
The range of the 350-only PB cards in these surveys was from 1 to 8.

The range of the 350/460 PB cards in these surveys was from 4 to 23.


Matt

Now, I have a very serious a question for you......

If these two St. Louis variations were printed in the 350/460 series, then why aren't they identified with their respective
Eastern League teams ?
Remember, the 350/460 subjects were not available until the Summer/Fall of 1910.






TED Z

[Matt]

Originally Posted by tedzan

".....but I've got one more question
Can you confirm that none of the the PB cards that we know are 350/460 cards showed up only 5 times in your sampling? "

And, your contention......
"If they all showed up at least 6 times and the O'Hara and Demitt showed up only 5 then I think you've proven it as best as
you can statistically, but if some/several of the 350/460 PB cards appeared 5 times then the O'Hara and Demitt showing 5
times doesn't prove they are 350 only cards."


This argument of yours, Matt, is not a statistically valid one.

Incidently......
The range of the 350-only PB cards in these surveys was from 1 to 8.

The range of the 350/460 PB cards in these surveys was from 4 to 23.


Matt

Now, I have a very serious a question for you......

If these two St. Louis variations were printed in the 350/460 series, then why aren't they identified with their respective
Eastern League teams ?
Remember, the 350/460 subjects were not available until the Summer/Fall of 1910.

Hey Ted - thanks for checking. I'm not sure what you mean "it's not a statistically valid" argument? Let me explain - you said that 350/460 series PB cards averaged 7.4 appearances in your study and because Demitt and O'Hara only presented 5 times, that means they are 350 only series (which averaged 4.8). But with the informaiton you just provided, that some cards we KNOW to be 350/460 cards showed up only 4 times in your survey, O'Hara and Demitt showing up 5 times can't prove they are 350 only cards. Make sense?

As far as your question regarding why the T206 printers might not have made a team change on those cards, I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that there are (several) other instances of players changing teams or retiring between 1909-1911 where the team change is not reflected on their T206 cards.

[egbeachley]

Matt is right, statistically speaking. But we can determine with a certain probability that they were from the 350-Only series if we know how many of the cards from the 350/460-series had a pop sampling of only 4 or 5. It helps that both target items (Demmitt and O'Hara) are both a pop 5.

For example, if 10% of the 350/460-series cards sampled as a pop 4 or 5, then there would be a 10% chance that 1 target of pop 5 would be 350/460-series. But since both targets are a pop 5, then the possibility would be 10% of 10% or a 1% chance that based on this methodology that the 2 cards are really 350/460-series.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

For example, if 10% of the 350/460-series cards sampled as a pop 4 or 5, then there would be a 10% chance that 1 target of pop 5 would be 350/460-series. But since both targets are a pop 5, then the possibility would be 10% of 10% or a 1% chance that based on this methodology that the 2 cards are really 350/460-series.

We're moving away from cards now, but I don't believe you are correct here (any statisticians in the house?). Multiplying probabilities to arrive at the probability that both A and B are true only works in scenarios where A and B are exclusive of each other - if A is true it has no bearing on if B is true. (i.e. the odds that both you and I have birthdays on January 1st is 1/365 * 1/365) That clearly isn't the case here as we all agree whatever is true for Demitt is true for O'Hara (i.e. the odds that twins have a birthday on January 1st is 1/365) .
To illustrate this point better, consider the inverse of your argument. Using your numbers, there is a 90% chance Demitt is a 350 only back and a 90% chance O'Hara is a 350 only back. By your logic (multiplying the probabilities), therefore, there is an 81% chance that they are 350 only backs which contradicts your finding above (of it being a 99% probability).
A such, I don't think you can multiply the probabilities in this case.

I certainly could be off with what I just wrote, so if anyone out there knows probability logic, please chime in.