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!"