I will try not to re-quote the full message as it is lengthy.
Your 0/1 binary model describes an ideal world where "truth" is absolute and can be established.
I could have been a bit more detailed on the simplistic model, as I refer to a "confidence level" that the ball is authentic vs whether it is or not.
Simply put, since there is a very small, near zero probability that there were any witnesses to the signing, then us mortals will never know for sure that it is authentic. At this point, we must rely on statistical means to determine a confidence. Let's say that "experts" are right 2/3 of the time and wrong 1/3, If more than 2 experts agree on an outcome (1=true, 0= fase), then you are in the 90%+ chance of the outcome being correct at a 50% confidence level. I will not bore the readers with the proof, but it is based on math/stats. At some point, however, when it comes down to figuring out the price one is willing to pay, my point was I rather have a higher confidence on authenticity than on the quality of the sig (for a given $ value, since an authentic 10 Ruth is not likely to go for $2100)
BTW, I do appreciate your comment on Giard vs Koenig. Realistically, however, Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri and Pennock carry this ball in what I would call a 50/25/15/10 ratio, since we know Huggins is clubhouse
|