Knickerbocker Photo (Update)

Snowman · #1 09-04-2021, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

There are statements made above that the probability of a match is so high that one may be �100% convinced,� or that the match shown for all six subjects may be as high as �99.9999%� or even �84-97%.� All of these estimates reflect a misunderstanding of probability, which I will attempt to explain below. But let me declare my bias from the outset: I am not convinced the stereoview depicts �six learned gents,� let alone the Knickerbocker Club.

All probabilities have a margin of error. Most people are aware of this when they see political polling: when one candidate leads in the polls 51-49, but the polling organization discloses a 3% margin of error, it is understood that the race is a statistical tie.

What we need to know is the margin of error for the facial recognition software used. The problem is that the software maker determines a margin of error using the same photographic process and type (say, a mug shot or passport photograph), similar lighting, contemporaneous images, etc. And what we have here are different photographic processes (salt, albumen, and, I believe, a silver gelatin copy photograph), with very different lighting (outdoor versus studio), taken many years apart, with limited visual information (these are group photographs taken from a distance where the ears are not visible, etc.), and where the original poster has altered the shadows in the photographs using another software program prior to analysis.

To give you some idea of how high the margin of error may be in this case, consider that a Google search shows estimates for facial recognition for African-American women may be higher than 35%. And that is with all the commonalities and without the difficulties cited above. I would be stunned if the margin of error here were not much higher. One can�t speak of meaningful probabilities in the presence of such a high margin of error. You�re asking the software to do something for which it was not designed and not tested.

I think you've misunderstood my statement. I am not claiming that there is a 99.9999% chance that this is a photo of the Knickerbockers based on the results of the software matches. If you read my statement carefully, you'll notice there are a couple of key qualifiers in it. Here's what I said:

"if the probability of each person being a "match" is 90% [Note added: this is NOT the same thing as the matching software outputting a "90% match"], then the probability of the group being the Knickerbockers is equivalent to the 1 - (0.1^6) = 0.999999 or 99.9999% chance that this is the Knickerbockers. However, this is based on the assumption that a "90% match" actually means the individuals in two photos are 90% likely to be the same person. I don't know if this assumption holds true, and wouldn't be surprised at all if it didn't."

The last part above highlighted in bold is important. While I don't know how their software is coded, thus I don't know enough about their specific outputs, I do write the same type of algorithms for work, so I have an idea of how I would go about writing my own code for such a task (I'm a data scientist, and facial recognition software is the same field of work). I'm not sure exactly what their "90% match" means in the real world, but I would wager money that it probably does not mean that there is a 90% likelihood of the two people being the same person (which is the mathematical assumption that my above calculation was based upon). I think I chose a poor example to convey my point. My point wasn't that this is a 99.9999% probability of being the Knickerbockers photo. My point was simply to demonstrate that the likelihood of it being a Knickerbockers photo increases as a result of each individual having such high match percentages. This is Bayesian statistics 101 stuff.

As far as having a "misunderstanding of probability" is concerned, I assure you, I do not have a misunderstanding of probability theory. Perhaps I worded my post poorly, but if you read it carefully, paying attention to the qualifiers, you'll find I'm not saying what some people here seem to think I am.

Also, you wrote "all probabilities have a margin of error." This is not true. Probabilities have no such property. The probability of rolling a 2 on a fair die is 1/6. There is no margin of error associated with it. The probability of drawing the Ace of spades from a randomized deck of cards is 1/52. Again, there is no margin of error. Perhaps you meant to say that predictions or estimates have margins of error, not probabilities? That would be true, and if so, I would agree with your point that any actual calculation about the probability of this photo being a Knickerbockers photo would have to be based on the real-world implications of the facial recognition matching model's output. Hence I stated above in my original post that I wouldn't be surprised if a 90% match didn't actually mean a 90% probability of two photos being the same person. Every time I upload a family photo to Facebook, it asks if I would like to tag my wife as her sister. They are not twins. So, I'm guessing the real-world confidence we might have from facial matches is actually quite a bit lower than something like 90%.

Snowman · #2 09-04-2021, 03:00 PM

The thing I find most troubling with respect to just looking at the photos and comparing facial features is the hair loss of Avery and Curry. If Avery eventually goes completely bald on top as in his 1862 photo, then he wouldn't have had a full head of hair at the age of 43 (assuming the photo was taken in 1857). Someone with that level of hair loss is going to begin losing their hair in their 20s and will show signs of severe hair loss by their mid-30s. Either the timelines here are way off, or it's simply not the same person. But nobody has a full head of hair at the age of 43 and then goes on to lose it all on top years later.

That said, I do think the eyes, brow, nose, bridge, mouth and angles of the face look quite similar for Avery in both photos. But the hairlines do not line up with expectations unless the photo was taken much much earlier than 1857 (would have to be at least a decade earlier I would argue, and probably more like 15 years earlier).

drcy · #3 09-04-2021, 04:17 PM

It does not appear to be the Knickerbockers.

prewarsports · #4 09-04-2021, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drcy

It does not appear to be the Knickerbockers.

David, you might want to clarify which "knickerbockers" you are referring too as this photo has about as much chance of being the 1991 New York Knickerbockers basketball team as it has to being an 1850's shot of New York Knickerbockers baseball team.

drcy · #5 09-04-2021, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prewarsports

David, you might want to clarify which "knickerbockers" you are referring too as this photo has about as much chance of being the 1991 New York Knickerbockers basketball team as it has to being an 1850's shot of New York Knickerbockers baseball team.

I'll grant that it has a better chance of being the 1848 Knickerbockers than the 1991 Knickerbockers.

Aquarian Sports Cards · #6 09-04-2021, 06:40 PM

I guess I come back to a simpler problem. Why would there be a picture of 6 random Knickerbockers in street clothes?

SteveS · #7 09-04-2021, 06:54 PM

David, still can't come up with any specific features that are glaring non-matches, huh?

Scott, the 1862 pic is ten random Knickerbockers in street clothes. If I had to make a guess on mine, all six were elected team officers/directors, serving in various roles throughout the years. Perhaps this is a photograph of the officers/directors from whatever year it was taken. I can't find a record of the elections for every year.

egri · #8 09-05-2021, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

The thing I find most troubling with respect to just looking at the photos and comparing facial features is the hair loss of Avery and Curry. If Avery eventually goes completely bald on top as in his 1862 photo, then he wouldn't have had a full head of hair at the age of 43 (assuming the photo was taken in 1857). Someone with that level of hair loss is going to begin losing their hair in their 20s and will show signs of severe hair loss by their mid-30s. Either the timelines here are way off, or it's simply not the same person. But nobody has a full head of hair at the age of 43 and then goes on to lose it all on top years later.

That said, I do think the eyes, brow, nose, bridge, mouth and angles of the face look quite similar for Avery in both photos. But the hairlines do not line up with expectations unless the photo was taken much much earlier than 1857 (would have to be at least a decade earlier I would argue, and probably more like 15 years earlier).

I don't have a horse in this race, but is it possible Avery was wearing a hairpiece?

SteveS · #9 09-05-2021, 06:51 PM

Joe, thank you for taking the time to look that up and posting what you found!

Scott, I'm not sure if hairpieces existed then. To me, it looks like a guy with thinning hair who's doing the best with what he has.

egri · #10 09-05-2021, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveS

...a guy with thinning hair who's doing the best with what he has.

I resemble that remark!

SteveS · #11 09-05-2021, 09:33 PM

Well, Scott, at least you have something in common with a baseball pioneer. And it happens to the best of us.

molenick · #12 09-05-2021, 09:39 PM

I cannot comment on the reliability of facial recognition but one thing I think is not meaningful (in either direction) is that there are six people in the photo.

The "pro" side has to come up with something about it being a reasonable number for executives and directors. The Knickerbockers had three officers to start (president, vice president, secretary-treasurer). I am not sure what happened later on but four (splitting secretary and treasurer) would be pretty standard. Six seems arbitrary. Why not five or seven? Sure, it could be a mixture of current and former officers…in which case, there could be any number of people in the photo. While it is possible to make up a story to fit the narrative that these six people were all associated with the Knickerbockers, it is also true that there are many, many other reasons that six people would be in a photo. I don't think six has any significance without some other information coming to light.

The "con" side wants it to be ten (I guess for the starters plus a manager or substitute) but I don't think that is necessary for it to be the Knickerbockers (or any team). Maybe it was a reunion and only six people showed up. An undocumented reunion of the most famous team of early baseball who are essentially now known because they liked to document things.

Here is a photo of what are clearly baseball players on the same team (or at least people dressed as baseball players on the same team) plus the manager or proud father or owner of the photo studio or top hat salesman. Why are there four? I don’t know, but that doesn’t mean they are not baseball players on the same team. It doesn’t mean anything except that four people in baseball uniforms (plus a guy in a suit) posed for a photo 130-140 years ago.

SteveS · #13 09-05-2021, 10:04 PM

That's a really cool pic, Michael! I love those bats. And I totally agree that it means nothing either way that there are six people in the photo. I was just throwing out a possible reason. As you say, one of many. But just as an aside, six would not be at all unreasonable if it is indeed the officers. They would have a president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, and a couple or a few directors (the numbers varied over the years).

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Knickerbocker Photo	SteveS	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	18	01-22-2021 05:46 PM
O/T: using photo matching to update Marines in famous Iwo Jima flag raising photo	baseball tourist	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	0	07-02-2016 09:08 AM
1864 knickerbocker nine 1939 news photo - Price Reduction	earlybball	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	1	09-23-2014 03:08 PM
Need Help On A Vintage Photo Update	batsballsbases	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	14	01-17-2014 12:56 PM
REA Knickerbocker photo story	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	10-09-2007 11:30 AM