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

[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.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Matt

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.
.

Simple statistics error. Never add or multiply the chance of something happening, rather multiply the chance something won't happen.