Below is the text of my re-evaluation of the Babe Ruth “Called Shot” Jersey that I looked at almost three ago. The letter is listed in its entirety, excluding the two pages of references for space and formatting purposes. If requested, I will gladly e-mail this list to any and all interested parties. The base letter is followed by the Exclusionary Population Diagrams and Analysis. All told, this evaluation is some 17 pages in length and accompanied by some 16 color illustrations. To date, this has been one of the most worthwhile efforts I have ever been a associated with. I would like thank Dr. Richard Angrist for permitting me to do this work as well as both Dave Bushing and Troy Kinunen for making me part of the MEARS team.
SUBJECT: Re-Evaluation of the early 1930’s New York Yankees Babe Ruth Jersey
In April 2005, I conducted my initial evaluation this New York Yankees Babe Ruth Road jersey. The jersey was at that time, being represented as the one Ruth wore in the 1932 World Series when he was said to have hit his famous “Called Shot Home Run.” My initial opinion was that the jersey was “an unaltered Babe Ruth NY Yankees Road Jersey manufactured in either 1931 or 1932 and was possibly the jersey he was wearing when he hit his famous “Called Shot” home run.” (Copy of Original Letter Enclosed). For the purpose of this evaluation report, this jersey is referred to as the “offered jersey” based on it being offered for examination.
At the request of Dr. Richard Angrist, I began to reevaluate this uniform on 16 January 2008. For this re-evaluation, Dr. Angrist provided me with additional photographs and letters written by the following individuals and asked that I consider all of this information as part of my re-look: (Copies of Letters Enclosed)
Mike Heffner: Lelands 2 August 2005
Keith Vari, Richard Russek, Andy Imperato: Grey Flannel (undated)
Joe DeMattio, Nick Coppola, Lou Lampson(dated 8,7, 4 July respectively)
These letters were written after my original opinion was offered in 2005. In reviewing and evaluating these letters, they had a number of things in common:
1. They all referenced photographs of the back of the “Called Shot” jersey. Something I had not and have not seen. Specifically;
The Mike Heffner Letter States:
“When the photos of this jersey are superimposed with photos of the jersey Babe Ruth wore when he crossed home plate after the called shot during game 3 of the 1932 world series, the positioning of the letters NEW YORK across the front and the number 3 match.”
The DeMattio, Coppola, Lampson Letter States:
“When the photos of this jersey are superimposed, the positioning of the letters NEW YORK across the front of the jersey and the signature number “3” found on the back of this jersey match perfectly with the positioning of the of the letters and the number “3” on the jersey Babe Ruth was wearing when he crossed home plate after the “called shot” during game three of the 1932 World Series.”
The Vari, Russek, Imperato Letter States:
“When the photos of this jersey are superimposed, the positioning of the letters NEW YORK across the front of the jersey and the signature number “3” found on the back of this jersey match perfectly with the positioning of the of the letters and the number “3” on the jersey Babe Ruth was wearing when he crossed home plate after the “called shot” during game three of the 1932 World Series.”
My concern was that since they had formed a definitive opinion that I did not share at the time, I was worried I had missed something. I followed up on this with an e-mail to Mike Heffner and a phone call to Dr. Angrist. There was no image of the back of the jersey and the language in these three letters was an error as according to both Mike Heffner and Dr. Angrist. As explained to me both via e-mail and over the phone, this language, while poorly worded, was not meant to be misleading, rather an additional reference to the comparison of the number “3” from Dr. Angrist’s 1932 Babe Ruth home jersey. As stated previously, all three of these letters are contained as enclosures to my current evaluation.
2. They all referenced superimposing the letters on the front of this jersey with a transparency of those of the “Called Shot Jersey.” This transparency was available at the time of my original inspection and evaluation. As I pointed out to both Richard Russek and Keith Vari, I did not and do not consider this to be a valid means of comparison or imagery analysis since the lettering on the actual jersey was resized to the point where it was the same size of the object they were trying to match. I also showed them that the arch did not in fact line up when done in a manner where the image is rotated along the vertical axis 180 degrees. The issue then and now remains that it is always possible to shrink or enlarge to very similar images to the point where they appear the same in terms of size and spatial relationship. Since I did not and do not consider this to be a valid form of imagery analysis, my position in this matter remains the same as my original letter, that being “no conclusion” should be drawn either way with respect to using this as an analytical tool.
3. All three letters included a discussion of the differences in font style and button alignment with respect to New York Yankees road jerseys from the period in question. This is something I have never disputed, but found in looking at the initial images provided that the photographs were of such a poor quality the subtle distinctions were almost indiscernible, or at least not sufficient to make a definitive claim.
In addition, these letters all lacked any specific annotated reference to any specific image used to substantiate an opinion. While Dr. Angrist was and is in possession of
dozens of period and often dated wire photos, no specific and traceable methodology was used to address the issue of whether or not this jersey is in fact the “Called Shot” home run jersey.
In order to reevaluate this jersey in a manner that is both focused and specific to the issue, I visually re-inspected the actual jersey and asked that full color 1:1 scale color plates be provided for this project. I then decided to concentrate on a single area in order to perform exclusionary analysis since the issue is not the authenticity of the jersey, but rather an issue of specificity. My point of reference and comparison is the letter “Y” in NEW YORK and its placement and alignment on the jersey as well as the size and font style. I selected this point for a couple of reasons. First, it provided a constant (the letter “Y”) in very close proximity to two visible points of reference (the buttons). Secondly, when uniforms such as this are lettered, they are done starting in the center of the garment and sewn “working” out both left and right. Lastly, since there appears to be little in the way of images of the back of the “Called Shot” jersey, the focus has to be on the front.
Although there are numerous photos of New York Yankees Road jerseys from this period, my interest was almost exclusively on those of Babe Ruth as he is really the only player of real consequence in this matter. A key element in doing exclusionary work and analysis involves the process of eliminating other possible jerseys, by both identifying other specific possibilities and then doing actual side by side comparisons. In doing exclusionary work, if you can establish a logical population and then view them all in the same manner, then it is possible to offer a defendable position and opinion.
To facilitate this and to leave little doubt about what I looked at and what I saw, I have created a series of comparative plates that detail Babe Ruth Road jerseys from the period of 1931 through 1934. These dates were selected because the earliest this jersey could have been from based on style is 1931 and the latest it could be is 1934 because this was Ruth’s last year with the New York Yankees. In all plates, the jersey in question is shown in color on the upper left hand side of each plate. With each plate description that follows, I have provided only statements reflecting factual, observable, and in some cases measurable observations.
PLATE I: Front of the jersey that is the on hand example and the subject of the evaluation.
PLATE II: Two images dated to 1931 and one identified as c 1931. All three show a slightly similar off set of the “Y” to the right of the upper button as compared to the offered jersey. But in all three cases, the length of the stem of the letter “Y” extends below the lower button. These jerseys all appear to be the same jersey and are not the same as the jersey in question.
PLATE III: Image dated May 20th 1931. This jersey features a “Y” that has been sewn closer to the center of the button line that than the jersey in question. This combined with the length of the letter “Y” leads me to conclude that it is not the same as other 1931 jersey nor is it the same as the jersey in question.
PLATE IV: The offered jersey, the “Called Shot” jersey, and the jersey from May 20th 1931. In this plate, the focus is on the lower button placement and spacing. An enlarged image of the “Called Shot” jersey shows a spacing more in keeping with the offered jersey than the jersey from 1931. The dark portion of the upper part of the “Called Shot” jersey button, to me indicates a shadow from the button being canted forward.
PLATE V: The offered jersey, the “Called Shot” jersey, and the jersey from May 20th 1931. In this plate, the focus is on the construction of the letter “W”. In both the offered jersey and the “Called Shot” jersey, the space right of center between the branches of the “W” is greater than the space left of center. This is just the opposite in the jersey from May 20th 1931.
PLATE VI: Image dated June 30th 1932. This jersey resembles the jersey in question with respect to the off set of the “Y” at the upper button, but does not share the same size/spatial relationship with respect to the lower button. In this image, the lower button presents an upward slant and the jersey can be seen with fabric folds. As such, even if this pictured jersey were to be laid flat, the bottom of the stem of the “Y” would only move farther away from the lower button and not closer. This leads me to conclude it is neither of the jerseys identified as being from 1931, nor is it the jersey in question.
PLATE VII: Image of Ruth crossing the plate after hitting the “Called Shot” home run. Although the image is not of the same quality or clarity as the others, the alignment of the “Y” appears to be same as the offered jersey in question. While the letter “Y” in this photograph of Ruth crossing the plate does appear to be closer to the button line than the offered jersey, you have to also take into account that Ruth’s upper torso is angled by his reaching back with his right hand. This will change the appearance of the letter “Y” with respect to its apparent proximity to the buttons, but not its vertical position. This vertical alignment is the same characteristic used to distinguish the offered jersey from the one from June 30th 1932 (PLATE IV)
PLATE VIII: Image from April 27th 1933. In looking at much clearer image than the one from October 1932, this jersey appears to share the same alignment and spatial relationship as the offered jersey in question. The size of the letter “Y” is also not a disqualifier as it was with the jersey in PLATE II.
PLATE IX: Images from April 27th and August 17th 1933. These jerseys feature the letter “Y” being started or sewn at the upper button hole. Note that one of jerseys shares the same date of wear as the Babe Ruth jersey in plate VI, yet they are not sewn the same. The other thing to note is the apparent difference in font style by width and relative length of the construction in the letter “Y”. In both the Ruth jersey pictured from April 27th 1933 and the offered jersey in question, the ratio of the of total length of the letter “Y” to the point in the trough where the upper segments begin is 64.2% and 66% respectively. I found a ratio of the same areas to be 65% for the jersey Ruth is wearing crossing the plate. In the non-Ruth jerseys from 1933 this ratio is approximately 77%. This means, that the construction of these letters in these two jerseys is actually and measurably different than the “Called Shot” jersey and the offered jersey. This comparative ratio in and of itself does not prove the offered jersey, the jersey in PLATE VI and the “Called Shot” are one in the same. As a ratio and not an actual measurement, it shows they are proportionally similar if they are to be considered the same jersey.
PLATE X: Image of Herb Pennock from September 20th 1932. The jersey that Pennock is wearing shares a very similar “Y” placement and alignment to the offered jersey. The ratio of 64.5% is also in keeping with offered jersey as being from 1932.
PLATE XI: Photo of Babe Ruth in Boston 1933. Although I can’t make out the button alignment, you can still evaluate this jersey based on the construction of the “Y” in the same manner as those in PLATE VII. In this picture, the ratio of the total length of the letter “Y” to the point in the trough where the upper segments begin is 76%. This is in keeping with the other uniforms from 1933. This means the offered jersey and the one in this picture are not the same jersey.
PLATE XII: Image from 1934. This is the only year that both Ruth and Don Heffner played for the Yankees. Notice that these jerseys are all of similar construction with respect to “Y” placement, font style and width of lettering. This example of a Ruth jersey is not the same as the jersey in question nor the “Called Shot” jersey.
PLATE XIII: Image from the 1934 All Star Game. The photo is not from 1932 because there was no All Star Game that year; not from 1933 as the game was held at Comiskey Park and the Yankee players wore there home jerseys. This jersey Ruth is wearing is neither the offered jersey nor is it the same as other jersey from 1934 in plate VIII.
PLATE XIV: Photo provided by Dr. Angrist on 19 January 2008. Features Ruth in a road uniform during batting practice during the 1932 World Series. Value of the photograph is largely but not exclusively to confirm the proper numeral style. The height of the numeral “3” on the offered jersey is approximately 175mm. The distance from the top of the numeral to the top of the rear collar is 130mm. This creates a size to space ratio of 74%. In measuring the numeral and space in the same manner, the numeral is 14mm and the space is 10.5mm or a ratio of 75%. This is not conclusive or definitive in that we don’t know the actual date of the photograph nor do I have any other pictures of the back of the jersey to compare it with. This does however confirm that the back jersey/numeral “3” of the offered jersey is proportionally what you would expect to see in a road jersey worn by Ruth in the 1932 World Seres. *NOTE: As stated above, this photo was recently provided. It was not available for review at the time of my original letter nor the included or considered in the work of Messer’s Heffner, Vari, Russek, Imperato, DeMattio, Coppola, and Lampson.
Before I begin to digest these observations, it is important to address the issue of what the likely population of Ruth road jerseys might have been during this period. It is of little value to exclude only some jerseys if the potential number still leaves a significant number of jerseys unaccounted for. A review of the letters by Messer’s Heffner, Vari, Russek, Imperato, DeMattio, Coppola, and Lampson reveals no mention of the size of the potential population nor any attempt to account for it. This is critical in doing exclusionary work. This was something I addressed in my original letter. The only person to address this issue was Mark Okkonen in his e-mail to Richard Russek on April 8th 2005 (Copy Enclosed). Mr. Okkonen states “that to the best of my knowledge the team did not issue a second set of road uniforms…”. This statement is offered by Mr. Okkonen without any qualification . However, given Mr. Okkonen’s expertise and professional reputation, I did not dismiss it completely out of hand.
It is my position that as a minimum, a team would want to have at least two uniforms (home and road) on hand at any given time for a player. I think that three uniforms would have been preferred for practical purposes in that this number would provide for:
1- Uniform in use.
1- Uniform ready for use.
1- Uniform in laundry, repair, or available for replacement.
This idea of more than one uniform in this time frame is substantiated by contemporary accounts of at least one other American League Ball Club. An article in March 15th 1930 Saturday Evening Edition of the Syracuse Herald states that “It cost the Detroit baseball club more than $6000 to uniform the Tigers for this seasons play” and that “the Tigers sartorial purchase included 120 complete uniforms and 35 coats. Each player will have two home and two road uniforms and their will be sufficient replacements in the stock room to care for any emergences that may arise.” The article goes on to say that “Players used to get by on two uniforms but the modern fan demands neatness of appearance as well as performance and untidy players quickly are called by umpires who always have the welfare of the laundry business at heart.” (Copy of Article Enclosed)
The Yankees are said to have kept a uniform from the previous season to provide a spare or additional jersey. I know this to be true at least with respect to the early 1960s as I demonstrated this in my letter on the shirt that Roger Maris was wearing when he broke Babe Ruth’s single season home record in 1961. I suspect this was in fact true for this period as well as given photographic evidence of the Yankees in the wearing jerseys with set in sleeves in 1937 and then a mix of both set-in and Raglan sleeves in 1938. Images of Lou Gehrig from 1937 can be found with wearing three (3) distinctly different home jerseys.
The issue then becomes how to find indicators of this practice of recycling jerseys that I think reasonable to assume would have been driven by price versus practicality. This I feel is critical to establish given that it seems inconsistent against the backdrop of what Colonel Jacob Ruppert was willing to pay Ruth as a player ($70,000-$80,000 during this period). What we would expect to find is some form of period or contemporary evidence with respect to the Yankees apparent parsimonious position as it relates to expenditures on equipment. I believe that I found it in the form of an article that appeared in the in the January 19th 1929 edition of the Syracuse Herald which is an excerpt from Babe Ruth’s Own Book of Baseball, Chapter 12, Ruth goes on to mention that:
“a few years ago, Sam Crawford the old Detroit outfielder and slugger, sent me a sample bat from the coast. It was one of those trick things made out of four separate sections, pasted and fitted together. Sam wanted me to try it out and see how it worked. The first time up I hit the ball over the fence for a home run and during the entire game, I got myself two doubles and single in addition to the home run. Naturally, I was tickled pink. In the clubhouse that night, I had Woodie send Sam an order for six of these bats. They came along a few days later and Colonel Ruppert happened to be in the clubhouse when they arrived. He took a look at the bill and threw his hands up in the air. Those bats were listed as six dollars each.” (Copy of Article Enclosed).
Because of the potential historical significance of this jersey, which transcends that of the simply sports memorabilia, I decided to work under the assumption that there could be 2-3 uniforms available during any one season with one of those being carried over from the previous year in light of the above mentioned information.
Since the New York Yankees wore a style of road jersey in 1930 that featured YANKEES across the front, uniforms for the 1931 season would have to have been ordered as the NEW YORK variation or have the lettering changed, or a combination of both. This too was addressed in my original letter.
In the plates above, I have shown that there are at least two different road jerseys worn by Babe Ruth in 1931, neither of which I consider to be the offered jersey in question nor the jersey Ruth was wearing when he hit his home run in Game 3 of the 1932 World Series. I have also shown that there are at least two road jerseys worn by Ruth in 1932 that are not the jerseys from 1931. This means even if Ruth had three road jerseys for the 1932 season, one being a carry over and two being new, I feel it reasonable to exclude the 1931 offerings and the 1932 jersey in PLATE IV.
This leaves the offered jersey and it compares most favorably with the “Called Shot” jersey. An additional fact supporting the offered jersey is not a carry over from the 1931 season that could exist, but not seen in photographs, is that there are no signs of the word YANKEES on the front of the jersey having been replaced by the words NEW YORK.
The other thing I have shown and discussed is the placement of the starting letter “Y” with respect to application and how this appears to change from year to year. You will notice that this jersey compares both favorably with the “Called Shot” jersey and the jersey Ruth is wearing on April 27th 1933, and that this jersey is not consistent with other jerseys from the 1933 season. This leads me to believe that this jersey was worn by Ruth 1932 and 1933. This too would be consistent with the practice of using a jersey in a subsequent season. Another possibility to consider, is that if the Yankees ordered jerseys late in the 1932 season for World Series, which is not an uncommon thing for clubs to do, this set of jerseys would have been the least worn from 1932 and be in the best condition for a next seasons wear. This could also be a reason why it appears this shirt was worn in both 1932 and at least a portion of 1932.
The issue becomes then how to possibly exclude this offered jersey as being one manufactured in 1933 as this would clearly eliminate it from being the “Called Shot” jersey. In looking at jerseys manufactured by Spalding in 1933, no better year only specific example can be found than the 1933 National League All Star Game uniforms. These uniforms featured the words NATIONAL LEAGUE across the front are same gray stock body as the New York Yankee road uniforms. These one year, year specific jerseys feature a black Spalding manufacturers label as opposed to what is seen on this jersey. While not conclusive or definitive in its own right since earlier labels can be found in later jerseys, it does seem to support and is consistent what has been shown above.
This appears especially true with respect to the idea that the Yankees brought a jersey forward from the previous year as you should expect to see a uniform of Ruth from 1932 being worn in 1933. For reference with respect to the 1933 All Star Game uniforms, an example of Chuck Klein’s 1933 National League uniform can be seen on page 91 of Stephen Wong’s “Smithsonian Baseball: Inside the World’s Finest Private Collections.”
(Copy Enclosed).
It was my position almost three years ago that I could not find any reason to exclude this jersey as being the one Ruth wore when hit the famous and iconic “Called Shot” home run in the 1932 World Series. My efforts in this re-look have been on evaluating the opinions offered after mine, considering both them and new photographic information I have either been provided or obtained in the time since. This work has focused on determining what I feel is a likely population of jerseys and then physically and objectively trying to exclude them from being the “Called Shot” jersey. I have recently written for MEARS On-Line on the concept of exclusionary analysis as it related to Adirondack bats used by Stan Musial in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Exclusionary analysis is critical, especially in cases like this when the issue is to evaluate an item as being event or date specific.
Although I have not been able to evaluate the backs of all of these jerseys in any sufficient manner, this too has bearing on the value of exclusionary analysis. That being if you can exclude a jersey as part of known population on the basis of what is on the front of the jersey, then what is on the back is of no consequence since it can not be the same one as the “Called Shot” jersey. It is important to note while imagery analysis played a key role in this work, it in and of itself, is in my opinion, insufficient to make any sort of definitive claim, hence the need and requirement account for and to exclude other jerseys.
Based on my research and evaluation, my exclusionary analysis indicates to me:
1. That based on contemporary accounts and period images, the likely yearly population of Babe Ruth road jerseys is 2-3 and that one of these uniforms is likely to have been brought forward from a pervious season.
2. That the jersey worn by Babe Ruth when he hit the “Called Shot” home run is not one of the jerseys identified as being from 1931.
3. That the offered jersey and the one worn by Ruth on June 30th 1932 (PLATE IV) are not from 1931 nor are they the same jersey.
4. That the jersey from June 30th 1932 (PLATE IV) is not likely to be the “Called Shot” jersey based on the size/spatial relationship with respect to the lower button. The jersey from May 20th 1931 is not the offered jersey nor the “Called Shot” jersey based on factors such as “Y” button alignment and the construction of the letter “W”.
5. That the offered jersey was most likely manufactured in 1932 and used in 1932 and at least a portion of 1933 and that year specific 1933 National League All Star Game uniforms from 1933 have a different manufacturers label than is found in this jersey. That the trend of varying year to year “Y” lettering placement and font style also tend to support excluding this jersey from being from 1933 or 1934.
Likely questions from the current owner or future buyer:
Q: Is it possible that the “Called Shot” jersey was actually a one of the 1930 jerseys with a YANKEES to NEW YORK change since you only have shown two different jerseys from 1931 when your population states 2-3 and you have stated that you believe that the Yankees brought a uniform forward?
A: Possible, but not likely in that it would have had to been a jersey that was carried over for a second time. Given this, the jersey would then already have had 2 full seasons of wear. As such, in my opinion, it does not seem like the best candidate given the likely reason was cost savings. By this I mean if you are going to try to get another year’s wear out of jersey, why pick one with two years use as opposed to one.
Q: Couldn’t the “Called Shot” jersey be a different one other than this jersey and one that does not appear in the images or plates you provided?
A: Possible but not likely because for this to happen it means that the jersey population would then have to be expanded to four (4) road jerseys since I have excluded the two pictured 1931 jerseys and the other 1932 jersey that is not from 1931. If four (4) were the normal Yankee ordering/inventory convention, then you should also expect this frequency to show up in period images in the form of additional uniform variations within a given year. I did not find that it does. It would also have mean that the “Called Shot” jersey is an unidentified jersey from 1931, brought forward, but sharing none of the “Y” characteristics as either of the two pictured 1931 jerseys, only one of which could be a 1930 carry over.
Q: Couldn’t this jersey be a 1933 jersey not pictured and thus not be the “Called Shot” jersey?
A: Possible, but then at the same time we should expect it to look more similar to the other 1933 jerseys and very likely have a Spalding manufacturers as seen in the 1933 National League All Star jerseys. Also we have seen in PLATE XI that there is at least one 1933 Ruth jersey with the same stem to total length ratio for the letter “Y” as the other 1933 Yankees jerseys.
Q: Couldn’t this black Spalding manufacturers label have been a special one used only for these special uniforms and thus have no bearing on other years?
A: No because there are examples of this style tag seen in non-special event jerseys after 1933. They include:
1. 1935 Boston Red Sox Road Jersey; Max Bishop, Leland’s lot # 611 March 1999.
2. 1935 New York Giants Road Jersey; Al Stout; Richard Wolffer’s lot # 713 February 1993.
Q: How do you explain the original provenance for this jersey offered by Grey Flannel as lot # 491 in the November 1999 Auction that places it as being from 1930 and obtained after spring training in 1931?
A: Provenance must be both reasonable and verifiable. In this case, the story may have been reasonable, but it is no more verifiable today than it would have been in 1999. For this to have been the case, this jersey would have to have had YANKEES originally on the front and then replaced NEW YORK given the style of road jerseys worn by the New York Yankees in 1930. This jersey shows no signs of this.
Q: Did you base your research and findings only on images provided by the current owner?
A: No, a complete listing of sources and references are contained as a separate enclosure.
Opinion:
Based on my re-look this uniform as detailed above, it is my opinion that this jersey is not only possibly the one Babe Ruth wore when he hit the “Called Shot” home run in the 1932 World Series, but is most likely the one in the same given what I feel has been a reasonable and objective exclusion of other reasonable and verifiable possibilities with respect to jerseys that may exist by both number and style. I also believe that this jersey represents the carry over example to the 1933 season.
While I was paid for my efforts and evaluation of this uniform, that figure had nothing to do with the current or potential value of this jersey nor will I receive any additional monies should the uniform sell in the future. I do not nor have I ever had any financial interest in this item nor have I ever bought or sold any item from or to the current owner of this jersey.
I was compensated for my efforts and travel/mileage expenses in accordance with the established Federal GSA mileage rates and for tolls between the National Capital Region and Newark Jersey/and return. The total fee represented an actual cost of my time as compared to my billable rate in the private sector since I had to perform this work during a period of time that I normally reserve for my private business.
The fee was paid upfront before any work was performed and as such, was not conditional on my findings and opinion. I retired from the Army on 1 October 2007 so none of my time or effort was at government expense.
David W. Grob
LTC(R), USA Retired
MEARS
Enclosures:
-Exhibit Color Plates I-XII
-Exclusionary Population Diagrams
-My Original Opinion from April 2005
-Letters of Opinion from Messer’s Messer’s Heffner, Vari, Russek, Imperato, DeMattio, Coppola, Lampson.
-E-mail from Mark Okkonen to Richard Russek dated 4/8/05
-Copy of article from the Syracuse Herald dated January 19th 1929 (cost of bats)
-Copy of article from the Syracuse Herald dated March 15th 1930 (number and cost of uniforms)
-Copy of page 91 of Stephen Wong’s “Smithsonian Baseball: Inside the World’s Finest Private Collections.”
-Copy of Reference List (Note: I have retained copies of the photographs provided by Dr. Angrist. In addition, all other references are on hand in my personal reference library)
Subject: Exclusionary Population Charts
An analytical tool that any Military Intelligence Officer would be familiar with is one known as a Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) Chart. Charts like this are used to track an enemy’s strength for items such as tanks, fighter aircraft, artillery tubes or any other number of things. The way it is used is simple. The Intelligence Officer prepares a chart showing the enemy’s current Order of Battle (OB). The OB identifies various systems or weapons by type and number. As BDA reports come in, the Intelligence Officer tracks what has been destroyed. This is used in seeing and understanding an enemy’s capabilities over time.
For this project, I established such charts using as my OB the concept that in years 1931-1934, the New York Yankees ordered two new jerseys and brought one forward for a total of three. This was done in order to ensure I could not be accused of “creating” a low population. With respect to my peers in this industry, I am probably one of the few or only one who may feel three is the right number to use as opposed two. However given the historical significance of the “Called Shot” jersey, I felt it was the only reasonable and responsible thing to do. The other thing to consider, is how to exclude the offered jersey from being from a year that would eliminate it from being the “Called Shot” jersey. I have prepared exclusionary charts for both populations of two and three jerseys per year. I also formed the following assumptions for this analytical effort:
1. A jersey would only be carried over one year for a full time or regular player based on wear and use that accumulates over a season.
2. That new jerseys from each year would somehow be different than the previous season in some manner with respect to material, construction, style of numerals/lettering and or their placement on the garment or some other. This is based on the human factor with respect to both manufacturer and assembly construction.
3. That these differences would be discernable in period images.
With respect to assumptions, they have to hold true and must be based on some fact that can be seen and or demonstrated throughout the observations and analysis. They can not be partially consistent or conveniently applied. If they relate directly to another assumption, if and when one is proven wrong, the entire assumption thread must be addressed.
Analysis of a Three (3) Jersey Per Year Population Set
For 1931: I partially eliminated the offered jersey from these three because:
– It is not the resewn carry over from 1931 because it shows no sign of restoration and this would also go against the assumption that jerseys are carried over for two seasons. The two jerseys from 1931 are two different jerseys and neither of them is either the offered jersey or the “Called Shot” jersey.
For 1932: I eliminated two of the three jerseys from being the offered jersey and the “Called Shot” jerseys because:
– We can see that neither of the identified 1931 jerseys is either the offered jersey or the “Called Shot” jersey. We also know that neither of these jerseys is the other 1932 Babe Ruth that has been identified. This does leave, the very remote, but real numeric possibility that one of the new 1931 jerseys was brought forward and has remained unidentified in any known and available image. I discounted this possibility because if either of the 1931 new jerseys was brought forward and became the “Called Shot” jersey in1932, it would should share the same characteristics as the offered jersey, and it would have to also be a different jersey than the other 1932 Ruth jersey pictured. This is in keeping with assumption # 2. To prove this, a person offering support for this theory would have to show what the differences are between this unknown/unseen 1931 jersey and the offered jersey and why the offered jersey is excluded from being the “Called Shot” jersey.
For 1933: I believe the offered jersey is also the carry over for 1932 based on what appears to be its appearance in both 1932 and 1933. The letter “Y” in the offered jersey shares characteristics with those from 1932 and not 1933. The offered jersey also does not feature the black 1933 Spalding manufacturers label.
For 1934: I excluded the offered jersey from being from 1934 because it does not share the characteristics of jerseys from 1933 and 1934. My original letter and opinion placed this jersey to being manufactured in 1931-1932. I know believe this jersey was manufactured for first time use in 1932. It is not one of the two pictured jerseys shown from 1934 and placing it as an option for one unidentified jersey from 1934 would go against assumption # 1.
Analysis of a Two (2) Jersey Per Year Population Set
For 1931: I eliminated the offered jersey from these this year because:
– It is not the resewn carry over from 1931 because it shows no sign of restoration and this would also go against the assumption that jerseys are carried over for two seasons. The two jerseys from 1931 are two different jerseys and neither of them is either the offered jersey or the “Called Shot” jersey. 1931 can mathematically be eliminated because it is neither of the two 1931 jerseys seen.
For 1932: The offered not jersey is not a carry over from 1931 and is clearly different than the other 1932 pictured from June 20th 1932. The June 20th 1932 Ruth road jersey is not the “Called Shot” jersey nor does the June 20th jersey appear in images from 1933.
For 1933: I believe the offered jersey is also the carry over for 1932 based on what appears to be its appearance in both 1932 and 1933. The letter “Y” in the offered jersey shares characteristics with those from 1932 and not 1933. The offered jersey also does not feature the black 1933 Spalding manufacturers label. The offered jersey is not the other Ruth jersey worn in Boston in 1933 because of the construction of the letter “Y” with respect to the size of the stem of that letter.
For 1934:I excluded the offered jersey from being from 1934 because it does not share the characteristics of jerseys from 1933 and 1934. It is not one of the two pictured jerseys shown from 1934 and placing it as an option for one unidentified jersey from 1934 would go against assumption # 1 and place the population sample outside of the two per year number.