Burdick Award finalists

[GaryPassamonte]

The finalists should be no surprise. The HOF has a special expertise for getting it wrong.

[jason.1969]

Nominations this first year were limited to living persons, meaning Bob Lemke would not have been eligible. Perhaps that's a criterion that will change in the future. Were the Committee to consider deceased contributors, I have to imagine Jefferson Burdick himself would have been the winner, seeing as he is the award's namesake.

With luck, our Baseball Cards Research Committee will continue this award many years into the future and be able to add to the list of winners. However, we are thrilled to have Mike Aronstein as our inaugural recipient and would happily put his qualifications "mano a mano" up against anyone's past or present.

[RCMcKenzie]

Congratulations...(not my card)

[GaryPassamonte]

Why would the nominees be limited to living persons? That criterion eliminates worthy candidates. I would think that the earliest card researchers and cataloguers would have priority. The HOF did the same thing with 19th century players. Many of the pioneers of the game were not seriously researched and considered, while more "modern" candidates were elected. I just believe the pioneers should be considered first or they run the risk of being pushed aside and forgotten. The HOF doesn't like dead inductees. It makes for a smaller party. Reference the 2013 election. I realize we may be talking apples and oranges here, however I am partial to taking care of the pioneers first. Also, I realize this is a SABR project, not a HOF award. My previous post expressed my dissatisfaction with the HOF. Sometimes I need to vent.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Why would the nominees be limited to living persons? That criterion eliminates worthy candidates. I would think that the earliest card researchers and cataloguers would have priority. The HOF did the same thing with 19th century players. Many of the pioneers of the game were not seriously researched and considered, while more "modern" candidates were elected. I just believe the pioneers should be considered first or they run the risk of being pushed aside and forgotten. The HOF doesn't like dead inductees. It makes for a smaller party. Reference the 2013 election. I realize we may be talking apples and oranges here, however I am partial to taking care of the pioneers first. Also, I realize this is a SABR project, not a HOF award. My previous post expressed my dissatisfaction with the HOF. Sometimes I need to vent.

Most SABR award winners have been for living people. As a person who has been a member of SABR for most of the past 35 years I understand the logic of keeping this award to the same principle as the other SABR awards.

Maybe in this case there can be a founders/developers category just as there should be a founders category for some of the original researchers.

Then people such as Woody Gelman, Frank Nagy, Bob Lemke etc. can be honored as well as the living.

Rich

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Then people such as Woody Gelman, Frank Nagy, Bob Lemke etc. can be honored as well as the living.



Rich

That’s a great suggestion, Rich, and one I’ll take back to the committee. BTW, don’t forget Sy Berger!

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

That’s a great suggestion, Rich, and one I’ll take back to the committee. BTW, don’t forget Sy Berger!

That's a gimme for that category -- next time I'll think of more names before I type

Rich

[GaryPassamonte]

Rich- I, too, have been a SABR member for a long time, over 25 years. I just don't understand what the logic is for only considering living persons? Is the answer obvious?

[oldjudge]

Of those up for the award I thought Keith was the most deserving. He is both a great collector and a student of the hobby. He has written some incredibly insightful articles on a variety of sets, and has always been free to share his knowledge.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Rich- I, too, have been a SABR member for a long time, over 25 years. I just don't understand what the logic is for only considering living persons? Is the answer obvious?

Gary:

I have never been in any sort of SABR management but I think the answer is obvious. In the earlier days of SABR a high percentage of members attended the conventions and you wanted to honor those actually doing the work.

Now the percent of attendees may be 10 percent of total membership and as such, it's a little different BUT as has been stated about the HOF honoring the long gone retired players -- how do you honor a person who is no longer living. So, you honor those who are still amongst us. But, as we have aged and as the percent of members attending has decreased, I don't have a real issue with giving awards to people who have passed.