Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Sunday, October 21, 2007

2007 Ballot Discussion

2007 (November 12)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

427 169.1 1982 Cal Ripken-SS
398 124.3 1982 Tony Gwynn-RF
342 109.5 1987 Mark McGwire-1B
307 102.4 1980 Harold Baines-RF/DH
280 105.4 1984 Tony Fernandez-SS
259 98.6 1987 Paul O’Neill-RF
272 87.8 1986 Jose Canseco-RF/DH
267 85.1 1986 Bobby Bonilla-3B/RF
253 82.3 1986 Wally Joyner-1B
242 83.1 1987 Ken Caminiti-3B (2004)
205 94.2 1987 David Cone-P*
207 79.2 1987 Devon White-CF
224 72.0 1984 Eric Davis-CF
174 64.6 1988 Jay Buhner-RF
168 53.7 1989 Dante Bichette-RF/LF
137 51.6 1986 Stan Javier-RF/CF
147 47.9 1986 Dave Martinez-CF/RF
147 46.1 1987 Dave Magadan-3B/1B
124 58.0 1990 Kevin Tapani-P
131 45.6 1991 Bernard Gilkey-LF
130 41.7 1990 Darryl Hamilton-CF
112 47.7 1989 Ken Hill-P
111 44.3 1992 Scott Brosius-3B
116 42.4 1989 Charlie Hayes-3B
102 49.9 1986 Bobby Witt-P
129 34.6 1991 Dean Palmer-3B*

Players Passing Away 11/05 to 10/06
HoMers
Age Elected

Candidates
Age Eligible

95 1948 Elden Auker-P
94 1957 Buck O’Neil-1B
91——- Rod Dedeaux-college coach
87 1959 Billy Johnson-3B
86——- Curt Gowdy-broadcaster
78 1969 Jim Lemon-RF/LF
78 1971 Vic Power-1B
78——- Dick Wagner-GM
70 1978 Moe Drabowsky-RP
67 1979 Johnny Callison-RF
64 1984 Paul Lindblad-RP
61 1994 Joe Niekro-P
45 2001 Kirby Puckett-CF

 

 

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 21, 2007 at 07:44 PM | 339 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 4 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4
   301. sunnyday2 Posted: November 10, 2007 at 05:38 PM (#2611262)
I think that's a double standard. Whatever the value of X is in X%, we will have elected guys with less. I mean we're not going to set X at 25-30 and yet we've done that. So I dunno. The standard is X% of ML players, not whomever X% of the voters like. That won't move more than a fraction of a fraction, in other words that is a consistent standard.
   302. Chris Cobb Posted: November 10, 2007 at 05:51 PM (#2611269)
By contrast, if we switched to the actual Hall's approach at this point--do X% of voters think this guy meets our standard? with no floor or ceiling for the number of electees--we'll be able to maintain this level ad infinitum.

We, collectively, are not enough in agreement about what the standard is (or should be) to go to a system like this without running the risk of lots of big mistakes. We're much better off concluding that our standard is "the top 3 players eligible every year, given 30 major league teams." I agree that we wouldn't maintain a perfectly even in-out line: in some years a dearth of new candidates might require the election of someone just a little bit below the standard, while in other years amply qualified players would have to wait a year or two for election even though everyone knows they are amply deserving. However, by accepting these small variations around the "in-out line," where the differences between the weakest players elected and the strongest players not elected are very small anyway and always subject to debate, we protect ourselves against the danger of larger errors to which the Hall of Fame system is subject.

And how would we ever figure out what X% ought to equal other than by trial and error over the years?

Perpetual eligibility would also make ballot construction under these conditions difficult. Wouldn't I be voting for every player in my personal Hall of Merit but not in the real Hall of Merit every year?
   303. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 10, 2007 at 05:56 PM (#2611271)
I have been convinced that the validity of the project is not tied with continuing on their pace but in getting to a point of equivalency and then going our oen way using that pont as our basis for future endeavours as opposed to contuining to follow them as our point for future endeavours.
Being that the case, after the 2008 elections (both ours and theirs), we should do a full count, and if, as it seems, we are off by a few (less than 5), I think we should run a final backlog clear election to make our numbers match.

And then - when 2009 rolls around the Hall of Merit is an independant institution.


Yeah, that's what I'm talking about too. Then we're just bringing Joe's 2003 point to the current moment and going onward from there.
   304. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 10, 2007 at 05:58 PM (#2611274)
Wouldn't I be voting for every player in my personal Hall of Merit but not in the real Hall of Merit every year?


Yes...isn't that what we all do, and would continue to do no matter what system we implement?
   305. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 10, 2007 at 10:24 PM (#2611387)
The other thing - and if this wasn't clear in #291 - if we start electing like the Coop - our Hall loses it's meaning. All of the sudden we also get tougher for modern guys, which makes zero sense and is completely against our initial mission. We're no longer historically comparable.


I don't understand why the modern guys would be hurt. They might not get in as fast, but they would eventually get in.

Again, I'm not really concerned about matching the HOF 100% in numbers. But if we get to a point that we have 50 more than Cooperstown with no means to make our numbers more in line, then we're not following the setup that I signed up for.
   306. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 10, 2007 at 10:29 PM (#2611389)
As for following the Coop's method of voting, ixnay on that.
   307. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 10, 2007 at 10:52 PM (#2611404)
I don't understand why the modern guys would be hurt. They might not get in as fast, but they would eventually get in.

I think this is really a question about the backloggers only. The Charley Joneses had 100 years AND were consistently in elections where the rate of election was around 1.0-1.5% of the historical population.

If the number of slots goes down correspondent with the HOF's retrenchments, then Tim Raines or Edgar Martinez, say, are facing elections where the slots they compete for would represent a slightly smaller percentage of the historical population, and these backloggers would have fewer elections in which to face those odds.

So we would be inconsistent with our own established standard...which is simply the best 1.0-1.5% of all players. Now we might be going for the best 1.0-1.25% of players. Small, seemingly insignificant, but different than the established standard.

I think that's the rub, or at least that's why I changed upon reading Chris Cobb's message a few days ago.
   308. Paul Wendt Posted: November 11, 2007 at 12:02 AM (#2611435)
>>>
277. rawagman Posted: November 09, 2007 at 01:48 PM (#2610548)
But we still haven't addressed my original question - do we count Rose and Jackson as part of our makeup of their number, or are they outside the fold?
278. DL from MN Posted: November 09, 2007 at 02:04 PM (#2610566)
I vote no, they are outside, they aren't eligible for the HoF and they would be elected if eligible.
279. jimd Posted: November 09, 2007 at 02:29 PM (#2610592)
I vote no, they are outside, they aren't eligible for the HoF and they would be elected if eligible.

Agreed. I also wouldn't count McGraw as a HOF player until he gets elected by us, anymore than I'd count Huggins or Comiskey or any other HOF manager/pioneer/exec.
<<<

FWIW, I agree with jimd on McGraw if the precise HOF player count becomes relevant because there is decision to match the HOF precisely. But I believe that precise matching is a will o' the wisp. Count George Wright, Spalding, and Cummings as HOF players? Count Pearce, Start, Pike, Barnes, White, and McVey as HOM players? What about Moore? It seems reasonable to me that the HOF has never considered him as it has never considered Pete Rose.
   309. sunnyday2 Posted: November 11, 2007 at 01:29 AM (#2611475)
>I think this is really a question about the backloggers only.

No it most certainly is not. If the BBWAA in all its wisdom decides to elect 1 player in the next 5 years...

Well, let me put it this way. As my mother used to say, if all of your friends decided to jump off a cliff, would you want to do that, too?
   310. Chris Cobb Posted: November 11, 2007 at 01:47 AM (#2611486)
But if we get to a point that we have 50 more than Cooperstown with no means to make our numbers more in line, then we're not following the setup that I signed up for.

Well, we'll elect our 50th post-2007 player in our 2024 election, and as we can safely guess, I think that the HoF will have elected, say, between 15 and 85 players between now and then, it's unlikely that we will see a 50 player differences between the HoM and the HoF any time before 2030.

I think we can safely postpone a reconsideration of the principles of our election rates for at least seven years, until we have elected 21 more players. Then we can see what way the wind is blowing in Cooperstown, and if we really care. A more pressing question is -- will we actually be able to continue successfully voting on an annual basis for the next seven years?

In most discussions about what happens next, continuity of practice seems favored by most of the electorate, so I would respectfully suggest that in the matter of election rates as in ballot design and as in eligibility rules for players, we stick with what we have.
   311. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 11, 2007 at 02:05 AM (#2611491)
I think we can safely postpone a reconsideration of the principles of our election rates for at least seven years, until we have elected 21 more players. Then we can see what way the wind is blowing in Cooperstown, and if we really care.


As long as we're not locked into a certain amount every year without any consideration of what the HOF is doing longterm, then I would have no problem with the post-2008 setup.
   312. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 12, 2007 at 03:50 PM (#2612102)
>I think this is really a question about the backloggers only.

No it most certainly is not. If the BBWAA in all its wisdom decides to elect 1 player in the next 5 years...

Well, let me put it this way. As my mother used to say, if all of your friends decided to jump off a cliff, would you want to do that, too?


I think we will generally agree with the BBWAA's selections. Not perfectly, but we're not going to whiff on Jeff Bagwell and neither are they. But they ONLY elect the biggies and don't do too much with their own backlog. And the Vets haven't been able to elect anyone for nearly a decade. Which means that the difference between HOF and HOM is really the backlog.
   313. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 12, 2007 at 04:08 PM (#2612120)
Um, Raines?
   314. rawagman Posted: November 12, 2007 at 04:25 PM (#2612141)
I have yet to understand why it is almost unanimously considered to be a forgone fact that the BBWAA will whiff on Raines. Someone please explain...
   315. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 12, 2007 at 04:35 PM (#2612149)
I have yet to understand why it is almost unanimously considered to be a forgone fact that the BBWAA will whiff on Raines. Someone please explain...


Many articles regarding Raines from voting members of the BBWAA suggest it, Ryan.
   316. ronw Posted: November 12, 2007 at 07:47 PM (#2612403)
We don't need an extra election for the Jackson/Rose issue.

Looking at our tallies through 2007, both the HOM and the HOF will be at 231 players. To achieve this tally, I removed John McGraw (per the suggestions above) and Sol White from my lists.

After the 2007 election, there will almost assuredly be 55 HOM-not-HOF players and 55 HOF-not-HOM players. Of course, we have Jackson and Rose among those 55.

In 2008, we will elect Raines and probably 2 non-HOFers, bringing our total to 234. If the HOF elects Raines, we will be 2 ahead out of the gate. (HOF-232, HOM - 234). If the HOF doesn't elect Raines, of course we will be 3 ahead. (HOF - 231, HOM - 234).

And, if we manage to elect John McGraw, he will simply be added to both totals, thus not affecting the HOM-HOF discrepancy amount.
   317. Howie Menckel Posted: November 12, 2007 at 08:09 PM (#2612428)
I also have it 55 vs 55, if we don't count McGraw (a tricky case).

So we agreed on 176 of the Hall of Famers, but we found 55 guys that we liked better than their weakest 55, one might say.
76 pct agreement on HOFers.

Did anyone expect that figure to be higher or lower when we first started? I think it seems about what we might have guessed.

Of the 55 castoffs, 4 finished in the top 20 in 2006 voting (Perez, Puckett, Rizzuto, Duffy). There were 10 more HOF/not HOM among the top 50 vote-getters.

I have these 28 HOFers with no HOM support in 2006: Bender Bottomley Chesbro Combs ACooper Cuyler Dandridge Day Evers RFerrell Hafey Haines Hooper Hoyt Hunter TJackson JJohnson GKelly Lindstrom Manush Marquard TMcCarthy Pennock Schalk Schoendienst Tinker LWaner Youngs

And these 3 HOFers with only one vote: Mazeroski Aparicio Kell
Lazzeri and HWilson got 2 votes
Gomez, Maranville, Chance, and Sutter got 3
SRice and Klein had 4
No HOFers got 5 votes

So of the 55 HOF/not HOM guys, 39 of them did not muster 5 votes in 2006, it appears.
   318. sunnyday2 Posted: November 13, 2007 at 01:53 AM (#2612795)
>more pressing question is -- will we actually be able to continue successfully voting on an annual basis for the next seven years?

I agree with that. This could easily fall apart.

>76 pct agreement on HOFers. Did anyone expect that figure to be higher or lower when we first started?

Excellent ?, except I don't remember what my expectation was...3/4 seems like a pretty good number, or a bad number in the sense that fully 1/4 of Cooperstown sucks. But in terms of expectations, 3 out of 4 sounds like the kind of thing one might have anticiapted. I might have thought we would endorse more of them, I can't imagine I really thought we would endorse less. IOW I'm thinking this is realistic but low end realistic, i.e. Cooperstown turns out to be about as bad as one might have imagined rather than "about" or "better" than one might have imagined, but within a fairly predictable range.
   319. jimd Posted: November 15, 2007 at 02:21 AM (#2615212)
76 pct agreement on HOFers

We endorsed 90% of the BBWAA selections and 64% of the VC selections.

However only 70% of the BBWAA selections qualify as front-loggers (top half of the HOM, roughly speaking), so if you try to use their selections as a proxy for a small-hall, the "miss" rate is not much better than the VC, and is worse than the overall 76% rate. Basically, you wind up doing this exercise again to weed out the Terrys and Medwicks and Boudreaus and Suttons from a half-sized Hall.
   320. jimd Posted: November 15, 2007 at 02:24 AM (#2615214)
from a half-sized Hall to make room for the top NeL and 19thC guys.
   321. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 15, 2007 at 04:40 AM (#2615319)
I have Boudreau right around the HoM median, he's hardly one of the first guys I'd mention for elimination...
   322. jimd Posted: November 15, 2007 at 08:38 PM (#2616093)
I have him around there also, but he wasn't greeted enthusiastically by the HOM voters around 1957-58, finishing behind Beckwith, Herman, and Hack. He's one of those guys that most agreed should be on the ballot (about 70%), but few (< 10%) thought was the best candidate available. Probably a serious candidate for top half that doesn't make it.
   323. Mike Green Posted: November 15, 2007 at 08:48 PM (#2616104)
"Um, Raines?"

And Santo, (likely) Blyleven, and Whitaker. The BBWAA might not choose Trammell and Larkin. The BBWAA also whiffed on Arky Vaughan, but the VC picked them up.
   324. DL from MN Posted: November 15, 2007 at 11:21 PM (#2616340)
Technically the BBWAA haven't whiffed on Bert Blyleven, yet. He's slowly climbing toward the threshold.

The biggest oversight of the HoF (in terms of talent and years overlooked) is Bill Dahlen. Of the modern players I'd say Blyleven, Raines and Grich are the best candidates not elected.
   325. jimd Posted: November 16, 2007 at 12:23 AM (#2616518)
The BBWAA also whiffed on Arky Vaughan, but the VC picked them up.

Johnny Mize. Sam Crawford.

The biggest oversight of the HoF (in terms of talent and years overlooked) is Bill Dahlen.

Deacon White has a case for that title.
   326. OCF Posted: November 16, 2007 at 12:31 AM (#2616539)
Raines, of course, is just now becoming eligible. We don't know what the BBWAA is going to do with him - and if there were ever a time for making our opinions known, this would seem to be a good one.
   327. sunnyday2 Posted: November 16, 2007 at 12:33 AM (#2616546)
Vaughan, Crawford and Mize are all pretty egregious, hard to say which is the most so. Dahlen and White would be a different category since the BBWAA never really had the opportunity or the call to elect them.

It is equally egregious that guys like Grich and Trammell couldn't even get to 5 percent but not as egregious that they weren't elected.
   328. Paul Wendt Posted: November 17, 2007 at 08:45 PM (#2618568)
Dahlen and White would be a different category since the BBWAA never really had the opportunity or the call to elect them.

Dahlen was "only" a league-average batter in the 1900s, his thirties, but he was a highly regarded fielder on a famous team (or two, but only one still famous in the 1930s), lavishly praised by McGraw. He played 9-1/2 seasons, compare merely 8-1/2 in the 1890s, his twenties. He was two years older than Willie Keeler but played (~1340 games) a bit more than Keeler (~1280) in the aughts. Anyway, nothing prevented the regular BBWAA from voting for him if he had played more in the 1890s. See Cy Young.

The BBWAA didn't elect Young, Keeler, Dahlen or Davis but given the support for Young and Keeler it is fair to say that they overlooked Dahlen and Davis.

--
By the way, on their old memorial plaques Young and Keeler wear Cleveland and Baltimore caps (1890s) but the HOF now assigns them to "primary teams" Boston Red Sox and New York Highlanders!
   329. Paul Wendt Posted: November 17, 2007 at 08:56 PM (#2618577)
55 is high. I might have guessed 50, a convenient round number, but I didn't know Cooperstown would induct 17 "Negro Leaguers" last year. I would have guessed that this project would replace 30-something rather than 50-something "regular" HOFers (players mainly in organized baseball, clearly honored as players).
   330. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 18, 2007 at 12:27 AM (#2618764)
By the way, on their old memorial plaques Young and Keeler wear Cleveland and Baltimore caps (1890s) but the HOF now assigns them to "primary teams" Boston Red Sox and New York Highlanders!


I guess their (wrongheaded) thinking is that the Spiders and Orioles are defunct teams.
   331. jimd Posted: November 19, 2007 at 10:23 PM (#2620473)
The BBWAA didn't elect Young, Keeler, Dahlen or Davis but given the support for Young and Keeler it is fair to say that they overlooked Dahlen and Davis.

The BBWAA did elect Young (1937) and Keeler (1939).

If the HOM voters had been following the BBWAA elections (same number elected, same eligibility rules), we probably would have elected the same players 1936-42 (not necessarily in the same order) with two exceptions. In 1939 we most likely would have elected Crawford and Davis instead of Sisler and Keeler.
   332. Paul Wendt Posted: November 20, 2007 at 05:12 PM (#2621221)
Yes, I meant that the BBWAA didn't elect any of the four in either of its two elections in 1936 --when its purview was all time. But the support for Young and Keeler shows that Davis and Dahlen were not recognized as all-time stars. It is not plausible to me that many supporters of D or D left him off both ballots because unsure which was the better place to vote for him.

(same number elected, same eligibility rules)

Hamilton, Delahanty, Nichols, Burkett ineligible or trailing Crawford and Davis in the poll?

Do you suppose that eligiblity was clear after the first year? So that Anson, O'Rourke, Radbourn, Clarkson were ineligible? Young, Keeler, Davis, Dahlen eligible? Delahanty and Nichols? --more likely than Hamilton or Burkett to attract support, I suppose.
   333. jimd Posted: November 20, 2007 at 08:43 PM (#2621569)
I ran through a little exercise recently, projecting the HOF elections (BBWAA, VC, and NeL) from the HOM membership, using the HOF eligibility as best as I could figure it out. (I'm no expert on that.)

Do you suppose that eligiblity was clear after the first year?

I doubt it. There's the strict def'n of eligibility (which apparently wasn't very clear either from your questions; I always understood it to be that 1900 was the dividing line, with ambiguity about what exactly that meant for the straddlers), and the general interpretation of that eligibility (which might be discernible from the votes). Dahlen and Davis SHOULD have been just as eligible as Keeler and Young in the eyes of the BBWAA; whether they actually were or not may have depended on memories, perceptions, etc.

Hamilton, Delahanty, Nichols, Burkett strike me as somewhat different, guys who were clearly 1890's but who played a little bit in the next decade (Delahanty might have joined the BBWAA group but for Niagara Falls). Just assuming that the BBWAA might have felt the same.

Anson, O'Rourke, Radbourn, Clarkson were ineligible?

Yes. ABC Delahanty and Nichols would have been the 5 VC picks for 1937,1939. O'Rourke and Clarkson (plus Dahlen, Hamilton, Burkett, and others) part of the VC class of 1945.

If there's any interest, I'll publish the results.
   334. jimd Posted: November 20, 2007 at 09:02 PM (#2621606)
Example:

1936-46:

BBWAA: 14
Common: Cobb Ruth Wagner Mathewson WJohnson Lajoie
Common: Speaker Young Alexander ECollins Gehrig Hornsby
HOF: Sisler Keeler
HOM: Crawford Davis

VC: 25
Common: Anson Brouthers Delahanty O'Rourke Clarke Kelly
Common: Ewing GWright Radbourn Walsh Plank Burkett
HOF: Spalding Bresnahan JCollins Jennings DUFFY CHANCE CHESBRO
HOF: EVERS Griffith TMCCARTHY McGinnity TINKER Waddell
HOM: Nichols Connor WHITE HINES DAHLEN Hamilton Clarkson
HOM: GORE BARNES Ward Keefe GLASSCOCK Rusie

Common: are players that both groups elected during the same time-period.
HOF: and HOM: indicate the players elected by each group that differ from the other.
DUFFY: upper-case indicate players not yet elected by the other group as of 2007.
Spalding: regular-case indicate players elected later by the other group.

What I'm saying here is that if we were to elect the HOMerit on the same schedule as the HOFame members were elected, the Common group are the players that we most likely would have also elected, and the HOM: players are the one we probably would have substituted for the HOF: players. This is based on my reading of our election results; it is not my personal choices (unless that has biased my reading of our election results ;-).
   335. sunnyday2 Posted: November 20, 2007 at 09:29 PM (#2621668)
A small group of us once did an exercise on the SABR forum (the what?) based on the assumption that:

• the BBWAA elected 5 20th century players in 1936
• and 5 19th century players in 1936
• and then elected "somebody" each year thereafter. We elected either the same number as the BBWAA or "1," whichever was larger.
• Then we assumed that as a result of the above a VC would never have been created (we continued electing 19 and 20C players after 1936)

The result was a small hall just slightly larger than what the BBWAA has elected over the years. Someday I will look at how our judgment might have differed from the HoM. Since the HoM is bigger, I wonder if we elected anybody the HoM did not? That would be the real measure of a "difference." Obviously the HoM has elected a lot of players "we" didn't--probably a lot of them being 19C guys. Paul Wendt might have the results more handy than I do.

Actually I am guessing that "we" elected Dizzy Dean and maybe Hugh Duffy....
   336. Paul Wendt Posted: November 22, 2007 at 04:04 AM (#2623160)
• the BBWAA elected 5 20th century players in 1936
• and 5 19th century players in 1936


A BBWAA subgroup elected no old timers in 1936 and authority to elect old timers passed to a special committee outside the BBWAA. A variety of "players" as we say today and others were inducted together in 1939, part of the museum's grand opening and baseball's centennial celebration. Perhaps that too may fairly be called a "first class" of HOFers but it was elected and selected over three years.
   337. Paul Wendt Posted: November 22, 2007 at 05:25 AM (#2623190)
Paul Wendt might have the results more handy than I do.

He has some Hardware or Software compatibility problem.
My old desktop has a USB-I port (port?). I have USB drives, two different brands, that I use in the USB-II drives on this portable computer and others. The manufacturers say they work with USB-I hardware, too, but the old desktop does not recognize either one. It has no CD-writer and only a 56K phone modem. (I can look up what Marc suggests.) Can anyone recommend a likely best way to get all the data out?

Marc,
Can you visit John Harvard's Brew House [at SABR Forums]
(I can.) If so, can you go anywhere else such as "Hall of Fame" using the menu at bottom of page or using "Conferences" at top of page? I get page not found (not server not found).
   338. sunnyday2 Posted: November 22, 2007 at 07:36 AM (#2623224)
Paul,

Yea but none of the links at the bottom works.
Page 4 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Don Malcolm
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6922 seconds
68 querie(s) executed