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

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

2007 BBTF Veterans Committee Player Results: Santo, Torre and Gordon Are Our Picks!

Cub fan-favorite Ron Santo just missed being voted unanimously by the collective BBTF community with a terrific 99% of the vote.

Star catcher and famed manager Joe Torre scored a healthy 88% from our voters

Last but not least, Yankee and Cleveland great Joe Gordon earned an impressive 79% of the vote from our group.

Legendary NeL and AL outfielder Minnie Minoso just missed our brand of immortality with a strong 73%.

As for HoM voters, they selected all four players above, plus powerful and controversial slugger Dick Allen with a strong 82% of the vote (Santo was a unanimous choice among that group).

Thanks to all for participating!

BBTF Group

RK   LY  Player          PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1  n/e  Ron Santo        47   47   9  2  3  9  6  6  4  6  2                  
 2  n/e  Joe Torre        42   42   1  2  2  2  9  7  6  5  3  5               
 3  n/e  Joe Gordon       38   38   1  9 12  8  5     2     1                  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4  n/e  Minnie Minoso    35   35      2  8 10  6  6  3                        
 5  n/e  Dick Allen       32   32  25  3     2  1  1                           
 6  n/e  Wes Ferrell      28   28   5  9  6  5  1  1        1                  
 7  n/e  Ken Boyer        25   25   4  8  6     3     3  1                     
 8  n/e  Don Newcombe     13   13      1     1  2  2  4  2     1               
 9  n/e  Bobby Bonds      12   12   1  6        1  2     1  1                  
10  n/e  Gil Hodges       10   10   1  3  2  2  1     1                        
11  n/e  Luis Tiant        9    9         1     1     1  1  5                  
12  n/e  Thurman Munson    8    8            1  2  2  1  1     1               
13  n/e  Carl Mays         7    7         2  1  2  2                           
14T n/e  Curt Flood        6    6   1     1  1        3                        
14T n/e  Lefty O'Doul      6    6      1        2  2  1                        
16  n/e  Jim Kaat          5    5         1  1  1  2                           
17T n/e  Tony Oliva        4    4         1  1     1     1                     
17T n/e  Mickey Vernon     4    4               1        1  1  1               
19  n/e  Cecil Travis      3    3            1                 2               
20T n/e  Al Oliver         2    2                     1     1                  
20T n/e  Vada Pinson       2    2                        2                     
22T n/e  Sparky Lyle       1    1                  1                           
22T n/e  Roger Maris       1    1         1                                    
No Votes: Rocky Colavito(n/e), Mickey Lolich(n/e), Marty Marion(n/e), Maury Wills(n/e).
Ballots Cast: 48

Hall of Merit Group

RK   LY  Player          PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1  n/e  Ron Santo        34   34   5  2  1  5  4  5  4  6  2                  
 2  n/e  Joe Torre        32   32   1     2  2  5  5  4  5  3  5               
3T  n/e  Dick Allen       28   28  23  2     1  1  1                           
3T  n/e  Joe Gordon       28   28      6  7  7  5     2     1                  
 5  n/e  Minnie Minoso    27   27      1  5  6  6  6  3                        
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6T  n/e  Ken Boyer        21   21   2  8  6     2     3                        
6T  n/e  Wes Ferrell      21   21   2  6  6  5  1  1                           
 8  n/e  Bobby Bonds      11   11   1  6           2     1  1                  
 9  n/e  Don Newcombe     10   10      1     1  1  2  2  2     1               
10T n/e  Gil Hodges        7    7      1  2  2  1     1                        
10T n/e  Thurman Munson    7    7            1  1  2  1  1     1               
10T n/e  Luis Tiant        7    7         1           1     5                  
13  n/e  Carl Mays         6    6         1  1  2  2                           
14  n/e  Jim Kaat          4    4         1  1  1  1                           
15T n/e  Lefty O'Doul      3    3               1  1  1                        
15T n/e  Mickey Vernon     3    3               1        1     1               
17T n/e  Curt Flood        2    2         1           1                        
17T n/e  Tony Oliva        2    2                  1     1                     
17T n/e  Al Oliver         2    2                     1     1                  
17T n/e  Vada Pinson       2    2                        2                     
17T n/e  Cecil Travis      2    2            1                 1               
No Votes: Rocky Colavito(n/e), Mickey Lolich(n/e), Sparky Lyle(n/e),
Marty Marion(n/e), Roger Maris(n/e), Maury Wills(n/e).
Ballots Cast: 34
John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 27, 2007 at 01:17 AM | 65 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.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 27, 2007 at 02:03 AM (#2303678)
Congratulations to Ron and the two Joes!
   2. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: February 27, 2007 at 02:17 AM (#2303682)
I'm surprised HoM voters didn't pick Ferrell, since they did elect him to the HoM itself.
   3. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 27, 2007 at 02:35 AM (#2303687)
Obviously, I'm as big an Alex Gordon fans as there is, but I think its a tad bit premature to start voting him into the Hall of Merit.
   4. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 27, 2007 at 03:41 AM (#2303699)
"I'm surprised HoM voters didn't pick Ferrell, since they did elect him to the HoM itself."


The ballot structure is quite different.

Ferrell didn't get elected until 1964 after 21 years on the ballot. Even the year he was elected only 31 of the 48 voters had him in their top 15.
   5. Chris Fluit Posted: February 27, 2007 at 03:50 AM (#2303701)
Ken Boyer is another HoM inductee who just missed out.
   6. sunnyday2 Posted: February 27, 2007 at 04:17 AM (#2303710)
Tony Oliva--2 votes, 17th place. When the actual VC votes, he will probably be in 3rd place, while Hodges will probably go from 10th (here) to 2nd. Allen, Gordon and Minoso will not be even close to getting elected.
   7. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 27, 2007 at 04:29 AM (#2303715)
Only four BBTF guys voted for Allen, while 28 of 34 HOM guys did. Fascinating. Does this show that HOM voters are much less likely to care about personality? Probably, but I wonder what exactly it means? Is it something that we have found out through more research? Is it a bias that those of us who are long time voters have and use to differentiate ourselves? Is there any level of group think in that?
   8. Mister High Standards Posted: February 27, 2007 at 04:29 AM (#2303716)
31 of the 48


in otherwords one third of the voters thought he wasn't close to a good candidate.
   9. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 27, 2007 at 04:36 AM (#2303720)
Maybe voters have PHOM that stretch beyond their top 15, therefore #8's characterization of Ferrell's election is very inaccurate. Currently my Personal HOM (the HOM if I were the lone voter) line rests at #12 (with two guys on my upcoming ballot who are very likely to be HOM), but I figure that everyone currently ranked higher than 22 will make my PHOM before the project is over. And I am one of the highest consensus guys we have. Therefore some of those 17 voters could either have had Ferrell as in their PHOM or in line to do so at any point in the next forty elections. Therefore, those voters would not have necessarily disagreed with Ferrell's election but instead simply preferred other candidates.

It's all in the voting system and the fact that only 34 of us voted in this election while there are 55-60 of us who are active voters (meaning those that vote in most every election). That Ferrell didn't reach 75% doesn't surprise me, nor does it surprise me that Boyer missed out as well.
   10. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 27, 2007 at 04:37 AM (#2303721)
Instead of 'maybe' that first word should be 'many'. My bad.
   11. BDC Posted: February 27, 2007 at 04:40 AM (#2303725)
Only four BBTF guys voted for Allen [...] Does this show that HOM voters are much less likely to care about personality?

As one of the ten non-HOM voters who left Allen off, I would say no, in my case. I actually don't buy the argument that Allen was such a big jerk that he helped his teams lose, or anything. I just have a much smaller Hall than either the Coop or the HOM. And yes, I have talked to therapists about this, but nothing seems to help.
   12. Chris Cobb Posted: February 27, 2007 at 04:43 AM (#2303726)
in otherwords one third of the voters thought he wasn't close to a good candidate.

Not at all. There are a lot of situations in which a voter might have felt it necessary to leave a player whom he thought was a good candidate off his ballot, particularly if the voter has significant disagreements with the HoM consensus, or if the ballot is quite deep in quality. For example, there are about 10 players whom I believe ought to be elected to the HoM who are currently not making my ballot. There are are another 25-30 players below that in my rankings who are only a little bit below the HoM in-out line who would by no means be unqualified or embarrassing choices.

The rank order balloting methods makes it untenable to assume that just because a players in on or off a voter's ballot the voter considers a player to be "a good candidate" or not. The HoM voting structure is just not a "yes-no" system, and it is much the better for it.

Some of the voters who didn't have Ferrell on their ballots probably thought he wasn't close to a good candidate, but the only way you could know for sure would be to check their comments on their decision not to put Ferrell on the ballot.
   13. Daryn Posted: February 27, 2007 at 04:51 AM (#2303729)
47 out of 48 is less than 98% of the vote. I only point this out because saying Santo got 99% of the vote makes it seem like there were close to a 100 voters.
   14. sunnyday2 Posted: February 27, 2007 at 05:08 AM (#2303731)
>I just have a much smaller Hall than either the Coop or the HOM

I think the HoM has conditioned the HoM voters (as differentiated from BBTF voters) toward a large Hall. That may account for Allen's results more than the personality factor.
   15. Brent Posted: February 27, 2007 at 05:34 AM (#2303735)
156 OPS+ in 7300 PA with at least some defensive contribution. Is there anyone with similar statistics that Cooperstown has excluded? (with the exception, of course, of Shoeless Joe)
   16. DCW3 Posted: February 27, 2007 at 09:11 AM (#2303762)
Mark McGwire...
   17. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 27, 2007 at 01:41 PM (#2303773)
There are are another 25-30 players below that in my rankings who are only a little bit below the HoM in-out line who would by no means be unqualified or embarrassing choices.

Correct. Ferrell and Boyer certainly would be more than acceptable choices, even though I personally left them off my ballot.

47 out of 48 is less than 98% of the vote. I only point this out because saying Santo got 99% of the vote makes it seem like there were close to a 100 voters.

It's a typo, Daryn. It should be 98%.

That may account for Allen's results more than the personality factor.

I think many of us from the Hall of Merit took into account the personality factor for both projects, but couldn't see any evidence that Allen hurt his team beyond what is indicated in his stats. If he did, it was negligible.
   18. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 27, 2007 at 03:29 PM (#2303816)
I think many of us from the Hall of Merit took into account the personality factor for both projects, but couldn't see any evidence that Allen hurt his team beyond what is indicated in his stats. If he did, it was negligible.

Or to state it another way that works for my particularly point of view. I queried _how much_ his personality hurt his teams, as in how many wins or runs. And there was little evidence we could find this out. Withou that information, I could not deduct negative personality runs from the runs in his performance record. And that's before accounting for the fact that even his personality record is not uniformly negative. Finally there's the question of precedent in the Hall of Fame for suboptimal character. All of which is non-definitive.

So while I wasn't there, and I haven't read too many firsthand accounts, as James has said, the stats linger on, and that's all I've got to work with until someone can figure out how many runs character is worth.
   19. sunnyday2 Posted: February 27, 2007 at 04:18 PM (#2303848)
Actually I'd say the HoF record for embraced sub-optimal character is pretty definitive. There are just a couple-three exceptions that prove the rule.
   20. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 27, 2007 at 04:35 PM (#2303855)
So while I wasn't there, and I haven't read too many firsthand accounts, as James has said, the stats linger on, and that's all I've got to work with until someone can figure out how many runs character is worth.

Right, Eric. It's not as if Allen was hated by all of his teammates, unlike others enshrined in the HOF for decades. Many thought and still think he was a nice guy and good friend.
   21. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 27, 2007 at 04:54 PM (#2303873)
I wanted to say something else that I forgot. I didn't feel it was fair to Dick Allen (or any player) to suddenly start subtracting for personality issues when I hadn't done it before for any other player. That is, to create a unique critieria designed to keep them out. I believe that BBWAA voters did this with him and with Albert Belle: that's one of a very few ways to reasonably explain why their vote totals were very, very low (Allen never reached 20%, Belle never reached 10%) compared to their level of achievement. I don't think this constitutes equal treatment and fairness to all players, so I couldn't justify doing it.
   22. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 27, 2007 at 05:02 PM (#2303884)
Only four BBTF guys voted for Allen [...] Does this show that HOM voters are much less likely to care about personality?

I dunno, I'm not a regular HOM voter, I pay almost no attention to personality, and I also voted for Allen. I think the problem with this vote was that there just weren't that many ballots cast to draw any conclusions about HOM voters vs non-HOM voters.
   23. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 27, 2007 at 05:46 PM (#2303919)
Andy, you're right, it was a small showing. There were many, many more for hte BBWAA ballot.
   24. DL from MN Posted: February 27, 2007 at 08:14 PM (#2304017)
Nobody elected by HoF. Santo leads balloting. Why the drop in support for Torre?
   25. DL from MN Posted: February 27, 2007 at 08:19 PM (#2304022)
Results of the 2007 Player Ballot (62 needed for election): Santo (57 votes, 69.5%), Jim Kaat (52, 63.4%), Gil Hodges (50, 61%), Tony Oliva (47, 57.3%), Maury Wills (33, 40.2%), Joe Torre (26, 31.7%), Don Newcombe (17, 20.7%), Vada Pinson (16, 19.5%), Roger Maris (15, 18.3%), Lefty O’Doul (15, 18.3%), Luis Tiant (15, 18.3%), Curt Flood (14, 17.1%), Al Oliver (14, 17.1%), Mickey Vernon (14, 17.1%), Minnie Minoso (12, 14.6%), Cecil Travis (12, 14.6%), Dick Allen (11, 13.4%), Marty Marion (11, 13.4%), Joe Gordon (10, 12.2%), Ken Boyer (9, 11%), Mickey Lolich (8, 9.8%), Wes Ferrell (7, 8.5%), Sparky Lyle (6, 7.3%), Carl Mays (6, 7.3%), Thurman Munson (6, 7.3%), Rocky Colavito (5, 6.1%) and Bobby Bonds (1, 1.2%).
   26. DL from MN Posted: February 27, 2007 at 08:26 PM (#2304026)
Very strong first ballot for Jim Kaat. I can't understand how Torre would slip. The instructions say they have to consider his managing. Perhaps when he officially retires from managing they'll actually consider it.
   27. zonk Posted: February 27, 2007 at 08:28 PM (#2304028)
Sorry to switch topics -- and not to undermine the fact that primer votes/HOM voters seem to be better at this HOF thing than their 'professional' BBWAA counterparts -- but does anyone know what time the 'real' Veterans Committee announces results today?

I assume there will be a post as soon as it's available -- but just wondering if I actually have a few hours to get some work done ;-)
   28. DL from MN Posted: February 27, 2007 at 08:32 PM (#2304030)
They announced at 2 Eastern. Results are posted above your message.
   29. sunnyday2 Posted: February 27, 2007 at 09:50 PM (#2304094)
THOSE ARE THE REAL RESULTS???? AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

Can we now disband this disaster of a VC. I would welcome Frankie Frisch back with open arms at this point. What a f***ing joke.
   30. Chris Fluit Posted: February 27, 2007 at 11:07 PM (#2304151)
I agree, though I fear we're stuck with this version through at least 2011.
   31. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 27, 2007 at 11:32 PM (#2304165)
So let's be honest, it's time to reform the VC...radically. What we want is a group that makes good screening decisions and then makes wise elections from a still very large backlog of electable candidates. Here's my plan:

2008
1) Empanel a group to study and elect 19th century players. The usual VC voters have no business looking at these guys, heck no one but people who have really studied the era do. This group should have a loose number of final electees to work with, probably around 10 to 15, including stars/pioneers of the 1850s and 1860s. This clears out a big chunk of the easily electable backlog.

2009
2) Empanel a group to find and elect any remaining players from the deadball era. Again, there's zero chance that anyone in the electorate saw or remembers enough about these guys to know what to do with them. This group should have a much smaller numbers of guys than the 19th Century.

Meanwhile, let the Vets elect no one again. Or one person.

2010
3) Redesign the Vets Committee to include a scholarly/historian presence from across the board of expertise---including varous eras, the business of baseball, stats, Negro Leagues, etc...---then create a three-bloc voting system, including the HOF players, the writers, and the historians, each getting 33% of the vote.

Also redesign the screening procedure to encourage better names on the ballot. Let the scholars come up with a list of the 200 best unelected players from 1920-presently eligible (and n best owner/mgr/execs when appropriate), which is then winnowed down to a final 40-man ballot to be voted on by the three elector blocs.


OK, that's my proposal. Ain't perfect, may still lead to logjams, but resolves certain issues. I suppose that if the Hall has a specific number of electees in mind, it could force the comittee to elect someone, mandating that the top vote getter (or two) is elected, a la the HOM.
   32. sunnyday2 Posted: February 27, 2007 at 11:47 PM (#2304172)
I think that Cooperstown has to ask itself--I mean, I can hear it now. Joe Morgan: Historians?

But as Doc says, the current VC won't elect guys they played with, they are never going to elect the old-timers.

So, Cooperstown--should anybody before 1960 ever be elected to Cooperstown ever again? Yes or no. If no, fine. But if yes, then, as Doc intimates, you gotta do something about it and kissing Joe Morgan's is not quite the same as doing something about this.

Then for the period 1960 to the present, same question. And if yes, then do something about it. And this "something" might be different than that "something" (above, for the old-timers).

But decide what you want to do and then do it. Don't decide you want to kiss Joe Morgan's ass and pretend that is doing something about electing deserving players to the HoF.
   33. yest Posted: February 28, 2007 at 06:09 AM (#2304288)
I think there are only 6 simple things needed to be done to change the vets comitte
1. make both elections every year as oppose to (bi/qui)yearly (double the opertunities double the results)

the only problem with that alone is double 0 is still 0

2. drop the anonyms ballots if your voting for the so called "highest honor in baseball" you should have to be accountable who your voting for. have the HoF list every voter on their website and then who they voted for.

3. give out contect information (so fans can write those who don't vote for their faveroite candidates to find out (if there actualy was a reason) why not)

4. force each voter who voter who didn't vote for anybody in any election to give a very good explanation why not and then publicize that to.

5. voters who are not folliwing the rules don't vote (ex. no player who didn't get through after 15 years deserves the Hall, only players belong in)
   34. Andrew M Posted: February 28, 2007 at 06:40 AM (#2304294)
If I were making a list of things I care about that I wish I didn't, Hall of Fame elections might top the list. I wanted to follow up on something Sunny said above, though. Of all the arguments made on behalf of the VC for excluding, apparently, everyone not currently in the HoF, the one that puzzles me the most is the one that goes: "If we relax the voting criteria, we'll end up seeing guys like Riggs Stephenson get elected." I'd gladly accept a voting process that occasionally elected someone like Riggs Stephenson or Paul Blair or Willie Wilson if it also picked up a decent number of our 50 or so HoM, non-HoF guys. For that matter, I'd rather see the VC elect Riggs Stephenson and the top 15 players on our ballot above than a process that may never elect anyone and has no chance of ever even seriously considering Bill Dahlen, say.

That said, Doc's proposal above has my vote, and I hereby publicly resolve never again to let things like Minnie Minoso's vote total bother me.
   35. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: February 28, 2007 at 07:11 AM (#2304300)
I agree, though I fear we're stuck with this version through at least 2011.

My guess is that something will be different next year. Just checked the HoF website, and the biggest name coming on the ballot in '08 is Tim Raines, who won't get in (however deserving he might be). Sure Gossage should get in, but I can't imagine the HoF would want to risk having a year go by with no inductees in their induction ceremony. That weekend is one of their big cash cows.

Bruce Markenson's posts on the main thread over at primer also make me think this could be the last election for the SuperFriends experiment.
   36. DL from MN Posted: February 28, 2007 at 03:36 PM (#2304362)
Part of the problem is having two committees. The writers are not voting for candidates they have any doubt about because "there's always the Veteran's committee". The VC is saying "they weren't good enough for the writers, why would they be good enough for us?". Everyone seems to be avoiding the error of comission while committing the error of omission.
   37. sunnyday2 Posted: February 28, 2007 at 04:02 PM (#2304379)
The bottom line--BBWAA, VC, whatever--is this totally insane, irrational belief that the HoF standards are something completely and totally different than what they really are. This is a mass delusion of really unbelievable power, considering how totally divorced from reality it is.
   38. rawagman Posted: February 28, 2007 at 04:03 PM (#2304380)
The way anyone looks it what the Hall of Fame will definitely provide the answer to the question of who should be there.
What is the Hall of Fame? What is its purpose? Is it for the players? Is it for the Board of Directors? Is it for the fans?

My own opinion leads me to the latter conclusion. The Baseball Hall of Fame is for the fans. For the fans to see their heroes honoured. When the men (for the most part - the one female inducted is already long-deceased) who have already been honoured are given the task of deciding who else should be immortalized in this fashion, there is a distinct conflict of interests at play.

Do the fans of baseball want to see more heroes honoured, or do they want the honours given out only to the very few ultra-elite of the game.

This solitary fan thinks that the more players who are honoured (within reason) the more the fan benefits. The more a chance an individual fan's hero is honoured and the fan can feel a stronger connection to the game. A justification of sorts for what he or she has followed from childhood to adulthood and beyond.

As a member of the fine institution which recognizes the merit of players (not so much the fame, though), we may scoff at certain poor selections over the years. But I think, now more than ever, that a poor choice, the poorest selection, is better than no selection.
Would I rather a Hall of Fame that included modern players such as Miguel Tejada, Albert Pujols, Derek Jeter and Tony Womack, or one that had none of them?
I'd prefer a Womack plaque, to no plaque for Pujols.
   39. Chris Fluit Posted: February 28, 2007 at 08:09 PM (#2304593)
Here's one suggestion for improving the VC ballot:

Keep the current every other year/every fourth year format. Keep the first criteria that any player or executive who receives 75% of the ballot is inducted. But add a second criteria: If no player or executive receives 75% of the ballot, the player or executive with the most votes will be elected. That's fairly similar to how they do things in both the football and the hockey Hall of Fame.

With that simple change, 2003 would have seen the election of Gil Hodges and Doug Harvey. 2005 would have seen the election of Ron Santo. And this year would see the election of Jim Kaat and Marvin Miller. Would it solve everything? No, some of us would still see Hodges and Kaat as mistakes. And some of the older players, such as the oft-mentioned Bill Dahlen, wouldn't have a chance without creating a special 19th-Century or Pre-WWI commission. But it would eliminate the logjam and this idea that nobody is good enough to be enshrined.
   40. DavidFoss Posted: February 28, 2007 at 08:18 PM (#2304601)
And some of the older players, such as the oft-mentioned Bill Dahlen, wouldn't have a chance without creating a special 19th-Century or Pre-WWI commission.

Special commissions are needed for these guys and there should be no shame in loading up the commision with historians. No one is old enough to remember these guys. Inducting a guys like Dahlen and Deacon White today won't provide much publicity or create a memorable induction speech, it does serve the "museum side" of the institution quite well.
   41. Paul Wendt Posted: February 28, 2007 at 10:38 PM (#2304735)
What is the Hall of Fame? What is its purpose? Is it for the players? Is it for the Board of Directors? Is it for the fans?

My own opinion leads me to the latter conclusion. The Baseball Hall of Fame is for the fans. For the fans to see their heroes honoured. When the men (for the most part - the one female inducted is already long-deceased) who have already been honoured are given the task of deciding who else should be immortalized in this fashion, there is a distinct conflict of interests at play.


The Museum/Hall/Library has multiple constituents and the Hall of Fame members becomes a more important constituency as time passes. Why? First, the number of living members (HOFers) increases via both increasing number of members and increasing longevity. Second, the growing autograph & memorabilia business makes Cooperstown appearances by members a greater attraction for visitors. Third, increasing wealth grows the significance of recurring long-distance travel such as the mass visits to Cooperstown on induction weekend. Maybe we can all think of other possibilities, too.

Which constituencies have become less important? At least one, the baseball writers. Probably another, baseball management such as the Presidents of there 30 club-organizations. The education and museum industries have become moree important, I suppose, but they bear on publications (traditional and new media) and traveling exhibits rather than on HOF membership.

The fans? They have become less important relative to living members, perhaps not absolutely. Among fans, those who will travel to Cooperstown or buy merchandise have become relatively more important than those who will donate or join the Friends of the NBHOFM (or whatever it's called, as opposed to the Hall that has "members" by invitation only).
   42. Paul Wendt Posted: February 28, 2007 at 10:48 PM (#2304739)
What is the Hall of Fame? What is its purpose? Is it for the players? Is it for the Board of Directors? Is it for the fans?

My own opinion leads me to the latter conclusion. The Baseball Hall of Fame is for the fans. For the fans to see their heroes honoured. When the men (for the most part - the one female inducted is already long-deceased) who have already been honoured are given the task of deciding who else should be immortalized in this fashion, there is a distinct conflict of interests at play.


The Museum/Hall/Library has multiple constituents and the Hall of Fame members becomes a more important constituency as time passes. Why? First, the number of living members (HOFers) increases via both increasing number of members and increasing longevity. Second, the growing autograph & memorabilia business makes Cooperstown appearances by members a greater attraction for visitors. Third, increasing wealth grows the significance of recurring long-distance travel such as the mass visits to Cooperstown on induction weekend. Maybe we can all think of other possibilities, too.

Which constituencies have become less important? At least one, the baseball writers. Probably another, baseball management such as the Presidents of there 30 club-organizations. The education and museum industries have become moree important, I suppose, but they bear on publications (traditional and new media) and traveling exhibits rather than on HOF membership.

The fans? They have become less important relative to living members, perhaps not absolutely. Among fans, those who will travel to Cooperstown or buy merchandise have become relatively more important than those who will donate or join the Friends of the NBHOFM (or whatever it's called, as opposed to the Hall that has "members" by invitation only).
   43. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 01, 2007 at 03:32 AM (#2304903)
No one is old enough to remember these guys. Inducting a guys like Dahlen and Deacon White today won't provide much publicity or create a memorable induction speech, it does serve the "museum side" of the institution quite well.

Also, I think there's a reasonable argument in favor of internal consistency. Since the Hall is supposed to be the arbiter of greatness, it may be useful/important to ensure that no candidate from a long bygone era who is obvioulsy qualified is left out. If you leave them out then the questions like If Ozzie Smith, why not Bill Dahlen? or If Edd Roush why not Paul Hines? can be reasonably leveled at the HOM and potentially damage the integrity of the institution's claim on rewarding greatness. (As if George Kelly wasn't enough damage....) Not that I think Dale Petrovsky actually cares, but consistency in some endeavors isn't just the fodder of hobgoblins.
   44. sunnyday2 Posted: March 01, 2007 at 05:59 AM (#2304941)
>First, the number of living members (HOFers) increases via both increasing number of members and increasing longevity.

At the rate they're going, the number is going to decline some day. Then Joe Morgan in the HoF can be just like Michael Jackson in Disneyland. Oh happy day.
   45. Brent Posted: March 01, 2007 at 06:16 AM (#2304948)
One of the things that has always impressed me with the HoF's voting system is that most voters may actually agree that they want to elect several people, but because of the large number of viable candidates and the requirement for a 75% supermajority, the process doesn't lead to anyone getting elected. In the results listed on the top of this page, I see that each voter in our election voted on average for seven candidates, but the process only selected three players. Looking the the HoF vote totals, it looks like the average ballot listed six names, but none reached the required 75%. Most of the HoF voters are probably frustrated that their six candidates aren't getting elected, but that's the way the system works.

An alternative voting method might be to first ask voters to vote on how many candidates should be elected that year, along with casting a first-round or "primary" ballot for candidates. If the voters decide, for example, that they want 6 players to be elected but none of the candidates meet the 75% threshhold in the first round, then a second-round ballot could ask them to rank order each of the top 12 candidates from the first round. They would then agree that the top six from the second round would be elected. It's similar to how the HoM is set up, but rather than electing a pre-set number asks the voters how many they want to elect each year.
   46. sunnyday2 Posted: March 01, 2007 at 01:55 PM (#2304986)
The BBWAA did have a runoff system for a couple of years in the 1940s.

1946--the first vote was called a Nominating Vote. I don't know exactly what the process was but presumably the ballot was narrowed somewhat. Still nobody was elected as Frank Chance led both votes with 144 and then 150 votes (198 needed). Guys like Hubbell, Frisch, Cochrane and Grove were down in the second 5 as a good many voters opted to vote for the older candidates first rather than just voting for the best candidates. This was the period when the first 2 huge classes of VC selections were made as most of the top vote getters (Chance, Evers, Huggins, Walsh, Waddell, Griffith) were no longer on the ballot in 1947.

1949--this time there was a normal election, nobody got elected, and then a run-off. Gehringer for 102 votes (115 needed) in the first pass, then in the run-off he got 159 with 141 needed. In the fun-off, it says that 1 player max would be elected. I don't know if anyone would have been elected with less than 75 percent or not. Mel Ott also jumped from 94 to 128 while everybody else stayed pretty much where they were. So the two-tier system simply focused the voting on the top two candidates.

It seems clear enough that narrowing the ballot would help, but very possibly it wouldn't help enough. It didn't work in 1946.Or else have a run-off or simply elect the top vote-getter in the regular election regardless of how many votes they get, though that is pretty much the one and only option that the HoF spokesman seems to have taken off the table.

As to the composite ballot, even Joe Morgan said that the players don't really know enough to vote knowledgeably on this so I do think you put together a different body for that. As I have said before, the first and foremost thing for Cooperstown to do is to decide and to say out loud that we do wish to elect some of these people. Actions speak louder than words and right now you would say that their commitment to doing so is questionable. So, do you want to elect "contributors" and players passed over by the BBWAA or not?

(Finally, why wasn't Buck O'Neil on the composite ballot? I fully support the NeL group NOT selecting Buck, their charge clearly was to honor the great playing careers. But now that there is no other mechanism for pre-1947 blacks, they should be integrated into this process, and Buck is the obvious case.)
   47. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 01, 2007 at 02:45 PM (#2305003)
I agree with some here that have suggested that the committee members need to be able to discuss and debate the respective cases for each candidate like they used to. They also should be allowed "lobbyists" for and against each player, manager, etc.., so at least they're getting all sides of each candidate's resume.
   48. DL from MN Posted: March 01, 2007 at 05:18 PM (#2305159)
I may be cynical but I almost think they want the VC to not elect anyone, especially pioneers and execs. They treated the Negro Leaguers last year as a distraction from Bruce Sutter. This year they get Gwynn and Ripken. There will be no complaining because nobody else made it.

The system will only be changed if they stop electing anyone at all. I think Gossage will make it in 2008. 2009 will induct Rickey and possibly Santo. It doesn't look good for a big change in the system any time soon.
   49. Chris Fluit Posted: March 01, 2007 at 06:57 PM (#2305273)
(Finally, why wasn't Buck O'Neil on the composite ballot? I fully support the NeL group NOT selecting Buck, their charge clearly was to honor the great playing careers. But now that there is no other mechanism for pre-1947 blacks, they should be integrated into this process, and Buck is the obvious case.)

That's not entirely accurate. Last year's NeL commission did elect several owners such as JL Wilkinson and Effa Manley. Plus, Sol White is listed as a pioneer rather than as a player. The NeL could have easily included O'Neil in the same way that they included White- not as a player but as a player/pioneer. However, I agree that once the commission didn't select O'Neil, his candidacy can still be handled by the current VC composite ballot.
   50. Paul Wendt Posted: March 02, 2007 at 04:51 AM (#2305670)
Brent
An alternative voting method might be to first ask voters to vote on how many candidates should be elected that year,

For fans of the 75% supermajority the procedure may be that everyone specifies the number of candidates who should be elected(*) and the elected number is the 25th percentile: the highest number such that 75% of the voters support electing that many.
   51. djrelays Posted: March 02, 2007 at 06:19 PM (#2305872)
The 75% rule works for the BBWAA election of modern players. It stinks for electing veterans, contributors, et al.

I've always looked at the BBWAA election as the selection of the "no-brainers." And 75% works quite well in that regard, even if they've sometimes selected the wrong "no-brainers." But the committee selecting veterans, contributors, et al, has too much of a backlog. The bigger the backlog, the less the likelihood of getting a super majority. Look what's happening to your own election tallies as the years progress.

The VC has to be composed of people who know and care what they're looking at, and don't have a vested interest in protecting their own turf. The current VC is close to the worst imaginable in its composition, as the large majority of players were BBWAA selections, and most of them view the VC as a backdoor that should be shut. As long as the current HoF'ers sit as electors, that door is likely to remain shut.

My own solution is to guarantee electing the leading vote getter in a category, plus anyone receeiving 75%. That's the only way to eliminate the backlog.
   52. DanG Posted: March 02, 2007 at 06:50 PM (#2305888)
I sent this note to the HOF:

There is obviously growing dissatisfaction with the inability of the Veterans Committee to elect anyone. Jane Forbes Clark said: “we are disappointed that no one has been elected in three voting cycles...Perhaps the process hasn't worked as well as some board members thought it would. There may need to be some changes." The plan appears to be to revise the election procedures for the Veterans Committee, in order to get some people elected.

First, to my understanding, these are some givens and assumptions:
1. The desire is not for an overhaul, but a tweaking of the process.
2. The hall of famers themselves will still be a part of the process.
3. The 75% super-majority requirement is untouchable.
4. There is a desire to avoid a mass meeting to conduct the vote, as was done until 2001.

Ideas to enhance the chances for election:
1. Vote more often. Hold elections every year for players, every other year for non-players. Currently, it’s very hard for candidates to build momentum.
2. Shorten the final ballot to ten; 25+ is too many, it works against efforts to come to consensus on the best candidates. From the 25-man ballot, have a different committee (25-year BBWAA members, perhaps?) reduce it to a final ten.
3. Guarantee that the top runners-up (maybe 5?) from this year’s election will be on next year’s final ballot. In other words, ensure the continuity of the top candidates. While this does tend to happen already, I believe it should somehow be formalized in the rules. Then, the Hall should publicize, and even stump for, “candidates nearing possible election”.
4. Acknowledge the limitations of the electorate and limit their jurisdiction to players they may have actually seen play in their primes. I would say they should only consider anyone retired less than 50 (maybe 60) years – there is no chance of them electing anyone before this anyway. Candidates before this time should be considered by a Historical Committee; they’re simply a distraction for this Veterans Committee.
5. Awareness of top candidates must be promoted to the electorate. Every voter must be made keenly aware of those candidates that are supported by a majority of their peers.
6. Say it: We’re here to elect someone. Maintain high standards? Yes, of course. But the multiple screening committees ensure this – it’s not just a small group favoring their cronies anymore. So, when announcing the changes to the VC procedures, include something like this: “The continued functioning of the Veterans Committee expresses our belief that there are players that deserve the honor of joining the rolls of the Hall of Fame. Changes are being made to better enable the electorate to come to a consensus and elect the most deserving persons.” If you really want to put teeth into this, make it required that voters list at least five names on their ballot.

Yours for a better Hall of Fame,
   53. Dizzypaco Posted: March 02, 2007 at 06:59 PM (#2305892)
If Ron Santo wasn't on the ballot, would all of you be so upset that the VC didn't elect anyone? Would you have felt better if the VC elected someone that's pretty clearly not qualified rather than select nobody at all? Other than the continued slight of Santo, I just don't see the problem.
   54. sunnyday2 Posted: March 02, 2007 at 07:26 PM (#2305905)
>The bigger the backlog, the less the likelihood of getting a super majority.

This is exactly what happened in the years prior to 1945-46. You had the 19C and the original veteran's or old-timers group meant to sort out the 19C had long since been abandoned. You had the deadball backlog and you now had the lively ball era players coming eligible, and the BBWAA was the only mechanism to deal with all 3. It couldn't.

So now the VC can't deal with the backlog.

OK, but the first thing this tells you is that *there is a big backlog.* So you could also say that there is a problem "up front," in the BBWAA or whomever, that is allowing a huge backlog to accumulate in the first place.

As dj said, the BBWAA only deals with the no-brainers. Well, that's appropriate because they've got no brain. If they did then THEY would dig a little deeper and not leave all the actual work to the VC.

So yes, the VC is a problem, but first the BBWAA is a problem.

To Diz, you seem to be the one obsessed with Ron Santo. The point is that everyone on that ballot was qualified if you actually know or care what the HoFs standards really are and have been at least since 1945. Your problem is imposing your standards on an institution that for 60 years had vastly different ones and only now is trending your way. That is patently unfair to modern players and it would be if Ron Santo had never lived.

To DanG, items #4 and 6 are crucial. Let somebody else vote on the guys they never saw and don't care about. And yes, elect somebody. Maintain high standards? Is that really a problem? No it's not a problem. The problem is a *different* standard for modern players.
   55. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 02, 2007 at 07:40 PM (#2305917)
If Ron Santo wasn't on the ballot, would all of you be so upset that the VC didn't elect anyone? Would you have felt better if the VC elected someone that's pretty clearly not qualified rather than select nobody at all? Other than the continued slight of Santo, I just don't see the problem.

The problem is not with Santo. It's with Grich, Dahlen, Hines, Allen, Minoso, O'Neil, Miller, Harvey, Singleton, Magee, Sheckard, Pierce, Gore, Simmons, Freehan, Torre, White, and many others. There's probably 30-50 guys with reasonable HOF cases. The trick is that the vast majority didn't get through the screening committee while obvious HOVG guys like Oliva and Maris did. Personally, I think the screening process is rotten and needs to be totally overhauled, and they need to get some baseball historians in there to deal with the pre-War guys to clear out that backlog.
   56. DanG Posted: March 02, 2007 at 07:50 PM (#2305922)
Hmm. Did they even read my note? I received this form letter response:

Dear Friend:

Thank you for taking the time to express your views with respect to the election process governing the Veterans Committee that was changed in 2001. We understand your disappointment with the fact that no candidates earned election to the Baseball Hall of Fame this year through the Veterans Committee.

Earning election to the Hall of Fame is the highest honor that can be achieved by an indiviudal who has spent a career in baseball. It is extremely difficult to earn election, as only one percent of those have played the game have a plaque in Cooperstown, while the percentages of managers, umpires and executives, is even less.

We had nearly 100% participation of voters, more votes were cast than ever before since this process was put in place in 2001, and on both ballots, candidates came closer to earning election than ever before.
This process was designed to give everyone on the ballot an opportunity to be elected through fairness and openness, not with the goal to necessarily elect someone every election.

That said, the Board of Directors will be evaluating all aspects of this election process this spring.

While you suggest that the new voting process is inherently unfair and flawed,
[Wha'?!?] the results of the election prove otherwise. Keep in mind that the Veterans' Committee is a second chance to earn election. Each candidate on this year's Player Ballot was considered by the Baseball Writers' Association of America for election for as many as 15 seasons prior to having their candidacies turned over to the Veterans Committee.
In many cases, the vote totals were remarkably similar to those the players received by the BBWAA, and some actually improved; the fact that a number of candidates came closer to election this year implies that the process is dynamic rather than static. Please keep in mind that candidates for consideration by the Veterans Committee have a second chance at earning election in perpetuity.

The Veterans Committee had 84 voting members in 2007, including 61 Hall of Famers (excluding the Class of 2007), 14 Ford C. Frick Award winners,
8 J.G. Taylor Spink Award winners and one member of the old veterans
committee whose terms had not yet expired. You can find a complete
list of the voters at our Web site or by going to http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterans/veterans_
committee.htm.

82 ballots (98% of the ballots issued) were cast on the Player Ballot and 81 ballots (96%) were cast on the composite ballot. Votes on 75% of ballots cast were necessary for election, the same high standard of the Baseball Writers' Association of America election. The process for players will be repeated again in 2009, and for managers, umpires and executives, 2011.

The best way to stay informed about the Hall of Fame and all the happenings in Cooperstown is to subscribe to INSIDE PITCH, the official e-mail newsletter of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. IT'S FREE and shows up in your e-mail box at the beginning of each week.
You'll also receive timely news items direct from Cooperstown - where we preserve history, honor excellence and connect generations every day. Go to www.baseballhalloffame.org to sign up for INSIDE PITCH, or follow this link: http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/inside_pitch/index.htm. The process takes seconds.

Thanks again for your comments. Again, we understand your disappointment. We hope you will visit us in Cooperstown soon.
   57. Dizzypaco Posted: March 02, 2007 at 07:57 PM (#2305926)
To Diz, you seem to be the one obsessed with Ron Santo. The point is that everyone on that ballot was qualified if you actually know or care what the HoFs standards really are and have been at least since 1945.

I don't know where the Santo comment is coming from, because trust me, I'm not, but do you really want to start electing guys again who are similar in quality to George Kelly and Fred Linstrom? That's the standard that was created in 1945.

There's probably 30-50 guys with reasonable HOF cases.

Doc, I don't agree with everyone on your list, but I completely agree there are guys other than Santo that may deserve enshrinement. However, there's an assumption that if we just set up the process right, they will elect the guys that we like and they'll ignore the guys we don't. Unless the VC or the screening committee is comprised of people who post on BTF, I don't know where the evidence is that they'll make reasonable decisions. Where in the history of the VC do people get the notion that it will ever work right?

By the way, I don't think there is much of a backlog of prewar players, but that's just me.

Finally, if the VC is changed in the manner suggested above, I am very confident that Jim Rice will go into the Hall in a few years.
   58. sunnyday2 Posted: March 02, 2007 at 08:09 PM (#2305932)
>I don't know where the Santo comment is coming from, because trust me, I'm not,

Post #53.

>but do you really want to start electing guys again who are similar in quality to George Kelly and Fred Linstrom? That's the standard that was created in 1945.

Straw man! Straw man! See post #55.

But here's what I really don't understand. Are you the same Dizzypaco who in another thread keeps insisting that the greatest players ever are mostly the guys who have played the game in recent decades (the population pool hypothesis)? Or is that a different Dizzypaco?

If yes, same Diz, then how do these two positions square? Why should the greatest generation also be the generation with the greatest likelihood of being shut out of the Coop?
   59. Dizzypaco Posted: March 02, 2007 at 08:34 PM (#2305949)
But here's what I really don't understand. Are you the same Dizzypaco who in another thread keeps insisting that the greatest players ever are mostly the guys who have played the game in recent decades (the population pool hypothesis)? Or is that a different Dizzypaco?

You are obviously either not reading or not understanding my posts, but here goes:

First, I went out of my way on the other thread to say that I don't think that most of the greatest players ever played the games in recent decades - that players playing in the first part of the 20th Century may have been every bit as good as those playing today. So its really irrelevant to the current discussion.

Second, I believe that there were too many guys elected by the veteran's committee from the 20s and 30s, that it was a mistake to put guys like Kelly and Lindstrom in the Hall, and the best way to address the issue isn't to have a repeat with modern players. But you are free to disagree.

Third, I mentioned Santo only after a quick glance at those who made it through the screening. After a second look, I would also elect Boyer, and maybe one or two others. But my main point is that the veteran's committee has done a horrible job in the past, and there's no reason to think that by tinkering with the system, they are going to automatically start electing guys we like.
   60. rawagman Posted: March 02, 2007 at 08:39 PM (#2305953)
Dizzy - do you think we're wrong to to be asking for a better process?
Do you think the Hall has no value as those poor picks (Kelly, Lindstrom, Marquard, et al) will always be there?
   61. Dizzypaco Posted: March 02, 2007 at 09:03 PM (#2305968)
Ragaman,

I understand the urge to request an improved process. However, it almost doesn't matter how we set up the VC process - IMO, they are more likely to make bad decisions than good ones. They will always be more likely to elect Jim Rice than Bobby Grich or Alan Trammell. The question we have is whether it is better to have a committee that is likely to make bad decisions, or is it better to not have them make decisions at all? While they may elect a Santo, Boyer, or Torre, it is very likely that it wouldn't be someone like that. Is this a good thing? I don't really know the answer. All I was doing was trying to remind people that by tinkering with the process, you may get results that are even worse than what we have now.

Also, my point about the bad picks was not that the Hall has no value, but that we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the past. I disagree with the claim that the standards for the Hall were set in 1945, and we are bound to live by those standards for the rest of time. The fact that we let in hitters by the boatload from the 20's and 30's doesn't mean we have to do the same thing again with more recent players.
   62. sunnyday2 Posted: March 02, 2007 at 09:07 PM (#2305972)
But we're not really talking about Kelly, Lindstrom and Marquard. That is a tired straw man argument. We're talking about the average run of the mill VC selection. Take George Kelly for example.

Kelly was elected in 1973 along with Mickey Welch. OK, no more Kellys. What about more Mickey Welchs?

Or Lindstrom who was elected in 1976. No more Lindstroms, by all means. What about Roger Connor, who was elected at the same time? No more Roger Connors?

Or Marquard, class of 1971. OK, this was a really really really horseshit class. No more Marquards, no more Earle Combs, no more Chick Hafeys, no more Jesse Haines, please. But what about Jake Beckley?

And then there's the seminal classes of 1945 and 1946. Obvious mistakes include Jack Chesbro and Tommy McCarthy. One could certainly argue Bresnahan, Duffy, Tinker to Evers to Chance, and others. But what about Brouthers, Clarke, J. Collins, Delahanty, Jennings, King Kelly, Jesse Burkett, Clark Griffith, McGinnity, Plank, Waddell, Ed Walsh. The anti-Santo and the anti-VC and anti-back door arguments are essentially saying "No more Clarkes and King Kellys and Waddells and Planks and Walsh's."

Like I said, the idea that the BBWAA is getting everybody that belongs is based on a totally false impression of just what kind of standards the HoF has been implementing for 70 years. I wish I knew where there was a list of HoFers by decade of birth. The modern players are vastly LESS LIKELY to gain admittance than players of previous decades, and yet there are more players today who can play at a high level (population pool argument) than there have ever been before.

Again, these two views clash mightily. More to the point, modern players are getting the shaft. I guess since they're getting all that money, the hell with immortality.
   63. Dizzypaco Posted: March 02, 2007 at 09:24 PM (#2305983)
There was once an important role for the VC - electing players from 1880 to 1920 that the BBWAA were ignoring. I think it was an important role, and it is largely finished, although there are a couple of players that some BTFers still support. The real problem came when they starting focusing on guys the BBWAA clearly considered and passed on - meaning the Combs, Hafeys, Lindstroms, Kellys, etc. At best, they put in guys like Richie Ashburn, who I have no real problem with, but its no great crime if they don't make it as well.

As I understand it, Sunny, your logic is this:
X number of players from the 1920's and 1930's have been elected.
There are more good players playing now than in the 1920's and 1930's.
Therefore, there should be more people elected per team now than from the 1920's and 1930's, even if they pick the wrong modern players.

I disagree with this line of thinking.
   64. sunnyday2 Posted: March 03, 2007 at 12:10 AM (#2306043)
>Therefore, there should be more people elected per team now than from the 1920's and 1930's, even if they pick the wrong modern players.

C'mon, Diz, that's ridiculous. I would much rather they picked the right ones. And I never said more players per team. You don't understand my logic.
   65. Paul Wendt Posted: March 03, 2007 at 02:10 AM (#2306067)
.
That is a fine letter, DanG.

Yesterday I quoted Brent and replied:
An alternative voting method might be to first ask voters to vote on how many candidates should be elected that year,

For fans of the 75% supermajority the procedure may be that everyone specifies the number of candidates who should be elected(*) and the elected number is the 25th percentile: the highest number such that 75% of the voters support electing that many.


Here, with 48 ballots cast, the 75% supermajority question what number of players voters support electing. If I count correctly, 44 ballots include a 5th vote and 35 include a 6th vote, so the "winner" is five.

The 5th ranked player (Allen) garnered 67% support and "five players" garnered about 92%. The 6th ranked player (Ferrell) got 58% support and "six players" got 73%.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harveys Wallbangers
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.7488 seconds
49 querie(s) executed