Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Johnson: So What Exactly is an “Honorary” Hall of Fame Voter?

Plus I just found out that Paul Oberjuerge no longer has a HOF vote…I guess covering amateur soccer in Abu Dhabi will do that.

The following HOF voters have been identified from the BBWAA.org’s own website as having case a ballot in the recent HOF election as “honorary” members. I’ve included some information as to what they are doing now, how they got their BBWAA ballot, and some side comments on published interviews, biographies, and the like relating to them (all my comments are highlighted). It’s not pretty reading if you advocate for a more professional approach to HOF induction, believe me. (My additional comments on this are in the “Bottom Line” section following this list, if you have the stomach to make it through to the end…) So here goes…the honorary HOF voters of the BBWAA:

Frank Clines- Retired, now writing with some guy named “Artie” or something for a online thing called Milwaukee.com. They call themselves “The Observers”, which must be something like “The Watchers”, those supreme beings in the Marvel Comics universe who stand around all day just checking things out, but doing nothing of substance…

Lowell Hickey- Went into advertising after being a sports writer and editor. Latest- the president of the Castro Valley Sports Foundation, which promotes youth sports in Castro Valley California. How any of this advertising or foundation work relates to the HOF is beyond me.

Mark Kreidler- Columnist at the scaremnto bee for 14 years. Now runs Kreidler Communications since 2007, so I guess you can say he’s not on the beat anymore.  But he did write a book about surfing, which counts for something- as, who am I kidding? As far as HOF voting qualifications go, it counts for squat.

Phil Pepe- Has over 50 years of sports reporting, and was the New York Yankees beat writer for the New York World Telegram & Sun (1961-1964) and New York Daily News (1971-1984). He has written or co-authored dozens of books, including Slick and Billyball and also wrote regularly for The Sporting News.  So what’s the most pertinent fact in this bio regarding having a HOF vote? It is that Pepe finished covering baseball as a beat writer in 1984.

Glenn Schwarz- Became sports editor of the SF Chronicle in 1987, then retired in 2009 after 40 years in the biz. But still has a HOF vote.

Repoz Posted: February 12, 2013 at 05:05 AM | 33 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: history, hof

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 Northey Posted: February 12, 2013 at 07:18 AM (#4367637)
So these guys get votes but not Bill James or Pete Palmer or many others who actually know something about baseball today and historically. Sigh.
   2. Bhaakon Posted: February 12, 2013 at 09:40 AM (#4367651)
I can see a vague justification for not letting James, or anyone on the payroll of a team, vote. More of the appearance of impropriety inherent in letting a team employee vote on an honor that couple bring some prestige and revenue than any real issue, but this is already an exercise in picking nits.
   3. John Northey Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:15 AM (#4367709)
Agreed on the 'while working for a team' idea as a rule. But major authors of books on baseball history or ones who are well known to be students of baseball (not necessarily stats people, but also top storytellers and the like) should have these honorary votes as much as sports editors, columnists, etc. If they are giving these out then give them to people who actually would be smart on the voting, not just to people who were kinda-sorta baseball writers here and there but not official members of the BBWAA.

Of course, ideally you'd find a better voting block but that isn't going to happen.
   4. Nasty Nate Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM (#4367710)
...and HOF-obsession pushes the discussion another step away from actual baseball.
   5. Ulysses S. Fairsmith Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM (#4367711)
So Glenn Schwarz was a sportswriter or sports editor during the entire professional career of every player on the ballot. Shameful.
   6. Tom Nawrocki Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:25 AM (#4367718)
I really don't see any argument for taking the HoF vote away from Phil Pepe. Fifty years of baseball writing, including ~20 years as a beat writer, is a pretty good credential. Plus, the Pep Talk.
   7. McCoy Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:28 AM (#4367722)
I think the argument would be that he hasn't really covered the players or the sport for the era he would be voting on.
   8. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:29 AM (#4367723)
So do the honorary votes actually count? Honorary voter could mean that they play, but their results don't count.
   9. Mike Emeigh Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:27 PM (#4367815)
So do the honorary votes actually count?


Yes.

Splitting hairs - they don't get an honorary *vote*, actually. What they get is an honorary *membership*, even though they no longer meet the BBWAA criteria for membership, and that in turns qualifies them to receive a vote since they have been members for at least 10 years. It's in recognition of past service. Most of these honorary guys (like Pepe and Schwarz) *have* been around baseball for a long time, to be fair, and are no less deserving of a HoF vote than an active member of the fraternity.

Some of the arguments about letting guys like James and Palmer vote, quite honestly, strike me as *they think like we do, and not like the writers, therefore they should vote*. Would you make the same argument for someone like Mike Hoban or Mike Gimbel, who have studied the game just as much but often wind up in a different place?

-- MWE
   10. DanG Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:16 PM (#4367898)
...and HOF-obsession pushes the discussion another step away from actual baseball.
So should the mod precede the title with "OT: Hall of Fame"?
   11. Howie Menckel Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:23 PM (#4367911)

There are many viable ways to rip the system of how Hall of Fame voters are selected, but this is one of the weakest - especially in terms of a guy like Pepe. It's extra amusing when you question someone else's credentials yet are too lazy to proofread, so that you're stuck with "case" instead of "cast" in the middle of your argument.....
   12. Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:32 PM (#4367923)
I read the full article. The writer seems like a really unpleasant guy and many of the people he mentions clearly covered baseball for a long period of time or only recently left their publication (one left The Sporting News in 2009, one was fired from his publication in 2006, another one retired in 2009, etc), but this guy feels the need to mock them/consider them unqualified. Pretty ridiculous stuff.
   13. TJ Posted: February 12, 2013 at 03:22 PM (#4368065)
I'm the guy who wrote the article. As I see it moving down the chart, I just wanted to thank everyone who read it and for all of the comments. To be honest, I never expected my post to get picked up by BTF, and am honored that it was. I apologize for the typos- my proofreading skills are weak, hence my appreciation of editors when I wrote for a living. I also appreciate the comments, critical or not. As for the article, I'll stand by any comment or statement included, and strongly feel that any system which uses longevity instead of quantifiable merit as the standard for bestowing the honor to vote on HOF induction is flawed. Just because you've done something for 20, 30, or 40 years doesn't mean that A) you were good at it (just think of all the bad teachers you've had) or B) your experience is relevant to the task at hand (40 years of studying the Civil War does not make you an expert on WW II). These voters are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. Could some of the voters I cited be qualified? Possibly, but we will never know, since the current standard allows for "I support Fred McGriff for Cooperstown because he hit as many homers as Lou Gehrig" and "I voted for Lee Smith because he once held the career record for saves" as perfectly legit reasons for casting a HOF vote. And yes, I do consider any HOF voter who cites reasons like this in explaining their vote (if they even bother to do so) to be unqualified.
   14. The District Attorney Posted: February 12, 2013 at 03:50 PM (#4368110)
Would you make the same argument for someone like Mike Hoban or Mike Gimbel, who have studied the game just as much but often wind up in a different place?
Somehow, you'd have to define what a "qualified baseball historian" is. That's very difficult, and I have no clue what the definition would even look like, never mind whether it would define two specific people as being as qualified as Bill James. But if it did, then sure, naturally they would get to vote too.
   15. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: February 12, 2013 at 03:51 PM (#4368113)
I'm the guy who wrote the article.


You may have had a point or 2 in the article, but it was buried under too much unnecessary snark. "A guy named Artie or something..."? Was there a point to that? How about ragging on some guys because they wrote screenplays and self help books?

I'm going to assume you would support giving Bob Costas a vote (if not, I apologize for putting words in your mouth, but it seems like a reasonable assumption). But one could easily disparage him as well:

"Hosting a late night talk show? Subbing for Larry king? Anchoring the Olympics, which has banned baseball!!? What makes this bozo qualified?"
   16. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 04:00 PM (#4368120)
Retired, now writing with some guy named “Artie” or something for a online thing called Milwaukee.com.


Clines was writing about baseball for the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel as recently as November of 2011.

Complaining about a lot of these guys seems kind of churlish. Particularly given that we're talking about voting for the Hall of Fame, whose candidates have all been retired for at least five years.
   17. Nasty Nate Posted: February 12, 2013 at 04:20 PM (#4368149)
...and HOF-obsession pushes the discussion another step away from actual baseball.

So should the mod precede the title with "OT: Hall of Fame"?


And be limited to one thread like the other OT ones? I would love that.
   18. TJ Posted: February 12, 2013 at 04:23 PM (#4368152)
Re: Bob Costas

I wouldn't advocate giving Bob Costas (or anyone, including myself) a HOF vote unless they met a professional standard of merit to be a HOF voter. I've been in the museum racket for over 20 years, and am a historian by trade, so here are just some of the standards I see that a HOF voter should meet:

1. Writing, publishing, and comunicating publicly with people interested in the HOF process on a regular basis throughout the year.

2. Publishing their HOF ballot with explanation for both public and peer review.

3. Displaying intellectual curiousity on HOF issues and candidates through examples of striving to enhance their knowledge about the HOF process and not just espouse their knowledge (example- write on new means of statistical analysis and share the impact these new insights made, such as Tom Verducci's piece on Jack Morris lasting into the 8th inning in a notable number of starts or Jay Jaffe's work on JAWS.)

4. Commit more time and effort to HOF issues and candidates than just after the ballot arrives in the mail in December.

5. Display a recognition of the "small, medium, or large" Hall concept and be able to use it in describing the rationale behind their vote. It's one thing to say that you voted for Jack Morris because you feel a large Hall is valid, and that Morris qualifies under that standard by virtue of his career wins, perceived ace status by his peers, and some outstanding post-season performances, which compare quite well with pitchers like Catfish Hunter. it's another thing to say that you are voting for Jack Morris because he great, he was a big game pitcher, and cite one World Series start and that he was the winningest pitcher of the 1980's as your proof. That's poor HOF scholarship.

6. Maintain a publicly accesible forum (regular chat, blog, or website) and have conversations like we are having right now to answer questions and give those without a vote a chance to at least have their voice heard by a voter.

I believe that a deciding on a Cooperstown plaque is about the most important baseball-related decision anyone interested in the Hall can make. So, if you are going to be a HOF voter, you should make a commitment of time appropriate of a professional. It should be an important part of your work life, regardless of what your real-world career may be. I advocate that the HOF voters meet four times a year in Cooperstown to discuss HOF-related topics, player candidacies, etc. HOF voters should agree to make public presentations or be a member of a roundtable discussion with fans at least two of those weekends. I would do this, and I have a full-time gig working 50+ hours a week. (My wife accepts my baseball passion as an amusing quirk.) If you can't make this level of time and effort commitment, then don't be a voter. In the historian/museum racket we do this all the time- it's called professional development and seen as a professional responsibility.

And yes, if the BBWAA gave Bob Costas the vote for no other reason than recognizing ten years in the biz, I would mock him too- but probably not as well as you did.
   19. Mike Emeigh Posted: February 12, 2013 at 04:27 PM (#4368155)
Somehow, you'd have to define what a "qualified baseball historian" is. That's very difficult, and I have no clue what the definition would even look like, never mind whether it would define two specific people as being as qualified as Bill James. But if it did, then sure, naturally they would get to vote too.


What I am suggesting is that Bill James and Pete Palmer aren't any more representative of the community of voters who people think should be allowed to vote than Frank Clines and Lowell Hickey are of the community that already is allowed to vote.

-- MWE
   20. The District Attorney Posted: February 12, 2013 at 05:03 PM (#4368203)
What I am suggesting is that Bill James and Pete Palmer aren't any more representative of the community of voters who people think should be allowed to vote than Frank Clines and Lowell Hickey are of the community that already is allowed to vote.
Oh, I agree that the article is citing bad examples in support of a potentially defensible thesis. If a writer only retired recently, then they saw the guys in question play, and if they wrote about baseball every day for 40 years, I'm willing to bet they like baseball enough that they still follow it. I think seniority, standing alone, only becomes a travesty if the writer didn't cover baseball for all that long and has been retired forever. Otherwise, I don't think that the problem with the voting is that the BBWAA monopoly applies to retired writers as well as current ones.

Here's my point, though. You implied in #10 that pointing out that Bill James can't vote is a statement of intent by statheads that they want to "pack the court" with their own kind. I think that's a pessimistic view. I think people legitimately are trying to say that the vote should be based on knowledge of baseball history. Certainly there are historians who aren't statistical analysts -- it's often been remarked that most members of the Society for American Baseball Research are not "sabermetricians". I think folks are saying that they should be able to vote too.

As alluded to with Costas, many folks here would also support expanding the vote to long-time announcers, ex-players, and/or many other groups that are not particularly stathead-laden.
   21. SoSH U at work Posted: February 12, 2013 at 05:15 PM (#4368222)
As alluded to with Costas, many folks here would also support expanding the vote to long-time announcers, ex-players, and/or many other groups that are not particularly stathead-laden.


The problem with this is similar to the one expressed by Mike. How do you give a vote to Vin Scully without also giving one to Hawk Harrelson? It would surely change the electorate, but I'm not sure it would do so for the better (which should be the only aim).

I would like to see the BBWAA/Hall try to weed out those voters who really aren't actively involved with following the game any longer. Hell, one suggestion here that said voters should have to request a ballot, rather than have one sent to them, would be an easy way to get lose some of the "don't think about baseball until the Hall ballot arrives" voters.
   22. TJ Posted: February 12, 2013 at 05:32 PM (#4368234)
Never thought my little post would get this much notice, but I am enjoying the conversation, guys...

The DA is right on point when he says that the vote should be based on a knowledge of baseball history (I would specify it even more and call it "Baseball history and the Hall of Fame"), and he's also right in saying that historians are not statistical analysts. Statistical analysis is just one tool that historians use to enhance their knowledge and understanding of the topic at hand. Frankly, I don't care if a HOF voter knows how to figure out WAR, so long as they understand what it means, how and where to access the infomration, and how it can apply in a HOF debate. Sabremetrics is an important part a player's HOF case, as are traditional stats, anecdotal evidence (views of comtempories, for example), watching a ton of baseball, etc. The HOF voting bloc should not be monolithic, not packed with one ideology, and not even of one view on the "Small, Medium, or Large" hall concept. Nor should it be an appointment for life, ala the Supreme Court. HOF voters should have terms to serve, and be required to show cause to retain their vote once their term expires- and whoever voted for Aaron Sele would have plenty of need to show cause. Believe me, the only thing worse than no historians are bad historians...(and feel free to say, "You should know!" I won't take it personally...)

I will challenge the assumption that a voter who retired only recently saw a guy play enough to make a more informed judgment than anyone else, though, unless the player in question played in the writer's hometown. If you spent most of your career covering the SF Giants, how many times did you see Alan Trammell play, anyway?

   23. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 12, 2013 at 05:46 PM (#4368256)
The DA is right on point when he says that the vote should be based on a knowledge of baseball history (I would specify it even more and call it "Baseball history and the Hall of Fame")

Then what you need to do is to start from scratch and give every potential voter a test of his or her knowledge. Aside from the fact that it wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being accepted, if you wanted to make it cover more than the past 30 or 40 years you'd likely wind up flunking over half the applicants, and therefore further melt the snowball. Though in the abstract, it's a good idea.

But it'd be a lot easier to formulate a response if we had a list of (say) 20 specific questions pertaining to baseball history that would serve to qualify a candidate. Of course to make it a serious test it'd have to be a lot longer than that, but 20 would at least be a reasonable sample size.
   24. TJ Posted: February 12, 2013 at 06:15 PM (#4368289)
A letter to Jolly Old St. Nick, which I haven't written since I was a little kid...

Part I'm glad you are right about- It's a good idea in the abstract.

Part I'm not so glad you are right about- It wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being accepted.

Oh, and you still owe me a pony.
   25. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: February 12, 2013 at 06:23 PM (#4368294)
so here are just some of the standards I see that a HOF voter should meet:


Nice idea, and if those were implemented, you'd have an electorate of about a dozen people.
   26. TJ Posted: February 12, 2013 at 07:37 PM (#4368349)
Sorry the last response was so short- I was just leaving the office and had to get home to feed, walk, and clean up after our basset hound before my wife got home (I am only occasionally unlikable and churlish, but I do admit to being arrogant most of the time...)

I think there would be more than that- just look at the reaction to one little post concerning the Hall of Fame. Besides, for the hardcore baseball scholar, what better way to be involved in the game you love than as a HOF voter?

As for the test, I wouldn't want a list of statistical questions- that would be too much like playing Jeopardy (or being obnoxious softball guy). Instead I would propose a series of short essay questions designed to illuminate a prospective voter's ability to use facts in making a logical argument. Maybe something like "Who was better, Wade Boggs or George Brett?", a question I personally would address by pointing out that, in Boggs' favor, he does have a slightly better WAR Portfolio than Brett. However, Brett was the driving offensive force behind two world championship teams, spent his entire career in one city, and his scandal (the pine tar incident) brought much less embarrassment to baseball than did Boggs (the mistress on the road scandal). If push came to shove, I would call Boggs the slightly better player, but Brett provided more value to his team.

Or maybe a question I posed in my ebook- "What would their respective careers have been like if Carl Yastrzemski had played in Detroit and Al Kaline had played in Boston?" While their statistical records would be significantly different, modern statistical analysis shows that they would have had similar impacts to what they did historically. As for fitting in to their cities, Yaz would have been eagerly adopted by the large Polish population of Detroit, and Kaline would have been a natural in Boston, as he was an East Coast kid from Baltimore. (These are short form answers- i would expect an essay to contain both statistical and anecdotal support for the positions.)

There would be no right or wrong answers. Rather, these questions would be intended to see how well one crafts an argument, how well they support it, and how they use stats and input. To a professional historian, how you process historical information is even more important than the historical information itself.

I'll check back later to see if there is any more feedback. I can't thank you all enough for your comments, and BTF for linking my blog post. You all helped me gain more insight on this piece, and I promise to try and be a little less churlish in future writings...and I still want my pony.


   27. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 07:59 PM (#4368358)
Brett was the driving offensive force behind two world championship teams

pass--no, wait--fail
   28. TJ Posted: February 12, 2013 at 08:15 PM (#4368372)
LOL! Thanks! I still can't believe KC didn't win in 1980...guess I wouldn't pass the test!
   29. Walt Davis Posted: February 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM (#4368481)
Maybe something like "Who was better, Wade Boggs or George Brett?", a question I personally would address by pointing out that, in Boggs' favor, he does have a slightly better WAR Portfolio than Brett. However, Brett was the driving offensive force behind two world championship teams, spent his entire career in one city, and his scandal (the pine tar incident) brought much less embarrassment to baseball than did Boggs (the mistress on the road scandal)

WTF does that have to do with the HoF? Or who was the better player?

The "scandals" (neither was a scandal) I suppose you can try to apply to the HOF by cramming them in under the character clause but (a) Brett's "scandal" was an on-field character issue while Boggs' was not and is no more relevant that Ruth's (or Mantle's or Eckersley's) drinking and (b) they certainly have nothing to do with who was the better player. I will also note that pretty much nobody remembers the Boggs "scandal" while Brett getting called out then going ballistic then MLB over-ruling and making the game suspended is pretty well remembered.

But, really, you're going to consider the "scandal level" of the pine tar incident and a player sleeping around on his wife? I can only assume the roiders wouldn't even make it onto the ballot if you were in charge.

So, in one short paragraph, you just showcased several reasons why your notion is impossible (and probably undesirable even in the abstract):

1. How would you agree on what questions to ask? Who decides what questions to ask? Some special panel of baseball historians put together by the HoF? Who decided those historians were qualified to put together the list of questions?

2. Why are you asking which player is better when, based on your answer, what you really wanted to ask was which player is more deserving of the HoF?

3. If you're going to ask open-ended, opinion-based questions like that, who decides what a "right" or "wrong" answer is?

3a. If you're not going to ask open-ended opinion-based questions like that, what good is the evaluation?

In another post you made it clear that you consider the correct answer to Jack Morris to be "Sure, he's probably not really HoF-worthy but I'm a big Hall guy ... and yes, I'll be voting for Jamie Moyer too."
   30. Bug Selig Posted: February 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM (#4368731)
How do you give a vote to Vin Scully without also giving one to Hawk Harrelson?


Breathalyzer.
   31. Bug Selig Posted: February 13, 2013 at 12:44 PM (#4368741)
Brett's "scandal" was an on-field character issue


Character?

Are you suggesting that he was knowingly violating a rule in an attempt to gain an advantage? I've always read it more that Billy came up with a rule that nobody has ever cared about or will ever care about and used it to try and win a game. It wouldn't have ever occurred to me that Brett is a dirty bastard cheater and thank God Billy was there to stop him.

Or, are you asserting that men of good character don't try to dismember umpires, which he unarguably would have done without intervention?
   32. Ron J2 Posted: February 13, 2013 at 01:36 PM (#4368795)
TJ, I have to say that as long as Aislin (Terry Mosher, Montreal political cartoonist who has never covered baseball) has a vote, the fact that some former baseball writers can still vote is pretty much a non-issue to me.

And yes, Mosher really does have a HOF vote.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
danielj
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(241 - 3:26am, Apr 17)
Last: sardonic

NewsblogOMNICHATTER: Wednesday April 16, 2014
(106 - 2:46am, Apr 17)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(181 - 2:16am, Apr 17)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!

NewsblogNightengale: Pujols nears 500 home runs...and no one seems to care
(67 - 2:15am, Apr 17)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogVerducci: Overuse of young pitchers fueling MLB's Tommy John surgery problem
(43 - 12:51am, Apr 17)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogPaine: Advanced Stats Love Jackie Robinson
(8 - 12:50am, Apr 17)
Last: JE (Jason Epstein)

NewsblogGleeman: Mets minor league team is hosting “Seinfeld night”
(38 - 12:46am, Apr 17)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

Jim's Lab NotesWe're Moved! (And Burst.net can bite me!)
(95 - 11:42pm, Apr 16)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(132 - 10:55pm, Apr 16)
Last: zack

NewsblogExposition:The Jonah Keri Mega Q&A
(6 - 10:50pm, Apr 16)
Last: God

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(52 - 10:46pm, Apr 16)
Last: Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(60 - 10:30pm, Apr 16)
Last: I Helped Patrick McGoohan Escape

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1393 - 10:15pm, Apr 16)
Last: Publius Publicola

NewsblogAstros To Promote George Springer
(40 - 9:20pm, Apr 16)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogGothamist: Yankee Stadium Is Selling Nachos In A Helmet For $20
(72 - 9:04pm, Apr 16)
Last: puck

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.6571 seconds
52 querie(s) executed