I thought the question I asked last week about steroids in regards to the Hall of Fame was an interesting one given that we are fully into that time where the suspected users are becoming eligible for the HOF vote.
First of all, here was the question: How should steroid users or suspected steroid users be handled in terms of the Hall of Fame vote?
And here are your votes, with percentages rounded off:
None of them get in 1 (7%)
Keep out only those that actually failed a test or admitted use 4 (30%)
Handle on a case-by-case basis 3 (23%)
Put deserving players in, note the steroid link on plaque 3 (23%)
Vote as normal without considering steroids 2 (15%)
Although it's close, the winning vote was that you keep only those that actually failed a test or admitted use out of the Hall of Fame.
Here's the problem with that: Under this logic, you are letting in Sammy Sosa (who never failed a test or admitted use but is highly suspected of using), yet keeping out Rafael Palmeiro (who failed a test). That doesn't quite seem fair, especially if you think Palmeiro was a better player than Sosa (and he was).
So then you say, keep out all suspected users. Here's the problem with that: If you have no proof, isn't it possible that some guy is being accused when we really don't know? Take Jeff Bagwell for example. He was a great player, but many people think he used steroids. However, what if he didn't. It is right to keep him out of the Hall of Fame on suspicions alone?
The next step is to handle on a case-by-case basis, which again creates the same dilemma as above. You end up letting some people in because you don't think they used (when they might have), and you keep some people out because you think they used (when maybe they didn't).
Basically, this is my long-winded way of saying that I think you have to start voting in steroid users and suspected steroid users if their numbers are deserving. I think if you know for a fact that they used steroids, then you need to note on their plaque that they either failed a test or admitted use. If you don't know it for a fact, you have to assume innocence until proven guilty.
Does this jeopardize the integrity of the Hall of Fame? Probably. But the entire sport has had its integrity called into question by the use of steroids and shouldn't the Hall of Fame reflect that era, just like it reflects any other eras (segregation, juiced ball, dead ball, etc)?
Showing posts with label Hall of Fame Debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hall of Fame Debate. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Hall of Fame Ballot
Given that I'm not a sportswriter, I don't have a vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame. To be completely honest, I'm glad that I don't have a vote because with the steroid era players reaching the ballot, it's getting harder and harder to decide who should be in the Hall of Fame. The official announcement is today at 2 PM.
However, what I do have is a group of friends that debate the Hall of Fame through email every year when the ballot is released. I typically start the email exchange, remind everyone that they can vote for up to 10 people (per the Hall's rules), and then list my ballot. In some places, I feel that it is necessary to explain my vote. In others, a simple "No" is enough.
For the first time ever, I voted for the maximum number of 10 people. My ballot is below in alphabetical order with some comments (tell me who you would vote for in the comments)
Roberto Alomar - YES. Although I really don't like him, he was one of the greatest second basemen of all time.
Carlos Baerga - NO.
Jeff Bagwell - YES. He was the best player on that team for the better part of a decade, and arguably in the franchise's history.
Harold Baines - YES. Although I'm wishy washy on him. I change my mind on him yearly (although I did go back and look, and I said yes last year as well).
Bert Blyleven - YES. Great pitcher on some bad teams. It's time to put him in.
Bret Boone - NO. I loved the guy when he was with the Reds, but no way should he be in the HOF.
Kevin Brown - NO. Good pitcher, not good enough for Hall of Fame.
John Franco - NO. But he was really good.
Juan Gonzalez - NO. Although I could be swayed in favor of this two-time MVP.
Marquis Grissom - NO.
Lenny Harris - NO. If there was a pinch hitting Hall of Fame, he'd be first ballot.
Bobby Higginson - NO.
Charles Johnson - NO.
Barry Larkin - YES. He was better offensively than all the shortstops currently in the Hall. His defense was outstanding too. And I'm biased as a Reds fan.
Al Leiter - NO.
Edgar Martinez - NO. Although I had him as a yes, and realized I reached 10 people, so he's my 11th or 12th vote and had to get changed to a no.
Tino Martinez - NO.
Don Mattingly - NO. Still can't pull the trigger on him.
Fred McGriff - YES. I voted for him last year, so I don't want to change.
Mark McGwire - YES. He was fascinating to watch. I know he won't get in, but I'll vote for him.
Raul Mondesi - NO.
Jack Morris - NO. A great pitcher, and even better in the postseason. That doesn't mean he's a Hall of Famer.
Dale Murphy - NO, although I know many who will disagree.
John Olerud - NO, but I loved the helmet.
Rafael Palmeiro - YES. I don't know what I'm supposed to do about the steroid players, so I'm just going on his stats which are an obvious yes.
Dave Parker - NO. Although as I said last year, my dad would put him in.
Tim Raines - NO. I'm starting to read more and more in favor of him though, so maybe next year when I don't already have 10 votes.
Kirk Rueter - NO.
Benito Santiago - NO.
Lee Smith - YES. He was a phenomenal closer.
B.J. Surhoff - NO.
Alan Trammell - YES. But as I said last year, only if Larkin goes in as well.
Larry Walker - NO. Although he probably ranks 11th on my list.
So I voted for all 10 that I'm allowed. Alomar, Bagwell, Baines, Blyleven, Larkin, McGriff, McGwire, Palmeiro, Smith, and Trammell.
I had the most trouble debating the following outfielders/DH's: Harold Baines, Juan Gonzalez, Rafael Palmeiro, Larry Walker, Tim Raines, Dale Murphy and Edgar Martinez. Admittedly, I did not do a side-by-side stat comparison and could be talked in or out of certain players.
However, what I do have is a group of friends that debate the Hall of Fame through email every year when the ballot is released. I typically start the email exchange, remind everyone that they can vote for up to 10 people (per the Hall's rules), and then list my ballot. In some places, I feel that it is necessary to explain my vote. In others, a simple "No" is enough.
For the first time ever, I voted for the maximum number of 10 people. My ballot is below in alphabetical order with some comments (tell me who you would vote for in the comments)
Roberto Alomar - YES. Although I really don't like him, he was one of the greatest second basemen of all time.
Carlos Baerga - NO.
Jeff Bagwell - YES. He was the best player on that team for the better part of a decade, and arguably in the franchise's history.
Harold Baines - YES. Although I'm wishy washy on him. I change my mind on him yearly (although I did go back and look, and I said yes last year as well).
Bert Blyleven - YES. Great pitcher on some bad teams. It's time to put him in.
Bret Boone - NO. I loved the guy when he was with the Reds, but no way should he be in the HOF.
Kevin Brown - NO. Good pitcher, not good enough for Hall of Fame.
John Franco - NO. But he was really good.
Juan Gonzalez - NO. Although I could be swayed in favor of this two-time MVP.
Marquis Grissom - NO.
Lenny Harris - NO. If there was a pinch hitting Hall of Fame, he'd be first ballot.
Bobby Higginson - NO.
Charles Johnson - NO.
Barry Larkin - YES. He was better offensively than all the shortstops currently in the Hall. His defense was outstanding too. And I'm biased as a Reds fan.
Al Leiter - NO.
Edgar Martinez - NO. Although I had him as a yes, and realized I reached 10 people, so he's my 11th or 12th vote and had to get changed to a no.
Tino Martinez - NO.
Don Mattingly - NO. Still can't pull the trigger on him.
Fred McGriff - YES. I voted for him last year, so I don't want to change.
Mark McGwire - YES. He was fascinating to watch. I know he won't get in, but I'll vote for him.
Raul Mondesi - NO.
Jack Morris - NO. A great pitcher, and even better in the postseason. That doesn't mean he's a Hall of Famer.
Dale Murphy - NO, although I know many who will disagree.
John Olerud - NO, but I loved the helmet.
Rafael Palmeiro - YES. I don't know what I'm supposed to do about the steroid players, so I'm just going on his stats which are an obvious yes.
Dave Parker - NO. Although as I said last year, my dad would put him in.
Tim Raines - NO. I'm starting to read more and more in favor of him though, so maybe next year when I don't already have 10 votes.
Kirk Rueter - NO.
Benito Santiago - NO.
Lee Smith - YES. He was a phenomenal closer.
B.J. Surhoff - NO.
Alan Trammell - YES. But as I said last year, only if Larkin goes in as well.
Larry Walker - NO. Although he probably ranks 11th on my list.
So I voted for all 10 that I'm allowed. Alomar, Bagwell, Baines, Blyleven, Larkin, McGriff, McGwire, Palmeiro, Smith, and Trammell.
I had the most trouble debating the following outfielders/DH's: Harold Baines, Juan Gonzalez, Rafael Palmeiro, Larry Walker, Tim Raines, Dale Murphy and Edgar Martinez. Admittedly, I did not do a side-by-side stat comparison and could be talked in or out of certain players.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Cooperstown is Calling (2010 Edition)
The call has been made. That's right. Call. Singular. Only one. And it goes to Andre "The Hawk" Dawson.
If you remember back to the last month, I filled out my ballot and voted for 10 people. I'm rather generous with my vote (and again, this is fictional because the Hall of Fame is not stupid enough to give me an actual vote).
I had voted for Dawson, and I don't think anyone is surprised that he made it in this year. You can argue some of his numbers aren't worthy, but as a child who grew up in the 80's, Andre Dawson was larger than life. He passes what I call "The Think Test". When you think about Andre Dawson, I think greatness and dominance. That's why I voted for him.
Bert Blyleven also had my fictional vote, but needed 5 more real votes to actually get inducted. He still has two more years on the ballot, and most think he'll drum up enough support next year, despite the fact that he won't pitch another inning, or strike anyone out between now and then.
Roberto Alomar got 73.7 percent of the vote, but needed 75. He'll get in next year, because there are a slew of voters who will never vote for someone on the first ballot (and if you're one of them, you should have your vote taken away).
Jack Morris had a big increase from last year, and Barry Larkin fared well for a first-time candidate, leaving both with hopes of increases in the next few years to get them in.
No one else got over 50% of the vote, meaning only time will tell if they can drum up enough support in their remaining years on the ballot. A handful of players received less than 5% and dropped off the ballot, but none of which are worthy of talking about.
Again, I think the best and worst part of the Hall of Fame vote is that you are not held to any standard. It's entirely your ballot. If you have some personal bias against Willie Mays, you don't have to vote for him. If you think David Segui deserves a vote (and someone did this year), then put him on your ballot.
I personally feel there should be a bit more accountability for the vote. If you are stupid enough not to vote for a guy like Ruth, Mays, or Gehrig, then maybe it's time to have your vote taken away. Also, if you vote for David Segui, but don't vote for Andre Dawson, then I think you need your head examined.
But then again, that's the beauty of the system as well. Was Dawson truly better than Blyleven? There's no real way to know, and only a vote of this nature can determine it.
Either way, I maintain that debating the Baseball Hall of Fame candidacy of certain players remains the greatest sports debate in the history of the world. Dawson gets in this time...but we'll be back in December to argue over this yet again!
If you remember back to the last month, I filled out my ballot and voted for 10 people. I'm rather generous with my vote (and again, this is fictional because the Hall of Fame is not stupid enough to give me an actual vote).
I had voted for Dawson, and I don't think anyone is surprised that he made it in this year. You can argue some of his numbers aren't worthy, but as a child who grew up in the 80's, Andre Dawson was larger than life. He passes what I call "The Think Test". When you think about Andre Dawson, I think greatness and dominance. That's why I voted for him.
Bert Blyleven also had my fictional vote, but needed 5 more real votes to actually get inducted. He still has two more years on the ballot, and most think he'll drum up enough support next year, despite the fact that he won't pitch another inning, or strike anyone out between now and then.
Roberto Alomar got 73.7 percent of the vote, but needed 75. He'll get in next year, because there are a slew of voters who will never vote for someone on the first ballot (and if you're one of them, you should have your vote taken away).
Jack Morris had a big increase from last year, and Barry Larkin fared well for a first-time candidate, leaving both with hopes of increases in the next few years to get them in.
No one else got over 50% of the vote, meaning only time will tell if they can drum up enough support in their remaining years on the ballot. A handful of players received less than 5% and dropped off the ballot, but none of which are worthy of talking about.
Again, I think the best and worst part of the Hall of Fame vote is that you are not held to any standard. It's entirely your ballot. If you have some personal bias against Willie Mays, you don't have to vote for him. If you think David Segui deserves a vote (and someone did this year), then put him on your ballot.
I personally feel there should be a bit more accountability for the vote. If you are stupid enough not to vote for a guy like Ruth, Mays, or Gehrig, then maybe it's time to have your vote taken away. Also, if you vote for David Segui, but don't vote for Andre Dawson, then I think you need your head examined.
But then again, that's the beauty of the system as well. Was Dawson truly better than Blyleven? There's no real way to know, and only a vote of this nature can determine it.
Either way, I maintain that debating the Baseball Hall of Fame candidacy of certain players remains the greatest sports debate in the history of the world. Dawson gets in this time...but we'll be back in December to argue over this yet again!
Cooperstown is Calling (2015 edition)
Randy Johnson retired from baseball yesterday, ending a long career as one of the most feared pitchers in baseball history.
Click the link, read all of his stats, and then tell me whether you agree that this guy should go ahead and book a trip to Cooperstown five years from now.
I'll be back later today with the 2010 edition of Cooperstown is Calling, once the final vote is announced.
Click the link, read all of his stats, and then tell me whether you agree that this guy should go ahead and book a trip to Cooperstown five years from now.
I'll be back later today with the 2010 edition of Cooperstown is Calling, once the final vote is announced.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
A Few Random Thoughts
-It's hard to believe that we are only 93 days away from Opening Day 2010. We're now closer to the start of the 2010 season than the end of the 2009 season. Coming back from the holidays, you're starting to see a sense of urgency around the office already.
-The Baseball Hall of Fame vote is announced tomorrow. You'll see the stories everywhere, but there's only one place to get your favorite broadcaster's reaction...right here on the OBB.
-I got a Wii for Christmas. My right shoulder/elbow hasn't been the same since my sister destroyed me in Wii Sports Boxing that night. I'll take suggestions for what games I should buy in the comments below. If anyone is still in the giving mood from the holidays, games can be sent to my attention at Coveleski Stadium :)
-My beloved Cincinnati Bengals are in the playoffs. Don't bother me on Saturday afternoon (or for the next week after that if they lose)
-We're working on a few more interviews for the "Catching Up With" series on www.silverhawks.com. I'll link you to them when they are complete.
Finally, I'll blog as often as I can to get you ready for the season. If my posting seems sporadic, it's because I'm going to be busy with sales calls and working on the media guide. I'll try to have at least one post a day, and sometimes more. Just keep checking back often, as I know you do. I appreciate all the people that come here daily, and love to hear comments from you either in the comments sections to the posts, or you can email me at oserey@silverhawks.com.
Thanks!
-The Baseball Hall of Fame vote is announced tomorrow. You'll see the stories everywhere, but there's only one place to get your favorite broadcaster's reaction...right here on the OBB.
-I got a Wii for Christmas. My right shoulder/elbow hasn't been the same since my sister destroyed me in Wii Sports Boxing that night. I'll take suggestions for what games I should buy in the comments below. If anyone is still in the giving mood from the holidays, games can be sent to my attention at Coveleski Stadium :)
-My beloved Cincinnati Bengals are in the playoffs. Don't bother me on Saturday afternoon (or for the next week after that if they lose)
-We're working on a few more interviews for the "Catching Up With" series on www.silverhawks.com. I'll link you to them when they are complete.
Finally, I'll blog as often as I can to get you ready for the season. If my posting seems sporadic, it's because I'm going to be busy with sales calls and working on the media guide. I'll try to have at least one post a day, and sometimes more. Just keep checking back often, as I know you do. I appreciate all the people that come here daily, and love to hear comments from you either in the comments sections to the posts, or you can email me at oserey@silverhawks.com.
Thanks!
Monday, January 4, 2010
Ford C. Frick Finalists
The finalists for the Ford C. Frick Award have been announced today. For those of you that don't know, the Frick Award is given annually for excellence in baseball broadcasting. Basically, it means one legendary broadcaster will be inducted into the Hall of Fame each year.
Upon reading that, you can understand why I find this interesting.
You can read all about the finalists here. I'm partial to Joe Nuxhall, simply because he was the color commentator for the Reds throughout my entire childhood. However, there are many other qualified candidates.
Upon reading that, you can understand why I find this interesting.
You can read all about the finalists here. I'm partial to Joe Nuxhall, simply because he was the color commentator for the Reds throughout my entire childhood. However, there are many other qualified candidates.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
My Hall of Fame Ballot
Voting has started for the Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2010. Each voter of the Baseball Writers Association of America is allowed to vote for up to 10 candidates. They don't have to vote for 10...they don't have to vote for anyone if they don't want to. Also, they don't have to explain their vote, which is very interesting. If you didn't want to vote for Cal Ripken, Jr. a few years ago, that was your choice.
That being said, I sometimes think an explanation is needed in some cases. So although I'm not a member of the BBWAA (nor will I ever be), I thought I'd let you know who I would vote for, and in some cases, why.
I would love for everyone that reads this to comment below and tell me who you would vote for (remember, anywhere from 0-10 votes. Also, it sometimes takes a while for comments to be approved, so if they don't show up immediately, don't worry).
Now, onto my ballot (in alphabetical order):
Roberto Alomar - Yes. I want to say no because it's disgraceful that he spit in the umpire's face a while back. However, he was arguably the best second baseman of his time. That's good enough for me.
Kevin Appier - No. Good pitcher, definitely not HOF material.
Harold Baines - No. I go back and forth on him. I told my friends that I would vote for him the other day in an email, but now I go back the other way. The guy played forever, and accumulated solid stats. I just don't know if he passes the "when you think of this guy, you think Hall of Famer test."
Bert Blyleven - Yes. This guy was a great pitcher. Are we really going to hold it against him that he fell 13 wins shy of 300?
Ellis Burks - No. Good player, not a Hall of Fame player.
Andre Dawson - Yes. Best player at his position for a decade or longer. He could hit and he could run as well as anyone in the game at that time.
Andres Galarraga - No. The Big Cat falls short in my book.
Pat Hentgen - No. Not really close.
Mike Jackson - No. You're kidding, right?
Eric Karros - No. Good hitter. Being a good hitter doesn't put you in the HOF.
Ray Lankford - No. Again, not really close.
Barry Larkin - Yes. Granted I'm biased being a Reds fan, but he won an MVP, won a World Series, was a 12-time All-Star, won 9 Silver Sluggers, was a three time Gold Glover and would have won more had it not been for Ozzie Smith. He also was a main part of transitioning shortstops from all glove and no hit types to the modern day shortstop that does both.
Edgar Martinez - No. I basically feel the same way about him that I do about Baines. I go back and forth. I just can't pull the trigger on him right now.
Don Mattingly - No. Great player, but falls just short on my ballot. If you want to vote him in, that's your call. But again, this is my ballot, and I say no.
Fred McGriff - Yes. If for no other reason than he rocked the Tom Emanski videos.
Mark McGwire - Yes. It's a Hall of Fame, and no one was more famous in the 90s that McGwire. Steroids or not, he should be in the Hall.
Jack Morris - No. One great game does not make someone a Hall of Famer. His numbers are good, but again, I just can't pull the trigger on him.
Dale Murphy - Yes. This is the first time I've ever put a Yes next to his name. What changed? I don't know. I guess I've been convinced of how dominant he was in the early 80's. The overall numbers are still underwhelming, but back-to-back MVPs is hard to argue with.
Dave Parker - Yes. My dad says yes on Parker. I'm more inclined to say no. But I don't argue with my dad about players from before I was born. If he says yes, then I'll go with him.
Tim Raines - No. A lot of people will argue this. That's fine. But again, it's my ballot, I can only vote for 10, and Raines doesn't make the cut this year.
Shane Reynolds - No. No explanation needed.
David Segui - No. Although kudos to him for actually admitting steroid use.
Lee Smith - Yes. He was the all-time leader in saves when he retired. That's good enough for me.
Alan Trammell - Yes. But only if Barry Larkin gets in first (and Davey Concepcion should be added by the veterans committee)
Robin Ventura - No. But I would induct him into the "I Got My Face Pounded In By Nolan Ryan Hall of Fame"
Todd Zeile - No. Good ballplayer, would have loved him on my team, but not in the HOF.
There you have it. My Hall of Fame Ballot. I voted the maximum of 10 people in this year (Alomar, Blyleven, Dawson, Larkin, McGriff, McGwire, Murphy, Parker, Smith, Trammel). Again, I think the beauty of this is that it's my ballot, and I can vote for who I want.
Any arguments? Complaints? Want to submit your own ballot? Click on comments below and tell me who you would vote in. You don't have to go through the whole list with explanations like I did. Just tell me who's in for you!
That being said, I sometimes think an explanation is needed in some cases. So although I'm not a member of the BBWAA (nor will I ever be), I thought I'd let you know who I would vote for, and in some cases, why.
I would love for everyone that reads this to comment below and tell me who you would vote for (remember, anywhere from 0-10 votes. Also, it sometimes takes a while for comments to be approved, so if they don't show up immediately, don't worry).
Now, onto my ballot (in alphabetical order):
Roberto Alomar - Yes. I want to say no because it's disgraceful that he spit in the umpire's face a while back. However, he was arguably the best second baseman of his time. That's good enough for me.
Kevin Appier - No. Good pitcher, definitely not HOF material.
Harold Baines - No. I go back and forth on him. I told my friends that I would vote for him the other day in an email, but now I go back the other way. The guy played forever, and accumulated solid stats. I just don't know if he passes the "when you think of this guy, you think Hall of Famer test."
Bert Blyleven - Yes. This guy was a great pitcher. Are we really going to hold it against him that he fell 13 wins shy of 300?
Ellis Burks - No. Good player, not a Hall of Fame player.
Andre Dawson - Yes. Best player at his position for a decade or longer. He could hit and he could run as well as anyone in the game at that time.
Andres Galarraga - No. The Big Cat falls short in my book.
Pat Hentgen - No. Not really close.
Mike Jackson - No. You're kidding, right?
Eric Karros - No. Good hitter. Being a good hitter doesn't put you in the HOF.
Ray Lankford - No. Again, not really close.
Barry Larkin - Yes. Granted I'm biased being a Reds fan, but he won an MVP, won a World Series, was a 12-time All-Star, won 9 Silver Sluggers, was a three time Gold Glover and would have won more had it not been for Ozzie Smith. He also was a main part of transitioning shortstops from all glove and no hit types to the modern day shortstop that does both.
Edgar Martinez - No. I basically feel the same way about him that I do about Baines. I go back and forth. I just can't pull the trigger on him right now.
Don Mattingly - No. Great player, but falls just short on my ballot. If you want to vote him in, that's your call. But again, this is my ballot, and I say no.
Fred McGriff - Yes. If for no other reason than he rocked the Tom Emanski videos.
Mark McGwire - Yes. It's a Hall of Fame, and no one was more famous in the 90s that McGwire. Steroids or not, he should be in the Hall.
Jack Morris - No. One great game does not make someone a Hall of Famer. His numbers are good, but again, I just can't pull the trigger on him.
Dale Murphy - Yes. This is the first time I've ever put a Yes next to his name. What changed? I don't know. I guess I've been convinced of how dominant he was in the early 80's. The overall numbers are still underwhelming, but back-to-back MVPs is hard to argue with.
Dave Parker - Yes. My dad says yes on Parker. I'm more inclined to say no. But I don't argue with my dad about players from before I was born. If he says yes, then I'll go with him.
Tim Raines - No. A lot of people will argue this. That's fine. But again, it's my ballot, I can only vote for 10, and Raines doesn't make the cut this year.
Shane Reynolds - No. No explanation needed.
David Segui - No. Although kudos to him for actually admitting steroid use.
Lee Smith - Yes. He was the all-time leader in saves when he retired. That's good enough for me.
Alan Trammell - Yes. But only if Barry Larkin gets in first (and Davey Concepcion should be added by the veterans committee)
Robin Ventura - No. But I would induct him into the "I Got My Face Pounded In By Nolan Ryan Hall of Fame"
Todd Zeile - No. Good ballplayer, would have loved him on my team, but not in the HOF.
There you have it. My Hall of Fame Ballot. I voted the maximum of 10 people in this year (Alomar, Blyleven, Dawson, Larkin, McGriff, McGwire, Murphy, Parker, Smith, Trammel). Again, I think the beauty of this is that it's my ballot, and I can vote for who I want.
Any arguments? Complaints? Want to submit your own ballot? Click on comments below and tell me who you would vote in. You don't have to go through the whole list with explanations like I did. Just tell me who's in for you!
Monday, March 23, 2009
Curt Schilling is Retiring
Story at CBS Sportsline. (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/11540024)
Let the debate begin: Hall-of-Famer or not?
Leave your thoughts in the comments below.
Let the debate begin: Hall-of-Famer or not?
Leave your thoughts in the comments below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)