Introducing the Hall of Stats: An alternate Hall of Fame populated by a mathematical formula

The Hall of Stats

I’ve been in a bit of a baseball-writing hibernation lately. Today I’m happy to show you why.

Over the last couple years, I’ve been obsessed with the idea of a Hall of Fame populated by a single statistic. I whipped up a little stat called wWAR and built a small site called The Hall of wWAR. But I wasn’t done yet. The formula needed tweaking. The site could be better.

I enlisted the help of a couple dear friends who happen to be the best software developers I’ve ever seen—Jeffrey Chupp and Michael Berkowitz. We’ve been hard at work and have a little something to share with you.

The Hall of Stats

There are so many things here that I’m proud of, so I’ll just share a few in some bullets…

  • Like the Hall of wWAR, the Hall of Stats kicks everybody out of the Hall of Fame and re-populates it based on a formula.
  • That formula is expressed as “Hall Rating” and uses WAR and WAA (from Baseball-Reference) as the main inputs.
  • A Hall Rating of 100 represents the Hall of Fame borderline. Over 100? You’re in. Under 100? You’re out.
  • The site features every player in history, from Babe Ruth to Bill Bergen.
  • Every player page features visualizations of the player’s career run values and year by year WAR and WAA stats.
  • Some players (just a few so far) feature a short bio and (around 400) a photo.
  • Perhaps my favorite part of the project is our value-based similarity scores. While Bill James’ scores are based on raw statistics, these are based on WAR run value components.
  • There are a bunch of other articles so far, too.
  • If you’re into the nitty gritty, there About page is super-detailed.

I invite you to take a look, poke around, and let me know what you think. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

139 Comments on "Introducing the Hall of Stats: An alternate Hall of Fame populated by a mathematical formula"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Ed
Guest

Adam – I only have to glance at the site but look forward to spending more time on it later. General reaction is…..kudos!!!!! One comment, one question:

1) I really like the idea of value based similarity scores. The Bill James formula is clearly outdated and I’m surprised it’s taken so long for someone to develop an alternative.

2) What happens when BR tweaks their WAR formula and someone goes from being above 100 to below 100? Will you give them the boot from your HOF?

Brent
Guest

Awesome!!

Is there somewhere on the site that we can see the guys who just missed the cut? I am sure that list is interesting too.

Ed
Guest

You can see some of the players that just missed the cut here:

http://www.hallofstats.com/articles/2013-ballot-head-start

I also noticed that Minnie Minoso is at 99, Brian Giles is at 98.

Hartvig
Guest
That was the first question that popped into my head as well. And any HOF that still excludes Minnie Minoso needs a bit of tweaking as far as the membership requirements go. But it’s on the margins where the best “discussions” happen. And Adam, this is great stuff. I can hardly imagine the amount to work, time and energy everyone had to put into it. At a glance, my only criticism so far is that whatever criteria you are using seems to be over-representing pre-1893 pitchers considerably (and that leads me to conclude that it’s weighted WAR where the problem… Read more »
no statistician but
Guest
I agree with Harvig. Almost every 19th Century pitcher of note seems to be here, and the placement of several so high on the list, given the relatively little we know about the finer aspects of how the game was played early on—a baldfaced opinion on my part, true—makes me less than sanguine. I’m carping and complaining as usual, but another problem with numerical rankings based on formulae, is that they boil down to this conundrum: which do we believe? The formulaic statistics, especially when accumulation enters in, or what we and thousands of others have observed. Tenace is a… Read more »
Richard Chester
Guest

From 1915-1919 Pete Alexander had an ERA+ of 175 but it includes 1918 in which he only pitched 26 innings (WWI service). From 1915-1920 his ERA+ was 173.

Paul E
Guest

Sorry, a little late to the party…..Re Tenace, I remember Ray Krok bitching, after signing Tenace as a free agent, that “all he can do is walk”.

Even better still, I remember, years later, Krok witholding beer from the Padres’ clubhouse and Goose Goosage aaying something about “Ray’s worrying about adults consuming beer while he poisons choldren all over the world with fast food”

DaveKingman
Guest

The Toy Cannon is in. Outstanding.

Jeff
Guest

Nice to See Whitaker and Trammell comfortabley in the Hall in the low 140’s. And darn near right next to each other, like they should be.

John Autin
Editor

Adam, congratulations on the launch! It looks like a winner.

I’m curious about how you tailored the formula to make 100 the standard for admission — specifically, did you aim to include roughly the same number of players as in the actual HOF, as you did with the HOwW? I couldn’t find that info in a quick tour of the site, but maybe I didn’t look in the right place.

Doug
Guest

John,

Adam has this note under the “Getting a Head Start on the 2013 Ballot” page.

The Hall of Stats will always contain the same number of players as the Hall of Fame..

Thus the HOS will grow in size in lock step with the HOF.

Ed
Guest

Okay, I’m playing with the site rather than what I’m supposed to be doing!

Noticed that Will and Jack Clark are #2 on each other’s list of similar players. I had mentioned a few weeks ago that they had some superficial similarities. So nice to see that it extends beyond what I had noticed.

Dr. Doom
Guest

🙂

Thanks , Adam! I’ll be perusing in the coming days/weeks/months/years.

Bryan O'Connor
Editor
There goes my weekend. And my December. This is amazing, Adam. A few observations: Kevin Brown 136 Carl Hubbell 135 Yogi Berra 134 Yup, Brown was that good. Kevin Appier 110 Don Sutton 107 I’m not surprised these two are in this order, but I’m a little surprised they’re both this far above the line. Tommy John 102 Sandy Koufax 100 One argument for subjective adjustments to the stat-based WAR, I suppose. A few more inductions and Koufax is on the outside looking in with Dizzy Dean, Goose Gossage, and Roy Campanella. Every new induction will reduce everyone’s Hall rating,… Read more »
Doug
Guest

Great stuff, Adam.

How long does a player have to be retired to get on the honor roll?

Also, would be interesting to have a companion list of active players currently at HOS induction level.

Bryan O'Connor
Editor

There’s a drop-down next to “208 inductees”. You can choose “Active and Hall-Worthy” or “Not Yet Eligible But Hall-Worthy”.

And with Bonds/Clemens/Piazza in, but Maddux Not Yet Eligible, it looks like Adam uses the same five-year requirement the Hall of Fame uses, only his calendar turns before the Hall of Fame voting.

Doug
Guest

Thanks Bryan,

I’m guessing the HOS will grow increasingly more elite over time, as more players become HOS-eligible and meet HOS induction levels than are allowed to enter. That is, there will be more such players than are added each year to the HOF, so the HOS induction level will continue to rise to compensate.

Forrest
Guest

I love this idea! Awesome! I’m gonna check out the site in a moment, but first I want to suggest you tweak the Hall Rating to include input from RE24 & WPA (if they’re not already used in the WAR or WAA calc — I’m not sure if they are). I think those are really important stats for seeing who was really great. It could be used at least in tie breakers or when two players are very similar, to determine if one really ranks higher than the other or not.

Voomo Zanzibar
Guest

Gene Tenace !
(Fiore Gino Tennaci)

Did you know that Tenace reached base 14 times in the 1973 World Series without scoring a run?

Doug
Editor

That appears to be the WS reacord for most TOBs without scoring.

Marty Barrett of the Red Sox scored only once in 18 TOBs (.514 OBP) in the 1986 WS. His one run came in game 6 when he was 3 for 4 with 2 walks.

Ed
Guest

Looking through the box scores, Tenace made it to third several times, but was always stranded. The strangest occurrence was in game two where he was caught trying to steal home with one out. I assume that MUST have been a busted squeeze play.

Dave V.
Guest

Great stuff! I’m going to enjoy going through this. Right now, I am happy to see David Cone, Orel Hershiser and Tim Hudson in the Hall of Stats 🙂

Doug
Guest

Enjoy Orel while you can. I’m afraid he’s not likely to be there for long.

Ed
Guest

Adam – Can you comment of the “peak vs. longevity” and how that’s calculated? For example, I was surprised to see that Jim Rice was 43% peak and 57% longevity. I would have expected the opposite.

Nick Pain
Guest

Adam,

What a great idea. I’ve been following your Hall of wWAR, and am excited to spend ample time at your new site. I appreciate you unveiling it close to the holidays, so I have more free time to do so. Now my family on the other hand…

Brooklyn Mick
Guest

Congratulations on an excellent piece of work Adam! I’m trying to get a better idea of how the HOS Similarity Scores work. Earlier you mentioned Trammell and Whitaker, who each have Similarity Scores of 202. My question is this: are John Titus and Topsy Hartsel even more similar due to their respective Similarity Scores of 29? Is that what you mean when you say, “The closer a pair’s score gets to zero, the more similar the players are.”? Or by “closer to zero” do you mean closer to equal?

Ed
Guest

Omar Vizquel….13% peak, 87% longevity. Not surprising but still…wow! Definitely puts his career in perspective. Wonder if that’s the largest peak/longevity discrepancy? And who has the largest discrepancy going the other way? (lots of peak, little longevity).

Ed
Guest

Hmmm…Barry Bonds has 78% peak. That might be the highest. He beats Ruth who had 76% peak.

no statistician but
Guest

With his three of his four top seasons at ages 36, 37, 39. Didn’t we already have this discussion?

kds
Guest

As a position player, Ruth’s peak his higher, about 79.8%. As a pitcher his peak is just under 50%, the combination gets him to 74%.

Doug
Guest

Great to see Indian Bob Johnson make it.

Mr. Consistency has positive WAA seasons (that’s WAA, not WAR) all 13 years of his career. His WAA scores are all 1.2 and up, and WAR all at 2.5 and up. His top season, by WAR, WAA and OPS+ was his second-to-last, at age 38.

How the Veterans Committee continues to overlook Bob is baffling.

kds
Guest

They may be applying a big discount to his success when most of the good players were away during WWII. He came up pretty old, and his rate stats aren’t as gaudy as those playing 10 years before.

Doug
Guest

Telling commentary, Adam.

I’m actually not sure what type of adjustment relievers should get (if any). Without an adjustment, we would have no relievers in the Hall of Stats.

Something to think about fixing. I see Mariano will make it. But, until he does, all we have is Wilhelm and Eckersley, and Eck only made it because of his years as a starter.

If 80% as good as Mariano is the standard for getting in, we’ll be waiting a long time before seeing another reliever in the HOS.

BTW, a nice design improvement would be to have a player search bar on every page.

John Autin
Editor
“Eck only made it because of his years as a starter.” The same is true of Wilhelm. Over 15% of his career WAR (and 20% of his WAA) come from his one year as a starter, when he led MLB in ERA and ERA+. Without that year, his career WAR would be virtually identical to that of Gossage. I have mixed feelings about the dearth of relievers in the HOS. Part of me feels that a greater allowance should be made for the fact that, for good or for ill, the position of “fireman”/”closer” was created, and many talented pitchers… Read more »
Doug
Guest
I’m for finding a way to include an appropriate number of relievers – not many, but certainly the elite of that craft. I look at a Trevor Hoffman and think he should be a sure thing – yet he scores only 63. In the early days of closing, the broken-down starter mold may have been the norm. But, even as relatively long ago as the early 1980s, a promising young (25) starter like Dave Righetti was switched to relief precisely because he was virtually unhittable in his first couple of innings of work. In other words, there was some purpose… Read more »
bstar
Guest

One other piece of constructive criticism, Adam: I want to go to a player page on Hall of Stats and see his final Hall score front and center. Is there any consideration you would give to putting that number on the player’s main page instead of having to click on “about stats” to get the number? Even then, you have to read through the explanation to get the one number that means everything. I think maybe displaying it more prominently would add to the site’s appeal.

Andrew
Guest

For years, I’ve said that John Olerud is the perfect yardstick to measure a Hall of Famer. Essentially, I don’t feel like he’s a Hall of Famer, but he’s got to be one of, if not THE best player who isn’t. Anyone who had a better career than John Olerud belongs in the Hall of Fame.

So of course, the first thing I did when I got to your site was type his name in. Imagine my satisfaction when I saw that 99.8.

Atlas
Guest

You’ve got Pete Rose in there, so you’re doing it wrong.

And, for folks who want to explain to me that it’s all about numbers, I get that and I’m saying that, clever as it is, it’s insufficient.

Oh, and something in your code is breaking the lines for guys named Eddie.

e pluribus munu
Guest

I had a lot to get done today, so I’m grateful I didn’t log on to HHS until very late – the HoS would have sabotaged the day’s work. Apart from the pleasure of a new and improved Hall of Adam (& Friends) in terms of metrics, the presentation is elegant, and a pleasure to encounter – *great* use of the Jones archive. I look forward to watching the blurbs and features grow.

PS: Please make sure Koufax does not slip off the chart. If my head explodes it will ruin the screen.

John Autin
Editor

By the way, Adam, the photos are fantastic, and site overall is quite beautiful.

John Autin
Editor
Adam, could you explain more about how you’ll keep the HOS population equal to the HOF population? Hypothetical examples: — HOF inducts 3 players, only 1 of whom meets the HOS threshold. The remaining 2 HOS spots will be awarded to ___ ? Will you take the 2 eligible players with the highest Hall rating, and then tweak the formula so that their Hall rating is now 100 (and everyone else’s goes up a little bit)? — HOF inducts 1 player, but the ballot includes 2 more who meet the HOS threshold. Will you then evict the bottom 2 players… Read more »
kds
Guest
Adam, Great work you guys have done!! I don’t agree with all of it but I like it and I like the site. A technical point which may help a bit with 19th cent pitchers: the figures given in the values tables for pitchers under WAA is not wins above (park adjusted) league average. Every year the league total comes to something like +12 to +18 or so. Since this should = 0, by definition, there is applied an adjustment, (WAAadj) is added to WAA to get it to balance. The league amount is split among the pitchers, based on… Read more »
KalineCountry Ron
Guest

Adam, I have enjoyed every article you have posted at several sites the past few years, and like before, you have out done yourself again. The Hall of Stats is great, and as a lifelong Tigers fan, your praise of Kaline, and Tram and Lou makes me very proud. The about page and similarity scores with Defense gives the complete picture of a players all around greatness.
A hearty thankyou!!

bstar
Guest

Many congrats, Adam. It will take a long time to digest and the site is fun to play around with.

MikeD
Guest

Just catching up on the past couple days.

Adam, the site looks great. Easy to navigate. Nicely done! I can see myself getting lost in it (in a good way) over the winter months.

Quick question. I might have missed it, but is there a quick pull down of which players in the Hall didn’t make your Hall, as well as which players are in yours and not the one in Cooperstown?

Thanks.

MikeD
Guest

Nevermind. Found it under the drop-down arrow.

Dan McCloskey
Editor

You’ve already heard this from me 100 times, Adam, but fantastic work. As the President of the Adam Darowski Fan Club, I was lucky enough to get to see the sneak previews along the way, and I was/am amazed at how, with each tweak, it just kept/keeps getting better.

I love that it now includes every player in baseball history. I also second a comment made previously about making a list of just-under-the-borderline candidates available.

kds
Guest

Adam, what’s going on with Lefty Carlton? His WAA is 46.1, which is what I get within rounding error. But his adjWAA is 46.0. He was -5.9 WAA his last 3 seasons, I thought therefore his adjWAA should be about 51.9? The (few) other players I’ve checked don’t have this problem.

What did you do about Bagwell in the shortened 1994 season? He was injured and out for the rest of the year, a day or so before the season was prematurely ended.

Adam Darowski
Guest

6.2 of Carlton’s WAA came as a hitter. Since he already gets credit for 6.0 WAR as a hitter, I don’t count that WAA. There’s more info about this in “adjWAA” section here: http://www.hallofstats.com/about#formula

As far as Bagwell’s 1994… I treat it the same as other years. I try not to do such one-offs. But if it made a difference for his placement, I might look into it. As it stands, it doesn’t really change things much.

John Autin
Editor
Ed @110: “Nearly half of Tenace’s PA’s were at first base so I don’t see that as a valid comparison.” Ed, you’re right on that one. I guess I’d thought there were more catchers like Tenace who spent a big chunk of time at another position. But now I see that in the modern era, only Tenace and Joe Torre had 500+ games at both C and 1B; only Torre had 500+ at C and 3B; only Surhoff and Downing had 500+ at C and LF; only Downing had 500+ at C and DH; and we’ve yet to see a… Read more »
Richard Chester
Guest
John: Here’s what I did. I got a list of all players with 500+ games at catcher and saved it. In order to play 500+ games in the OF a player has to play at least 167 games at one of the three OF positions. I searched that list of players to see who had at least 167+ games at any one of the three positions. I found Downing, Surhoff and Elston Howard for left field and Joe Ferguson and Charley Moore for RF and no one for CF. I then went to each of their stat pages on BR… Read more »
John Autin
Editor
And to bstar’s comment @91 re: the ease of maintaining a 136 OPS+ through a mere 5,527 PAs — Not so easy. In fact, not one of the 12 modern HOF catchers could match Tenace’s 136 OPS+ either through 5,000 PAs or through their age 33 season (Tenace’s last full year): Bresnahan — 132 through age 33 / 129 through 5,120 PAs (age 35) Bench — 129 through age 33 / 131 through 5,194 PAs (age 27) Carter — 120 through age 33 / 120 through 5,025 PAs (age 29) Cochrane — 129 through age 33 / 128 through 5,383… Read more »
bstar
Guest
You took my comment out of the context in which it was intended. I said Tenace WAS a Hall of Famer, John, just not an all-time great. Your analysis confirms my statement. Yes, I agree he was better than Ray Schalk and Roger Bresnahan. I also didn’t say maintaining a 136 OPS+ was “easy”, I said it was “easier” than over a career with more PA than Tenace had. Mike Piazza OPS+ thru age 33: 154. Why is this meaningful? Because Piazza was viewed as a negative-value fielder(like Tenace), was of little value on the basepaths(like Tenace and virtually all… Read more »
John Autin
Editor
b, I didn’t realize I was missing any context. It was not intentional. Taking a second look, I don’t see what I missed. The business about “easier” (your original), “ease” (mine) and “easy” (your reply) is not the point. You said @91: “But it’s far easier to maintain a 136 OPS+ over only 8 full seasons and 5500 PA.” That’s literally true, of course: It’s easier to maintain any exceptional performance over a shorter period of time. But I thought you clearly implied that several others have done what Tenace did. And I showed that not one of the HOF… Read more »
bstar
Guest

J, the context that you missed was that we were arguing whether or not Tenace was an “all-time great”, not whether he was a Hall of Famer. I think he belongs in the Hall and said so. Yes, to me there’s a distinction between a Hall of Famer and an all-time great. I think Rick Reuschel, Gene Tenace, Alan Trammell, etc. are HOF’ers but not all-time greats at their position.

Maybe “inner circle” is what I’m implying by all-time great. Does that work?

bstar
Guest
OK, re-reading your 118 comment, I think all we’re disagreeing on is where to rank Tenace among all HOF catchers or those Hall-worthy. Bench, Carter, both Pudges, Yogi, Piazza, and Dickey are just better. Throwing Cochrane in, maybe that’s your seven as well plus Piazza. I would put Thurman Munson and Joe Torre over Tenace as well. That puts Gino at #11 on my list. I don’t think that’s radical thinking there. I’ve said too much, but I’m going to continue because maybe it can shed some light on why I objected to Tenace being called one of the greatest… Read more »
bstar
Guest

Also consider this point that Ed brought up earlier, about Tenace’s actual time behind the plate:

% games played at catcher:

Cochrane – 100%
Dickey – 100%
Lombardi – 100%
Campanella – 100%
Ferrell – 100%
Hartnett – 98.2%
Fisk – 96.9%
Carter – 90.5%
Bench – 79.4%
Bresnahan – 70.4%
—————–
Tenace – 57.5%

Which career would you pick to have a high OPS+, the one where you wear the tools of ignorance every day or the one where you’re basically a catcher/1B hybrid?

John Autin
Editor

I grant that Tenace’s 136 OPS+ would have been even more valuable had he played 90% of his games behind the plate. But I think you’re giving too little weight to a 136 OPS+, period.

Relative to the 10 good-hitting HOF catchers, Tenace’s OPS+ rates:
+7 to Cochrane
+9 to Dickey
+10 to Bench, Hartnett, Lombardi, Bresnahan
+11 to Berra
+13 to Campanella
+19 to Fisk
+21 to Carter

In the 4 full years that Tenace played more 1B than C, his ranking in WAR among his league’s 1Bs:
1973 — 4th
1974 — 1st
1976 — 2nd
1978 — 1st

WAR from 1B counts the same as WAR from C.

bstar
Guest
No, JA, my point is that his OPS+ wouldn’t be 136 if he were a full-time catcher. Gene Tenace only had two seasons of over 100 games at catcher. Think about what I said this way: it’s easier to post an OPS+ of 136 after 6000 PA than with 10,000 PA. Here I’m comparing Tenace’s career to all others, not just catchers. I don’t see the difficulty or the invalidity of my statement. In fact, you yourself said it was literally true. Trying to find some hidden meaning that I didn’t intend, well, I don’t know what to say to… Read more »
Adam Darowski
Guest
Adam was touting Tenace’s 136 OPS+ as spectacular and other-worldly. I disagreed. That’s about it. Okay, I’ve got to get back into the discussion now. 🙂 I’m not saying Tenace is an all-time great either. I just think he should be a Hall of Famer. Every complaint against him is something that I believe is captured well in WAR, wWAR, Hall Rating, what have you. Here’s the thing. 100 is borderline. I have him as 103. Just barely in the Hall of Fame. My passionate case for him was NOT to say he’s an inner circle guy. He just gets… Read more »
John Autin
Editor

b, you have clarified your meaning and I think we’re on the same page.

But just so you know that I have not been deliberately misunderstanding you in order to stir up an argument, note that your comment @91 says nothing about Tenace not being a full-time catcher. It only talks about career length, and that’s what I addressed @118.

bstar
Guest
@126 Yes, a 131 OPS+ for age 34-36 is good. But keep in mind that Tenace batted primarily against left-handed pitching in those years. He was not a full-time player. I’ve got Tenace with 265 PA from 1981-83 against LHP and only 152 against righties. That’s 63% of his PA against lefties. It goes without saying that your OPS+ is going to be higher if you have the platoon advantage in most of your at-bats(unless you have a reverse platoon split, which Tenace did not). And at the end of the day, Tenace only had 417 PA over those last… Read more »
bstar
Guest
Also, I’m a little confused with your proclamation that Tenace should have gotten more playing time in his age 34-36 years. He was playing for the Cardinals in those first two years. Where do you play Tenace? You’ve got Gold Glover Keith Hernandez at first and an also-underrated Darrell Porter behind the plate. Porter was a better defender than Tenace and was a plus offensive catcher as well. Porter put up a 7.4 WAR season in 1979, a mark Gene Tenace never achieved. It’s hard to see Tenace getting playing time over these two guys. It looks like he was… Read more »
Adam Darowski
Guest
Hmmm… yeah, probably more a victim of circumstance than anything else. Perhaps he just had shit luck. I think he should have had more playing time than he did, but I can see why a low average guy (despite great OBP and SLG) won’t get the playing time in the 1980s. I also don’t think it was anything in his control. He played well enough to start. It’s a shame he didn’t get the opportunity elsewhere. It’s probably what pushed him from the game too early (the idea that he was no longer a starter). All that said… he still… Read more »
MikeD
Guest

That is significant enough that he has to be part of the conversation.

MikeD
Guest

*it* has to be part of the conversation, not “he”. He is already part of the conversation!

bstar
Guest

He is part of the conversation, Mike, but the fact that his time behind the plate is lower(significantly so for most) than anyone currently in the Hall as a catcher must be in the discussion as well.

MikeD
Guest
bstar, yes. To be clear in case it wasn’t, I was agreeing that the amount of time he spent behind the plate needs to be part of the conversation here about Tenace. His career OPS+ of 136 is quite good, but context is required. It’s the onion that needs to be peeled as we also have to factor in playing time, which clearly impacted his career counting stats. Barely 1,000 hits; less than a 1,000 walks, even though that was his strength as a batter; RBI and runs scored only in the 600 range. Only once did he ever catch… Read more »
Adam Darowski
Guest
Since we’re getting all hung up on OPS+, let’s look at a context-adjusted counting stats. WAR Batting Runs. PAs should not matter at all here. This is a counting stats. Hall of Fame catchers with more WAR Batting Runs than Tenace’s 259: 270 Mickey Cochrane 269 Johnny Bench 262 Bill Dickey That’s it. I can see one argument here—he wasn’t always a catcher. Combine his catching and his first base-ing and you have a positional adjustment of +14. So, how many players have a higher WAR batting run total and equal-to-or-higher positional adjustment to Tenace? 23 players. Rogers Hornsby Honus… Read more »
Nick Pain
Guest

Adam, I thought you would be interested to know that I created a Sporcle quiz based on the Hall of States.

Nick Pain
Guest

Or Hall of Stats, whichever floats your boat.

Adam Darowski
Guest

Oh cool. Got a link?

Adam Darowski
Guest
Nick Pain
Guest

It was a great exercise to go through the Hall of Stats and learn about some of the players that I don’t know a lot about.

wpDiscuz