Murray Chass defends his blank Hall of Fame ballot on MLB Network Radio
On Sunday, blogger Murray Chass wrote a column explaining why he submitted a blank Hall of Fame ballot. He’s a “small Hall” guy, which means he has a higher standard for players getting enshrined than do most people. He’s also virulently against players associated in any way with performance-enhancing drugs.
Sticking only to his defenses, though, is to give Chass the benefit of the doubt because the only reason he’s still voting, he said three years ago, is to spite writers like Rob Neyer and our own Craig Calcaterra. Chass is truly more an agitator than an agent of change.
Casey Stern of MLB Network Radio had Chass on today to clarify his blank ballot, but we didn’t really learn anything new.
"I don't have to defend not voting for anybody. In my opinion, the players fell short of what is a HOF player or used stuff." Murray Chass— MLB Network Radio on SiriusXM (@MLBNetworkRadio) January 9, 2017
"The Hall is for the best players, not very good players. There are players on ballot that are very good, but fall short of HOF." - Chass— MLB Network Radio on SiriusXM (@MLBNetworkRadio) January 9, 2017
"If I were drawing up the ballot, half of the players on it would not be on it. They do it bc they need a full ballot." Murray Chass— MLB Network Radio on SiriusXM (@MLBNetworkRadio) January 9, 2017
Chass - "I am making an impact by voting. If I send in blank ballot, that makes it more difficult for people who shouldn't be in to get in."— MLB Network Radio on SiriusXM (@MLBNetworkRadio) January 9, 2017
Selig doesn't like Bonds. He should renounce his election to remove writers' excuse that Selig is in, so Bonds & Clemens should be. Chass— MLB Network Radio on SiriusXM (@MLBNetworkRadio) January 9, 2017
It’s worth pointing out that for every non-vote a player gets, it takes three votes in order for him to be elected. Chass is correct that his non-votes make an impact, but it’s disappointing that it’s for wrong and misinformed reasons.