Murray Chass

Murray Chass intentionally turned in a blank Hall of Fame ballot

74 Comments

J.G. Taylor Spink Award winner and noted blogger Murray Chass has made a habit of becoming a spectacle when Hall of Fame voting rolls around. Three years ago, he announced that he would no longer vote for the Hall of Fame. A little while later, he informed his readers that he would, in fact, continue voting for the Hall of Fame, specifically to spite our own Craig Calcaterra as well as Rob Neyer and others. Last year, Chass submitted a ballot with only one vote for Ken Griffey, Jr. and no one else.

This year’s ballot doesn’t have any slam dunk choices like Griffey, given the link between performance-enhancing drugs and players like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Curt Schilling, third on this year’s ballot going by Jay Jaffe’s JAWS statistic, has no doubt cost himself votes with his antics over the last year or so, specifically when he [EDIT: tweeted a picture of someone wearing a shirt] implying that journalists should be hanged. But with 34 players from which to choose, one can still very easily reach the maximum of 10 votes. A blank ballot should be impossible to rationally defend.

Chass, though? He voted for no one. He turned in his ballot, writing, “This ballot is intentionally blank.”

Chass explained his reasoning by quoting himself in a previous column. He wrote, “As for my HOF voting, in my first year as a voter, I voted for 10 players. [That was and is the maximum, which some voters want the Hall to raise; why I don’t understand.] By the time of my second vote, I realized that by voting for 10, I was saying I wanted to see 10 elected. What a horrible thought, to make people sit through 10 speeches in the hot July Cooperstown sun. I also realized that by having 10 players inducted on the same day lessened the honor for each. From then on I voted for only the players I considered the best of the elite.”

Of course, voting for 10 players doesn’t necessarily mean all 10 of those players will be elected. From 2000-12, either one or two players were elected to the Hall by the Baseball Writers Association of America. In 2014, three players went in and four were enshrined in 2015. Two players went in last year. The most amount of players inducted in one year is five, which happened once in 1936 when the Hall of Fame was established.

By abstaining, Chass is more thumbing his nose at the system, as others have put it. Chass, though, was happy to be part of the system when he accepted the J.G. Taylor Spink Award — the Hall of Fame award for writers — in 2003 and gave a speech. If Chass wanted to make a statement, he should have thumbed his nose then, as Jon Heyman of FanRag Sports suggested. He should have recused himself from voting so that the BBWAA could allow someone who values the privilege to vote for the Hall of Fame.

There are two potential immediate consequences from writers submitting blank ballots. One is that a player could fall just shy of the five percent vote threshold, which means they will never be on a BBWAA Hall of Fame ballot again (see: Kenny Lofton). The other consequence is that a player falls just shy of the 75 percent vote threshold, which means he have to wait until next year for a shot at election (unless it’s that player’s 10th and final year on the ballot).

Is it likely that Chass abstaining will be the deciding factor in a player’s non-election or falling completely off the ballot? Probably not. But it’s possible and worth considering when thinking of ways to combat what one feels is a flawed or meaningless system. For example, one should ask, “Is my crusade worth [Player] falling off the ballot?” Very rarely will that answer be “yes.”

Furthermore, rather than refusing to participate in the system, Chass could spend his time and energy trying to reform the system in a way he feels is better suited to honor great players. Consider a person who stays home rather than voting on Election Day because he or she doesn’t like either candidate put forth by the Democratic and Republican parties. Then consider that person also doesn’t do anything else either, like community organizing and activism. That person is only sabotaging his or her own ability to change the system.

I surmise, however, that change is not truly what Chass is seeking. This is, after all, a man who proudly announced he is only continuing to vote in order to spite some writers he doesn’t like.

Mitt Romney’s sons are trying to buy a stake in the Yankees

TAMPA, FL - AUGUST 30:  Tagg Romney son of Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gives an interview during the final day of the Republican National Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum on August 30, 2012 in Tampa, Florida. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was nominated as the Republican presidential candidate during the RNC which will conclude today.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Getty Images
19 Comments

Mitt Romney built his professional life in Massachusetts and was once the governor of the state. As such, it is not surprising that he has long identified as a Red Sox fan. So this has to be troubling to him from a fan’s perspective. From Jon Heyman:

The Romney family is bidding to buy a small stake in the Yankees months after their try for the Marlins stalled. If the deal goes through, it is expected to be $25 million to $30 million per percentage point and thought to be interested in one or two percentage points. The Yankees are valued around $3 billion or more.

The effort is being led by Mitt’s son Tagg, one of his brothers and their business partners. Mitt’s spokesman tells Jon Heyman that he has nothing to do with it personally. Tagg Romney is reported to have been planning a bid for controlling interest in the Marlins, but that has fallen through.

I find this interesting insofar as the M.O. for the Steinbrenners has, for years, been to buy out minority shareholders in the Yankees, not seek more. Indeed, when George Steinbrenner bought the Yankees back in 1973 he held just a bare controlling interest and there were a ton of silent partners, most of which were back in Ohio and knew Steinbrenner from his shipping business. I’ve personally gotten to know some of them over the years as there are a handful of them in Columbus and I crossed paths with them in my legal career. They have almost all been bought out in the past couple of decades. They still get season tickets and World Series rings and stuff. You can tell them by their personalized Yankees plates and the fact that, within the first ten minutes of meeting them, they will tell you that they once owned a piece of the Yankees but got pushed out.

In light of all of that it’s interesting that the Steinbrenners are once again accepting bids for small stakes in the team. Especially from someone whose interest in controlling the Marlins suggests that they do not consider it to be a mere vanity investment. Makes me wonder what the Steinbrenners’ long term plans are.

Max Scherzer still can’t throw fastballs

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 13: Max Scherzer #31 of the Washington Nationals works against the Los Angeles Dodgers in the fifth inning during game five of the National League Division Series at Nationals Park on October 13, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Rob Carr/Getty Images)
Getty Images
16 Comments

The Nationals will be many people’s favorites in the NL East this season. Not everything is looking great, however. For example, their ace — defending NL Cy Young winner Max Scherzer — can’t even throw fastballs right now.

The reason: the stress fracture he suffered last August is still causing him problems and Scherzer is unable to use his fastball grip without feeling pain in his right ring finger. He will throw a bullpen session tomorrow, but will only use his secondary stuff.

Scherzer has not been ruled out for Opening Day — the fact that he is throwing some means that his timetable isn’t totally on hold — but you have to figure, at some point, not being able to air things out and use his heater will lead to some problems in his spring training routine.