Bill Baer

Murray Chass

Murray Chass defends his blank Hall of Fame ballot on MLB Network Radio

22 Comments

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.

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.

Manny Ramirez signs with the Kochi Fighting Dogs in Japan

LOS ANGELES, CA - JUNE 04:  Manny Ramirez #99 of the Los Angeles Dodgers looks on before the start of the game against the Atlanta Braves at Dodger Stadium on June 4, 2010 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Jeff Gross/Getty Images)
Jeff Gross/Getty Images
17 Comments

The Kochi Fighting Dogs of the Shikoku Island League Plus in Japan announced on Monday that the club signed former major leaguer Manny Ramirez. The SILP is independent baseball and not associated with Nippon Professional Baseball.

Ramirez, 44, hasn’t played in the majors since 2011 and hasn’t played professional baseball since 2014. In 2014, Ramirez served as a player-coach for the Cubs at Triple-A Iowa. The next year, he served as a batting consultant for the major league club and Iowa.

Ramirez is currently on the Hall of Fame ballot for the first time. Of the 178 ballots counted thus far by Ryan Thibodaux, Ramirez got a vote on only 46 of them so he’ll have to wait until 2018 at the earliest for enshrinement.

Murray Chass intentionally turned in a blank Hall of Fame ballot

Murray Chass
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.