Skip to content

Murray Chass: my opinion counts and yours doesn't

Jan 21, 2010, 8:28 AM EDT

Louis XVI.jpgFormer New York Times baseball writer and current curmudgeonly ass-clown Murray Chass, responding via his blog to a reader who disagreed with his Hall of Fame ballot:

Does that make him right and me wrong? Of course not. Am I right?
Yes. Why? Because my opinion counts and his doesn’t. My ballot was one
of the 539 counted in the election. He did not have a vote. Therefore,
his opinion is worthless as far as the election is concerned.
That’s the real problem self-proclaimed experts have. They want to
be the ones voting, but they don’t have that privilege. It’s their own
fault. They chose the wrong profession. Accountants, lawyers, doctors, teachers and salesmen don’t get to vote for the Hall of Fame. Baseball writers do.

That’s the kind of thing that caused monarchs to lose their head back in the day. Thankfully for Chass’ head no one gives diddly durn about how important he thinks he and the rest of his Hall of Fame voting friends are and we’ll all continue to voice our worthless opinions about who should and who shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame.

Why? Because unlike Chass — who admitted that he neglected his ballot until a couple of hours before the New Year’s Eve deadline — we actually care about the Hall of Fame vote beyond what it means for our personal status.  It also helps that we, unlike Chass, have a semblance of a clue as to what helps baseball teams win games and would vote along those lines if we had the franchise.

There was a time when it was presumed that newspaper writers knew everything that was worth knowing about the game. That they had access to information and opinion we civilians didn’t and thus their opinions about such matters were more informed. That we mere accountants, lawyers, doctors, teachers and salesmen didn’t have standing to intelligently criticize the writers, let alone attempt to what they do.

Those days have been over for a long time. And Chass would know that if he one day decided to set aside his ridiculous arrogance, get his information from places other than tea leaves, ancient microfiche and dusty, decades-old copies of the Baseball Encyclopedia and reason rather than proclaim from the top of whatever pathetic mountain it is on which he sits.

  1. Jason @ IIATMS - Jan 21, 2010 at 8:32 AM

    What an epic quote from Chass.
    He puts the ass in Chass.
    /sorry, had to.

  2. Jonny5 - Jan 21, 2010 at 8:32 AM

    Nice…..

  3. Moses Green - Jan 21, 2010 at 8:41 AM

    Murray Chass is an idiot. His logic? Because I said so, young man. I refuse to debate you on the merits because I have a vote and you don’t. Well then.
    CC – you’re giving this ancient bespectacled turd-fondler way too much credit. That newfangled microfiche stuff is AGES ahead of old Murray.

  4. Moses Green - Jan 21, 2010 at 8:56 AM

    For anyone who hates Murray Chass and wants to get angry, read the rest of the post. He goes on to make fun of Patrick Sullivan from baseballanalysts.com for ripping on Dan Shaugnessy. Murray Chass has never heard of him, therefore he takes Shaugnessy’s word over that of Patrick Sullivan. This is part of the pathetic theater of sham that has played out over and over with crusty old-guard newspaper writers trying to pretend the internet doesn’t exist. Then when they can’t pretend that hard anymore, they pretend the internet doesn’t matter. Then they realize it matters a lot, and fall back to “Well it doesn’t matter to me.” Which they then post on their blog.

  5. Simon DelMonte - Jan 21, 2010 at 9:09 AM

    I used to like Chass’ work for the Times. I felt that he had some understanding of baseball. Either it was all an illusion, he had some really good editors, or he lost any connection to the game when he became a freelancer.

  6. Richard Dansky - Jan 21, 2010 at 9:11 AM

    So let me get this straight.
    He’s making fun of bloggers…on his blog.

  7. Alex K - Jan 21, 2010 at 9:17 AM

    Wow. That was the most smug, I’m better and smarter than you because I say so, article I have ever read. The worst is when he takes internet writers to task for not doing corrections the way he wants them too. Or maybe it is when he sides with a BBWAA writer because he’s heard of him before, I can’t decide.

  8. Chris Simonds - Jan 21, 2010 at 9:30 AM

    I appreciate your anger but honestly, you should have just posted a link to Chass’s article along side the picture. Love the picture. Chass has been brain dead for years and most people know it, and I say that as a guy approaching retirement age. People have permission to shoot me if I ever start to sound like Murray.
    Whoops. Maybe I just did…..

  9. Aarcraft - Jan 21, 2010 at 9:37 AM

    My personal favorite was when he yells at people for using stats to justify their position, then proceeds to use stats to show why Tommy John and Blyleven were equals.

  10. Bill@TDS - Jan 21, 2010 at 9:37 AM

    Do you really get to count yourself a “baseball writer” when all you’ve got is an ugly blog that most of your few readers read solely for its unintentional comedic value?
    Sweet, I’m in!

  11. Ralph - Jan 21, 2010 at 9:38 AM

    This post deserves a “get off my lawn” tag.

  12. Grant - Jan 21, 2010 at 9:43 AM

    Louis XVI. Nice.

  13. Greg - Jan 21, 2010 at 9:46 AM

    If no one read this clowns posts, would he have a job or a vote? Time to start boycotting clowns like that & hit them in there pocketbooks also. Lots of people have this misguided thought process of how important they really think they are. ot only that, but the Hall of Fame is for people who played a game for 10 to 20yrs & in reality what does that mean for the good of society. Nothing, just another way to feed overblown egos on all sides of the coin.

  14. DSFC - Jan 21, 2010 at 10:18 AM

    Wow, this makes that Marty Noble piece from the other day seem humble and down to earth!

  15. motherscratcher - Jan 21, 2010 at 10:55 AM

    Greg – Boycott Chass? What would be the fun in that? Craigs post and these comments are more than reason enough to keep guys like him around.
    .
    So Tim Raines and Blyleven have a harder time getting into the Hall. I say it’s worth it for the enjoyment of making fun of these guys.

  16. David - Jan 21, 2010 at 11:00 AM

    Why does Chass still have a vote? He no longer has a job as a baseball writer…

  17. moreflagsmorefun - Jan 21, 2010 at 11:14 AM

    This is why baseball writers should not vote on HOF, they corrupt the voting with their personal view and they want to inflict damage to a ball player by denying or delaying entry to holy ground.When will the madness end, when I ask,when.

  18. Ryan - Jan 21, 2010 at 11:27 AM

    I’m right because I get to vote and because I get to vote, I’m right! Perfect logic there.

  19. Matt M - Jan 21, 2010 at 11:51 AM

    It’s not a blog. Murray Chass doesn’t do blogs. Just read the “About” section of his website: “This is a site for baseball columns, not for baseball blogs. The proprietor of the site is not a fan of blogs. He made that abundantly clear on a radio show with Charley Steiner when Steiner asked him what he thought of blogs and he replied, I hate blogs. He later heartily applauded Buzz Bissinger when the best-selling author denounced bloggers on a Bob Costas HBO show.”
    Seriously, the guy thinks he can declare a blog not a blog, just because he said so. And we’re surprised because he thinks he’s better than us because he has a HOF vote? Gotta love the third person too.

  20. Matt M - Jan 21, 2010 at 11:52 AM

    Oops. I was responding to Richard.

  21. Dave - Jan 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM

    So, now that Chass has “retired” and is no longer a sportwriter, does HIS opinion no longer count?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Pitching duel highlights Game 1 of WS
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Bumgarner (2669)
  2. T. Ishikawa (2664)
  3. J. Shields (2375)
  4. Y. Molina (2016)
  5. L. Cain (1981)
  1. T. Lincecum (1910)
  2. Y. Cespedes (1713)
  3. A. Wainwright (1688)
  4. B. Posey (1683)
  5. M. Morse (1576)