Murray Chass defends blank HOF ballot

Murray Chass is sticking with his controversial Hall of Fame vote, or a lack thereof.

The former New York Times and Associated Press writer drew backlash Sunday for intentionally submitting a blank Hall of Fame ballot despite a loaded 2017 class - but he's standing behind the decision.

"I don't have to defend not voting for anybody," Murray said Monday as a guest on MLB Network Radio. "In my opinion, the players fell short of what is a HOF player or used stuff."

Submitting a blank ballot is a controversial tactic, as it increases the total number of votes a player requires. Therefore, with the threshold set at 75 percent for election, submitting a blank ballot hurts every players' chances more than simply not voting at all.

While Chass did recognize some on the ballot for their talent, he said none of them stood out as Hall of Fame worthy.

"The Hall is for the best players, not very good players," Chass said. "There are players on ballot that are very good, but fall short of HOF."

Though Chass is no longer an active member of the Baseball Writers' Association of America - he left the New York Times in 2008 - he's allowed to continue voting for the Hall of Fame thanks to the J.G. Taylor Spink Award he received in 2003, according to C. Trent Rosecrans of the Cincinnati Enquirer. The Spink Award is the highest prize given by the BBWAA.

In 2016, the only vote on Chass' ballot was for Ken Griffey Jr., despite being able to vote for a maximum of 10 eligible names.