Leave Murray Chass Alone

We all have that uncle. He’s annoying and self righteous. He’s bombastic and knows more than you. He doesn’t like new things. So what happens is when he’s confronted with new ideas, he comes an angry old man, who may not always make sense. 

That was Murray Chase again. It’s the same person who created the rumors that Mike Piazza used steroids. He did it on his blog, and not the New York Times. The reason?  Well, presumably, the Times won’t let anyone published an unfounded rumor. To him, backne means steroids regardless of his lack of citing any medical proof. 

I digress. Reading the column, I thought the only thing fair was him going after Dan Szymborski (I seriously apologize if this is misspelled). I’m not saying his criticisms are fair or even cogent. I’m just saying it was fair to attack him because in the past Murray Chass was attacked by Dan Szymborski. However, there were two things that struck me on these attacks.  First, there was a time a Spink Award Winner would’ve ignored such attacks because responding in kind is to put that person on your level. Second, Murray Chass isn’t attacking Dan Szymborski. He’s attacking everyone who disagrees with him. 

He has a problem that things are changing. Frankly, times have already left him behind (pun somewhat intended). People disagree with him, and they now have a forum to voice that opinion. In fact, the Dan Syzmborski’s of the world have a greater platform than he does. It’s not just that people disagree with Murray Chass. No, it’s that the world is changing, and it’s not consulting with people like him. He has years of experience we don’t. We have new ideas and theories we just can’t prove because he doesn’t understand them. 

Admittedly, I read his column (I’ll respect him not calling it a blog), and I was going to take issue. Specifically, I was going to address why he could vote for Jack Morris based upon one game, one incredible game that’s in the pantheon of the greatest games of all time, but not voting for Curt Schilling and his more dominant postseason career. I stopped when I saw this:

I stopped when reading that. I remembered talking to my uncle. I know deep down he wants to hoot and holler about how things are different, and how we doesn’t like it. Admittedly, it would amuse me at times. Now that I’m older, when we broach the topics that get him angry, I decide to move on to a new topic. There’s no point anymore. He has nothing new to say about those topics. He’s not going to listen to anything I have to say. What’s the point? 

My uncle just wants to be heard. He wants to feel like he’s part of the conversation. He wants to know he’s not being ignored. That’s Murray Chass, and his actions. He wants you to know what he thinks. He’s telling you how it is and/or should be. It’s why he may or may not get his Hall of Fame ballot in time. It’s tertiary to everything.  He wants to be heard. 

Honestly, I’d rather Chass talked about things he’s seen, rather than judging others based upon what he’s seen. The man is in the Baseball Hall of Fame for his fine reporting. He was one of the few, according to him, that truly covered baseball’s labor strife throughout the years. Chass has been a champion of Marvin Miller’s inclusion into the Hall of Fame. Chass is correct in his assertions about the impact Miller had on the game. 

Overall, that’s what I want to hear from Murray Chass. There are great stories he had told and can re-tell. He has genuine, singular knowledge of baseball’s labor history. Chass should be included in baseball discussions frequently as, yes, he knows a lot more than we do. It doesn’t mean he’s always right. It doesn’t mean he won’t go on an eye rolling rant. It just means the man has value. 

I honestly wish I could nudge Murray Chass in that direction as I do my uncle at the dinner table during holidays. I hope someone can. I’d love to read Chass again and feel informed. I don’t like reading his columns and feeling sad for him. He and his readers deserve better than that. 

page top