If you were following the Atlanta Braves at any point from 2015-2020, you probably got into an argument about Nick Markakis. Those that championed him loved him for his no-nonsense attitude, consistency, and leadership in the Braves' clubhouse. Others pointed out that Markakis didn't impact the ball enough, was a statue in the outfield, and should not have hit fifth in Atlanta's lineup for as long as he did. Those debates mercifully came to an end with Markakis called it a career right before the 2021 season, but have now re-emerged for a bizarre reason.
It is Hall of Fame ballot season and lost amongst Dale Murphy missing Cooperstown again via the Era committee and Andruw Jones' trending upward in the voting is that Markakis was on the ballot as well. Placement on the ballot doesn't necessarily mean anything and the odds that he was going to appear for one year on the ballot and then fall off are extraordinarily high. At the end of the day, players with a career 33.7 rWAR are fine players, but not Cooperstown worthy.
At least, that is what most people think. Former Orioles beat writer Dan Connolly who has since left sportswriting released his ballot for the Hall of Fame. While most of his choices made sense, one particular vote stood out like a sore thumb as Markakis got his vote which raises questions about what Hall of Fame ballots are actually for.
I emerged from sportswriting hibernation for a day to write about my 2026 Hall of Fame ballot. It's a hard one, filled with borderlines. I also did something I've never done and likely won't again. Vote for someone simply to honor his career a final time. https://t.co/QdRwlmOb9X
— Dan Connolly (@danconnolly2016) January 13, 2026
Former Braves outfielder Nick Markakis just got a Hall of Fame vote, but the rationale isn't what you think
Now, if voting for Markakis meant that Connolly couldn't cast his vote for a player he thought was worthy, that would be completely indefensible. Costing a candidate a vote that could make or break them in Cooperstown just to make a point about an above average, gritty rightfielder would be quite the cost to make. However, Connolly's ballot is only eight players and he could have easily added more if he wanted to. Without Markakis, it would have (probably) just been a seven player ballot which is fine.
This distinction is important. Markakis is not a Hall of Fame-caliber player and no one here is arguing otherwise. He didn't hit for enough power or play well enough for long enough to make that argument honestly and Connolly does not try to oversell him at all. That doesn't mean Markakis didn't have a career worth celebrating and Connolly wanted to use one of the free spots on his ballot to give him some love.
Is that okay? Mostly yes, but it does raise some questions. Older players on the ballot are more likely to fall off in the coming years if this is accepted simply because the reporters that covered them are no longer voters or around at all and that doesn't feel great. Beyond that, Connolly's move to give some love to Markakis doesn't seem to hurt anyone in this case even if the vote itself looks objectively insane in a vacuum.