Tiger337

Not in any words. I said I think they are more likely to fix games or at bats due to the acceptance of gambling by MLB and I think that is a bad thing.

I hate those odds, because they are not the ones I am used to seeing as a statistician. So, when them on my screen, I turn them into "real probabilities" in my head: 100/(100+240)=29.4%. Then I notice that the winning and losing bets always come out to a little more than 100%. This guarantees that the bookmaker makes a profit.

I didn't say that at all.

Yes, I am speaking more in terms of perception than my own feelings. I understand the distinction between players gambling and fans gambling and the former is what's wrong. I don't think the reinstatement of Rose would have a big impact on a lot of fans. The first thing they are going to stay is "He only gambled on his own team. What's wrong that?" I also think that constant promotion of gambling is going to blur the distinction more and more, but that is a somewhat different iussue.

I believe that the partnership and constant promotion will erode the distinction between fans gambling and players gambling over time. Any association with gambling was once viewed as the cardinal sin in baseball. The more they make gambling part of the game, the more likely it becomes that games will be fixed.

I think the endless promotion of gambling has already done more to encourage that possibility than re-instating Rose would do.

It won't go unnoticed especially if the president talks about it endlessly, but it won't cause them to lose their target audience. Are you going to stop watching baseball because Pete Rose was re-instated? As far as I am concerned, they have already lost their moral authority on gambling by promoting gambling every chance they get. I understand the distinction between Rose gambling and fans gambling, but the hyprocrisy is too thick. The game is now so hopelessly connected to gambling that players or managers fixing games (or the suspicion of such) is inevitable and it will be all MLB's fault.

I am pretty sure he was blackballed out of the game at the end but he is not officially banned. The writers and now the Veterans Committee are keeping him out.

They are going to draft the player with the best long-term potential whether it be a high school or college player.

They could let him in to make Trump happy or to appease their gambling partners. I don't think it will cause any big damage to the industry. I don't think the world cares about Pete Rose anymore. It's just baseball nuts like us who care.

I think there is a good chance they will let him in. The only target audience that cares about keeping him out is the one that's going to keep watching regardless. Good luck to him getting into the Hall of Fame though. If they won't let Bonds and Clemens in, they won't let Rose in either.

There is no honor nor principles in MLB. It's all about money.

The best part of the plan is that the people who might want those jobs are all being deported or no longer allowed into the country. I guess they take all the trained medical scientists who lost their jobs and put them into these factories. I am sure they'll all be highly motivated.

These look pretty crazy. Dodgers number 9?

He backed down or he was paid off?

Emgaging in strategic uncertanty! Sounds like a nice way of saying "Has no clue and does stupid ****"

If having an ignorant authoitarian madman as the President is escaping a bullt, then we escaped a bullet. He's an absolute disgrace.

It's probably not going to roll over on them unless our economy tanks.

She has only played in Independent Leagues and her career ERA is 12.04. Are the Tigers playing them soon?

I don't remember him. If he played 30 years earlier, I probably would have.

My favorite one year wonder is Zoilo Versalles - A Twins shortstop who never had a WAR greater than 2.5 until he had 7.2 WAR and won the MVP in 1965. The next year, he had 1.3 WAR and then -1.6 WAR. Overall, he played 12 years with 12.6 WAR. He accumulated 57% of his career WAR in that one season. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/versazo01.shtml

To be fair, he and his children are American people. So, he wouldn't be lying.

None of them for a rental. I wouldn't trade top 100 prospects unless they were getting someone who could help beyond this year.

They were different eras. It was a rule change just like extra inning runners was a rule change. Playing without gloves would be dumber than extra inning base runners because it would be dangerous. However, I still consider the latter to be unacceptable. And now that the Tigers have their most exciting team since perhaps the 80s, it just becomes more annoying to be distracted by that monstrosity.

They do it in Spring training whch is also when the WBC is played! Anyway, I don't think the way they did something in the past has to always stay the same. It would be stupid if they still played without gloves for example. When the old way of doing things becomes impractical, then they can consider making a change. However, I don't believe in fundamentally changing the rules of the game without a really good reason. Even the DH was not a fundamemtal change in the way the game is played. The game is still played the same way. It's just a role change.