2025 MLB Thread

[chasfh]

5 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I have always been in full agreement that Rose deserved to be banned from baseball.  However, MLBs partnership with gambling organizations makes it hard for me to care anymore.  

You have to care. The integrity of the whole sport is on the line here. Without that, it’s nothing more than the WWE. It’s theater. Then what’s the point?

[Tiger337]

12 minutes ago, chasfh said:

You have to care. The integrity of the whole sport is on the line here. Without that, it’s nothing more than the WWE. It’s theater. Then what’s the point?

MLB put the whole integrity of the sport on the line by partnering with gambling organizations after forbidding any involvement for 100 years.  I think that's even worse than what Rose did.  

[chasfh]

7 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

MLB put the whole integrity of the sport on the line by partnering with gambling organizations after forbidding any involvement for 100 years.  I think that's even worse than what Rose did.  

I hate that, too. But even with that in the game, there is still a bright red line between partnering with gambling companies to allow fans to gamble on games, and allowing players to get away with gambling on a game in which they have a duty to perform.

[papalawrence]

16 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

MLB put the whole integrity of the sport on the line by partnering with gambling organizations after forbidding any involvement for 100 years.  I think that's even worse than what Rose did.  

It is very hypocritical imho. Mays was temporarily banned from baseball just for being a spokesman for a casino, if memory serves. The NFL is worse - most every commercial is for gambling, with the obligatory "please gamble responsibly" bs. When the billionaires see how much more profit they can make with gambling sponsorship, the ethics line gets moved accordingly. 

[Arlington]

The societal ill of gambling has been pushed under the rug for decades now.  What used to be only in Atlantic City and Nevada is commonplace.  There is a moral wrong in that the owners are promoting a harm but I don't see much of a hypocrisy - it is not unusual.  Being able to trust that the outcome of the game has and will continue to be sacrosanct.  That trust is bedrock to the gambling world with both baseball and the gambling industry standing firmly on the same side of that red line.  Owners will get some money nudging customers to betting houses.  In short time, players will see the extra revenue and put a claim on it too.  And the economy will grow, disparately, but it will grow.  

[Motor City Sonics]

8 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I have always been in full agreement that Rose deserved to be banned from baseball.  However, MLBs partnership with gambling organizations makes it hard for me to care anymore.  

But didn't baseball just fire one of it's best umpires because their phone was used to gamble?  

Rose never truly apologized for what he did and continued to associate himself with casinos when he should said he was sorry and showed real remorse.     

They may work with casinos now, but if a player or anyone involved with a team gambles on baseball they are going to be out.

Plus this argument that he only bet on his team to win is bunk.  I used to believe that at first, but then it was pointed out that he probably made decisions regarding point spreads and other smaller things, like maybe leaving in a pitcher to long to get his desired result.    There is no way he didn't try to influence his own team's result to benefit him.   

Plus it would be a huge victory for Trump which makes me want to puke. 

Pete chose his life.  There are consequences. 

Did the Black Sox ever get paid for what they did?  If not, do we reinstate all of them too? 

Edited March 2 by Motor City Sonics

[Motor City Sonics]

We all know, at some point, it's going to happen -  there will be a borderline major league player making near minimum who is going to tank something for a big massive payout.  It will happen now that there is so much more gambling. 

At first I liked the whole legal sports gambling, I even cleaned up and made over $600 by betting $10 at a time on over/unders in hockey, until they got wise and stopped having 5.5 totals.    But it's nauseating now.   I am just so sick of hearing it.  

One of the best players in the NBA, maybe the most popular just got traded because the owners of a team are in a state without gambling and they've been bribing people left and right.  All these Texas politicos that were against it are very suddenly changing their tune.     That move was made to start the process of moving the Dallas team, owned by Casino interests, to move to Las Vegas.   They can claim all they want that it isn't the reason, but we all know sports owners NEVER lie.   It has to be something to do with gambling because there is no other explanation why they would make that trade.  It's something nefarious - controlled by gambling interests.  They're starting to seriously **** with sports at this point.      

[Motor City Sonics]

Even if Rose is removed from ineligible list, he's not getting voted in.   The writers won't back down on this.   And then of course they'll get a bunch of death threats. 

[Tiger337]

9 hours ago, chasfh said:

I hate that, too. But even with that in the game, there is still a bright red line between partnering with gambling companies to allow fans to gamble on games, and allowing players to get away with gambling on a game in which they have a duty to perform.

I understand the difference, but the more MLB encourages gambling, the more likely it is that the gamblng will spill over to players betting on games they are playing in. When you turn the entire sport into a mechanism for gambling, I think it will eventually lead to the outcome we don't want.  

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

I understand the difference, but the more MLB encourages gambling, the more likely it is that the gamblng will spill over to players betting on games they are playing in. When you turn the entire sport into a mechanism for gambling, I think it will eventually lead to the outcome we don't want.  

I completely agree with all of this, which is exactly why they cannot reinstate Rose back into the game.

[Tiger337]

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I completely agree with all of this, which is exactly why they cannot reinstate Rose back into the game.

I agree he should not be let back into the game, but the hypocisy really dampens the message. 

[Hongbit]

In Rose’s day, you could only bet on who won and how many runs.   You also needed a bookie to take the bet.  

Now you are able to bet on just about anything in game or with a specific player.   You can literally live bet if someone is going to get a hit while they are at the plate.  It’s gotten nuts. 

This gives so many options for a few bad actors to try to fix a bet.  They don’t even have to influence the outcome of a game anymore.  It could be one at bat, or pitcher strikeout, or a first inning run. It leaves almost everyone as a possible fixer.  It could be a fringe player, base coach, bullpen catcher, or umpire using either advanced knowledge or even doing something minor during the game to rig a bet.   

This is a dangerous territory for MLB and the only way to protect themselves is to keep these very strict and harsh punishments for gambling.  

Edited March 2 by Hongbit

[Motor City Sonics]

I used to support Rose, but he lost me for good when he finally came out and admitted it

A - On the day they announced the Hall Of Fame player (Fergie Jenkins, I believe),  which stole Jenkins thunder as the first black pitcher who played 100% in MLB and first Canadian to get into the Hall 

B - Did it to promote a book 

C - That he signed the next day AT A CASINO. 

Talk about tone deaf.   Made whatever "apology" completely hollow

It would be like Prince Andrew apologizing for his relations with underage girls and then signing autographs at a primary school.  

[SoCalTiger]

If the Hall of Fame is based on performance on the field and only that then Pete Rose should be inducted. Morality is not part of the evaluation and if it was I am sure some now in would be excluded. I do not like Pete Rose but he is the all time hit leader and not in the Hall which doesn't make sense if your honoring accomplishments on the field.

[gehringer_2]

41 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

If the Hall of Fame is based on performance on the field and only that then Pete Rose should be inducted. Morality is not part of the evaluation and if it was I am sure some now in would be excluded. I do not like Pete Rose but he is the all time hit leader and not in the Hall which doesn't make sense if your honoring accomplishments on the field.

The Hall of Fame is based on whatever the voters decide it's based on. That's sort of what makes it interesting. If we think having people use their judgement to decide is problematic, formulate any kind of hard criteria you like and I guarantee you'd have just as many arguments that guys that did or didn't cross the bar were or weren't better choices than other guys that did or didn't. The choices could be made less ambiguous, but I doubt they would be any less controversial.

Edited March 2 by gehringer_2

[casimir]

If Rose is inducted, and I think we can all agree that based solely on his playing credentials he should be, it should be mentioned on his plaque that he was banned from baseball.  Something along the lines of “bet in baseball and was inducted posthumously as a result”, but wordsmithed better than that.

I agree that the proliferation of betting advertisements in sports is annoying/troublesome in general and extremely contrary to the rules of the sports personnel directly and the stated tagline about seeking help if one has a gambling problem.  I don’t know you square that up.  It probably doesn’t square up.  It’s too easy to bet and there’s too much revenue for the sports to ignore from these partnerships.  The toothpaste is out of the tube there.

[chasfh]

4 hours ago, Hongbit said:

In Rose’s day, you could only bet on who won and how many runs.   You also needed a bookie to take the bet.  

Now you are able to bet on just about anything in game or with a specific player.   You can literally live bet if someone is going to get a hit while they are at the plate.  It’s gotten nuts. 

This gives so many options for a few bad actors to try to fix a bet.  They don’t even have to influence the outcome of a game anymore.  It could be one at bat, or pitcher strikeout, or a first inning run. It leaves almost everyone as a possible fixer.  It could be a fringe player, base coach, bullpen catcher, or umpire using either advanced knowledge or even doing something minor during the game to rig a bet.   

This is a dangerous territory for MLB and the only way to protect themselves is to keep these very strict and harsh punishments for gambling.  

Exactly this. Permanent ineligibility for betting on a game in which you have a duty to perform, and one year for betting on any other baseball game.

If they were change that to, say, one year for betting on a game a player is in, then what happens if they serve their year then return to the game? How could anyone ever trust them ever again to maintain any competitive integrity? Talk about letting the fox into the henhouse.

Edited March 2 by chasfh

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, SoCalTiger said:

If the Hall of Fame is based on performance on the field and only that then Pete Rose should be inducted. Morality is not part of the evaluation and if it was I am sure some now in would be excluded. I do not like Pete Rose but he is the all time hit leader and not in the Hall which doesn't make sense if your honoring accomplishments on the field.

Rule #5 of BBWAA's Rules for Election stipulates that "[v]oting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played," and while Rose is well-qualified on at least three of these standards, he fails in spectacular fashion on two of them, and quite possibly three.

It can be fairly debated whether the Baseball Hall of Fame should even consider attributes such as character and integrity for inclusion while other sports, notably football, have no such requirement. But it can't be seriously debated that as long as the Baseball Hall does require those two characteristics, Pete Rose will always fall very, very short against them.

I don't understand what problem they'd be trying to solve by setting all this aside and letting Pete Rose back into Baseball and clearing him for eligibility for the Hall of Fame.

Edited March 2 by chasfh

[gehringer_2]

34 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I don't understand what problem they'd be trying to solve by setting all this aside and letting Pete Rose back into Baseball and clearing him for eligibility for the Hall of Fame.

✔️

Edited March 2 by gehringer_2

[Arlington]

3 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

I used to support Rose, but he lost me for good when he finally came out and admitted it

A - On the day they announced the Hall Of Fame player (Fergie Jenkins, I believe),  which stole Jenkins thunder as the first black pitcher who played 100% in MLB and first Canadian to get into the Hall 

B - Did it to promote a book 

C - That he signed the next day AT A CASINO. 

Talk about tone deaf.   Made whatever "apology" completely hollow

It would be like Prince Andrew apologizing for his relations with underage girls and then signing autographs at a primary school.  

Exactly, his actions showed no regret.  I vaguely recall that there were like three stages of admissions.  He'd say he didn't do something. Evidence to the contrary would come out so he'd admit to it but then deny something else which he'd later have to admit to.  All of this is something he brought on to himself and then made worse.

Plus he had terrible haircuts.

Edited March 2 by Arlington
Added somethin

[SoCalTiger]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

Rule #5 of BBWAA's Rules for Election stipulates that "[v]oting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played," and while Rose is well-qualified on at least three of these standards, he fails in spectacular fashion on two of them, and quite possibly three.

It can be fairly debated whether the Baseball Hall of Fame should even consider attributes such as character and integrity for inclusion while other sports, notably football, have no such requirement. But it can't be seriously debated that as long as the Baseball Hall does require those two characteristics, Pete Rose will always fall very, very short against them.

I don't understand what problem they'd be trying to solve by setting all this aside and letting Pete Rose back into Baseball and clearing him for eligibility for the Hall of Fame.

Ok then sure I agree but based on Rule # 5 how did Ty Cobb get in ? A question which brings us back to G2's point that contorversy will always apply. 

[chasfh]

5 hours ago, SoCalTiger said:

Ok then sure I agree but based on Rule # 5 how did Ty Cobb get in ? A question which brings us back to G2's point that contorversy will always apply. 

Ty Cobb was not considered a bad guy in 1936.

[oblong]

The "type of guy" is entirely subjective and up to the voters entrusted to vote to decide for themselves, whether it's the BBWAA or the various people on the commitee for each ballot.

But that's kind of irrelevant.  It doesn't apply to Rose.  Baseball's HOF decided that for their institution that anybody on MLB's inelgible list is not fit for their institution.  The Hall of Fame is not part of MLB.  It's a non profit with their own governing body and their own rules.  

Even if Manfred removes Rose from the ineligible list, it would be up to the 16 people who decide who goes on a ballot and the other 16 people who would vote on that ballot.  It's entirely consistent and appropriate if a voter says "I know he's eligible but what he did is still wrong and I'm not voting for him".  He commited a crime against the insitition he is being considered for.  That is not "off the field".  It's within the game itself.  It was "between the lines".

Rob Manfred cannot put Pete Rose into the HOF any more than you or I could.  There's no mechanism where "baseball" puts him in without a vote.  As a non profit they have to follow their rules or they risk lawsuits, from donors, for not following their own rules.  By donors.... that is not just groups that give them money.  It's people who buy annual memberships.  That's a lot of people.

 

[Hongbit]

11 hours ago, chasfh said:

Ty Cobb was not considered a bad guy in 1936.

I thought I remember a discussion on the old board that some of the stuff about Cobb from the book couldn’t be substantiated.  He maybe wasn’t as horrible of a guy that he was made out to be.   Still not a great person but more of a 5 out 10 instead of the 7 or 8 that his rep is now.

[oblong]

7 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

I thought I remember a discussion on the old board that some of the stuff about Cobb from the book couldn’t be substantiated.  He maybe wasn’t as horrible of a guy that he was made out to be.   Still not a great person but more of a 5 out 10 instead of the 7 or 8 that his rep is now.

Charles Leershan wrote a book about Cobb not too long ago and his point is that he just wanted to write a fresh book about him since all we had were books written a long time ago.  When he did his research he found lack of evidence, and in some cases, direct contradiction to previously held claims and beliefs.   In one case in a book (not Al Stump's)  he is said to have fought with a bellhop and a butcher, who were black, and that is proof that he was racist.  But this author searched further.... and those guys were white.  

Al Stump was the source of a lot of what we "know" about him and then Ken Burns ran with it.  A lot of what he wrote simply wasn't true or there is not one shred of evidence to support it and plenty to contradict it.