2025 MLB Thread

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

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.

 

 

If we were to ever learn that players and managers were fixing plays and games and baseball knew about it, and either willingly turned a blind eye to it or even backchannel promoted it in order to make more gambling money, then yes, I would weep real tears as I turn my back on the major league game.

[Tiger337]

Just now, chasfh said:

If we were to ever learn that players and managers were fixing plays and games and baseball knew about it, and either willingly turned a blind eye to it or even backchannel promoted it in order to make more gambling money, then yes, I would weep real tears as I turn my back on the major league game.

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

[chasfh]

6 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

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

Reinstating Rose would exponentially increase the encouragement and amp up the brazenness.

Unless what you’re saying is that the encouragement of players and managers to throw games is already at its zenith due to Baseball’s partnership with gambling companies, and that reinstating Pete couldn’t possibly do anything more to add to that, with which I couldn’t disagree more.

[papalawrence]

As much as I like Clark, it would be great to have Langford in Detroit's line-up. I think he is going tobe a stud for a decade

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/langfwy01.shtml

[oblong]

8 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Reinstating Rose would exponentially increase the encouragement and amp up the brazenness.

Unless what you’re saying is that the encouragement of players and managers to throw games is already at its zenith due to Baseball’s partnership with gambling companies, and that reinstating Pete couldn’t possibly do anything more to add to that, with which I couldn’t disagree more.

But I think where we are talking past each other, I agree with Lee, is that while what you say is technically and morally correct, in practical terms most people will not be giving it the consideration that you are.  The 3 of us are because we're baseball nerds and thoughtful people.  Most people don't bother to think about where lines are.  I sincerely hope Manfred thinks like we do and if he doesn't then he should not be on the baseball HOF board of directors.  

 

[Tiger337]

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Reinstating Rose would exponentially increase the encouragement and amp up the brazenness.

Unless what you’re saying is that the encouragement of players and managers to throw games is already at its zenith due to Baseball’s partnership with gambling companies, and that reinstating Pete couldn’t possibly do anything more to add to that, with which I couldn’t disagree more.

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.  

[Tiger337]

11 minutes ago, oblong said:

But I think where we are talking past each other, I agree with Lee, is that while what you say is technically and morally correct, in practical terms most people will not be giving it the consideration that you are.  The 3 of us are because we're baseball nerds and thoughtful people.  Most people don't bother to think about where lines are.  I sincerely hope Manfred thinks like we do and if he doesn't then he should not be on the baseball HOF board of directors.  

 

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.  

Edited yesterday at 07:24 PM by Tiger337

[chasfh]

31 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

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.  

Sounds like you've made your peace with players fixing games, and that's OK for you, I'm not criticizing you for it. Everybody is free to consume baseball in any way they like. But speaking only for myself, I can never and will never accept that. If players fix games and Baseball accepts, encourages, or promotes that, then I'm out. I love baseball for the competition, and fixing games is not competition. It's theater. If that makes me a sucker and a loser, then I'm proud of that.

[papalawrence]

It will never be ok with gambling on one's own game. Doesn't mean it won't happen. It's just pitiful that MLB promotes different gambling lines throughout every broadcast. The NFL throws out the obligatory "and as always, gamble responsibly. " 

Who stole my lunch?

[Sports_Freak]

4 minutes ago, papalawrence said:

It will never be ok with gambling on one's own game. Doesn't mean it won't happen. It's just pitiful that MLB promotes different gambling lines throughout every broadcast. The NFL throws out the obligatory "and as always, gamble responsibly. " 

Who stole my lunch?

I don't even understand those odds they constantly show. I have only bet legally on one sporting event in my entire life. I was in Vegas during a Super Bowl about 20-25 years ago and put $25 on Atlanta. I lost.. 

[papalawrence]

12 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

I don't even understand those odds they constantly show. I have only bet legally on one sporting event in my entire life. I was in Vegas during a Super Bowl about 20-25 years ago and put $25 on Atlanta. I lost.. 

Ouch, tough game to lose!

[Sports_Freak]

2 minutes ago, papalawrence said:

Ouch, tough game to lose!

It was their first one, not the one they blew to New England. Last century...😆

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

and fixing games is not competition. It's theater.

the theater formula can be profitable though, it has been working for wrestling for 50 years. When the only measure of success in a society values is dollars, how do you argue?

[chasfh]

58 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

I don't even understand those odds they constantly show. I have only bet legally on one sporting event in my entire life. I was in Vegas during a Super Bowl about 20-25 years ago and put $25 on Atlanta. I lost.. 

You're lucky to have lost.

[chasfh]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

the theater formula can be profitable though, it has been working for wrestling for 50 years.

I couldn't give less of a **** about that.

[Hongbit]

54 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

I don't even understand those odds they constantly show. I have only bet legally on one sporting event in my entire life. I was in Vegas during a Super Bowl about 20-25 years ago and put $25 on Atlanta. I lost.. 

+ is the underdog - the number is what you’d win if you bet $100

A $10 bet on +240 underdog would pay $24 + your original $10 bet 

- is the favorite - the number you’d have to bet to win $100

a $10 bet on a -240 favorite would pay $4.17 + your original $10 bet.

[Sports_Freak]

17 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

+ is the underdog - the number is what you’d win if you bet $100

A $10 bet on +240 underdog would pay $24 + your original $10 bet 

- is the favorite - the number you’d have to bet to win $100

a $10 bet on a -240 favorite would pay $4.17 + your original $10 bet.

Too much mathing. 😅😅

[Tiger337]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

Sounds like you've made your peace with players fixing games, and that's OK for you

I didn't say that at all.

 

[Tiger337]

52 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

+ is the underdog - the number is what you’d win if you bet $100

A $10 bet on +240 underdog would pay $24 + your original $10 bet 

- is the favorite - the number you’d have to bet to win $100

a $10 bet on a -240 favorite would pay $4.17 + your original $10 bet.

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.

[chasfh]

11 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I didn't say that at all.

 

Yes, not in so many words.

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

Yes, not in so many words.

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.  

[chasfh]

2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

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.  

Then I apologize for misunderstanding your post.

[gehringer_2]

25 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

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%. 

And I have to assume the need to do that and the awkwardness of it is probably exactly why today's bookmakers prefer this format. 

[Tiger337]

10 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

And I have to assume the need to do that and the awkwardness of it is probably exactly why today's bookmakers prefer this format. 

I am sure there is a good reason for it.  I personally have no interest in gambling when I know the odds are not in my favor.  What interests me somewhat is the probability that Torkelson is going to hit a homerun in a game.  It means something to me that he has a 20% chance of getting a home run in a random game or that the odds are 4 to 1 against him hitting a home run.  

[Motor City Sonics]

6 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

And Barry Bonds. The all time hit leader, Rose, and the all time HR hitter, Bonds, both not allowed in the HOF is a huge black eye for baseball.

In Bonds' case - there was NO CLEAR POLICY on steroids.  In Rose's case it was crystal clear.