OT: It's opening day for baseball - is the Ohtani betting scandal even bigger news?
I grew up going to opening day at the corner of Michigan & Trumbull and still remember opening day in 1978 watching Mark "the Bird" Fidrych and the whole city going nuts over him. A true one-of-a-kind and if you were alive and a baseball fan back then you'll remember the hysteria every time he took the mound. Gone too soon from baseball and life - RIP Mark.
Fast forward to today and baseball has a mess of biblical proportions on it's hands. it's biggest star, it's biggest international star, Shohei Ohtani, is embroiled in a possible betting scandal that looks worse every day. Initially reported as him having no connection to the interpreter's debt of 4.5MM, then he was simply helping a friend out of a debt, then changed to the interpreter stealing the money from him. Yet no charges have been filed by Ohtani against the person who allegedly stole 4.5MM dollars and he refuses to answer any questions regarding the situation. The LA Times published an excellent piece on the situation last night that exposes all the inconsistencies in Ohtani's ever-evolving explanation for what happened. And asks some very interesting questions like "why would an illegal bookmaker extend 4.5MM in credit to an interpreter? And how did all the various banking tripwires get evaded so the theft on this magnitude goes undetected?
I know Pete Rose is watching this situation closely.
You’re kidding me right?
also Pete rose can fall in a hole.
March 28th, 2024 at 11:07 AM ^
No, I'm not kidding, it's really is opening day - trust me.
I know that whole Korean thing was kinda confusing.
March 28th, 2024 at 11:13 AM ^
The hole o' fame?
March 28th, 2024 at 12:01 PM ^
Depending upon on diet, it could be the hole o' flame
March 28th, 2024 at 12:15 PM ^
Put Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame before he’s dead. He never bet against his own team. If Ohtani (or his lackey with Ohtani’s money) bet against his own team, ban him from baseball.
March 28th, 2024 at 12:36 PM ^
There’s other reasons Pete doesn’t deserve shit.
March 28th, 2024 at 12:49 PM ^
Did he canoodle with your mom or something? Jebus.
Josh Gattis has entered the chat...
March 29th, 2024 at 12:33 AM ^
No offense.
Shoeless Joe gets in first. (And Lou Whitaker should be in the HoF.)
Yes he did you genius! Use your brain. Pete Rose threw games with the Reds for gambling. He VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED a lifetime ban. Why the hell would he sign that if he didn't think he was getting something in return. So, what did he get in return? Not being an outcast in baseball and Cincinnati like Shoeless Joe was. That's what he got!
Use your brain some more. The owners were still recovering from their collusion scandal bad PR was everywhere and they didn't want another Black Sox situation where a PLAYER/MANAGER all-time hits king was also a gambling addict down on his luck and cash strapped like all addicts get using his position to throw games. But MLB gets the books and knows he did and they can make it public if it goes to trial.
The logical outcome is Rose signs the agreement and baseball is assured he can never be associated again and there's no more risk to the league and Rose gets to not become the next Shoeless Joe forever hated in Cincinnati for THROWING games.
Why else would he sign???? He bet against the Reds. Period.
They covered it up to their mutual advantage. But their explanation for his ban otherwise makes no sense unless you use your brain.
Ohtani just carved up MLB revenues and hurt Japan with this. He did it. No bookie gave an interpreter that money. But don't be surprised if the league and Ohtani come up with another explanation that makes little sense. Just use your brain this time.
He didn’t bet against The Reds just because you say he did. I haven’t seen any proof of it at all.
He played his ass off every game he played. He was the ultimate competitor. He was Charlie Hustle. And he just happens to have more hits than any MLB player ever, and it’s not even close. No one is on the horizon.
But he gets shit on by a good chunk of the population only because of assumptions and appearances. Kind of sucks if you ask me.
He didn't bet against the Reds because I say so. He bet against the Reds because he was an addict and that's what addicts do. They lose all sight of and respect for boundaries. And it requires using a brain to remember that and to remember that the MLB was never interested in a transparent investigation - like all private businesses - but rather to protect their own interests first and foremost. That's why the records of that investigation - like so many - are not available to the public.
Using your brain requires more than simply trusting your government or any other entity as some benevolent authority but remembering that they are run by people and remembering what people are capable of and motivated by.
Use the brain. Rose influenced games to induce losses for gambling purposes. This one is obvious.
Or maybe you've got some other shiny excuse for why the dude would VOLUNTARILY BAN HIMSELF FOR LIFE.
There is no other explanation. That's how you know it happened and it was covered up.
March 29th, 2024 at 12:53 PM ^
shut the f up
March 29th, 2024 at 12:55 PM ^
Dude, show me on this doll where Charlie Hustle touched you.
Holy shit you suck. This has nothing to do with being right or wrong, I have no idea. But you do suck.
I mean, the whole basis of defending pete rose is the understanding that he never threw any games or bet against his own team.
Pete Rose should be in the HOF right now. Also Bonds and Clemmons. The steroid era happened and nobody had an upper hand because they were so prevalent.
Lol. This implies EVERYONE used steroids, and that's just not true. They did have an upper hand. Yes, it was prevalent, but some guys did it without juicing. Problem is, it's impossible to identify who did or didn't. Eventually, they'll get in, but the ones connected to the scandal are currently paying the price for it.
And it's Clemens.
Bonds was a 3 time 33-46 HR MVP in the early 90s before steroids. (Then he put on 40 pounds of steroid assisted muscle and hit 73 HRs in 2001 and was voted MVP 4 more times from 2001-2004.)
I mean, these guys made Piazza look like a contact hitter and he's the greatest home run hitting catcher of all time, never took steroids.
Idk if this is fair, but i feel like bonds deserves nothing for being greedy. He was already well on his way to being the greatest hitter of all time, and he was also an elite defensive player, 3x national league MVP by the age of like 29. But that wasn't enough! He got jealous of like mark mcguire and jose canseco and started juicing to bump up his HR stat. Idk, to me that's a huge betrayal of sportsmanship.
Re: charges being filed, their presence or lack thereof doesn't necessarily indicate anything. Assuming he is telling the truth, he could very well decide that 4.5MM (for him) is not worth further ruining his friend's life.
Now, whether he is telling the truth? I'm skeptical. There's a lot of smoke, a lot of changing details, a lot of stonewalling. I sort of doubt the truth will ever come out unless they can somehow produce definitive proof that Ohtani was the one responsible. More likely his translator will continue to be a scapegoat. This might tarnish Ohtani's reputation a bit but having read stories about Pete Rose for who knows how long, I get the feeling that the majority of baseball fans really don't care about gambling.
March 28th, 2024 at 11:31 AM ^
The key question is "did he bet on MLB games?" If he dropped money on shitty football picks, then, yes, no one cares. You might remember the 3 day Michael Jordan scandal when it came out that he dropped boatloads of money at casinos and getting hustled in golf by a guy named Skinny (which, heh). His (correct) response was, "Who gives a shit? My dropping 100k at a casino is like the average schmuck dropping a hundred bucks." If that's the kind of betting Shohei did, big deal. But betting on baseball...oh boy.
March 28th, 2024 at 12:24 PM ^
"Skinny" sounds more like a pool hustler name to me. Given golf's demographics, I'm surprised he didn't go with "Slender," as in Oliver "Slender" Wickersham III.
Chicagoland people were positively obnoxious in the 90s saying, "Jordan could be an MLB star if he wanted," or "Jordan could win big in the PGA," like being the best player to lace up basketball shoes wasn't good enough I guess. So I kept telling people that the big story wasn't that he liked to gamble but that he got his ass handed to him on the course by Skinny the Hustler. Man, was that a mic drop line against those zealots.
Totally off-topic but I knew an actual V, son of a IV.
And, yes, he was in the horsey set. I very definitely was not.
Was this "Skinny"
"You can't pull fat; that's why I'm never injured." -- John Daly
Ohtani and Pete rose are not even a close comparison, lol, come on!
March 28th, 2024 at 10:03 AM ^
Depends. If it turns out Ohtani bet on baseball, then it's pretty close.
If it turns out the worst that Ohtani did is bet on college football, then I agree, it's not a fair comparison.
March 28th, 2024 at 10:32 AM ^
If Ohtani bet on baseball through his intermediary, isn't that exactly the same thing as what Pete Rose did?
March 28th, 2024 at 10:38 AM ^
Not entirely. Pete Rose was the manager of his team when he placed most of his bets.
March 28th, 2024 at 10:41 AM ^
At least Pete never bet on his team to lose...
March 28th, 2024 at 11:42 AM ^
I don't know why people use this as a defense of Rose. If I'm betting on my team to win on Saturday, that may affect how I manage on Thursday and Friday. I may rest key players those days to keep them fresh for Saturday, to increase my chances of cashing in. Gambling on your own team in any event can affect the integrity of the game.
That's actually a very good point that I've never thought of before...
Well, his main defense is that he never did anything short of trying his best to win games. I guess as a gambling addict in recovery, i empathize with the idea that he had a hard line on what he wouldn't sacrifice for gambling, even though he knew gambling was a vice and not a virtue.
Have we proven he never bet on his team to lose? Or are we just taking a known liar at his word?
Taking him at his word, but if it wasn't true it should have been trivially easy for MLB to show the receipts that he was lying. AFAIK, they never accused him of throwing games.
March 28th, 2024 at 10:47 AM ^
Exactly. You probably have way more influence over the outcome of a game as the manager than as a single player, unless you are the starting pitcher...
Also, Rose didn't just bet on baseball. He bet on the Reds.
As for the point above that he never bet on the Reds to lose, that's true (as far we we know) but if you have a bet on tonight's game you are going to manage like it's Game 7 of the World Series. You will use your whole bullpen if you have to and then not worry about tomorrow night's game and just let your starter stay out there for 9 even if he's getting shelled. Betting on a game that you're managing is bad.
March 28th, 2024 at 11:28 AM ^
Re: not betting on his team to lose, you make a good point... I will subscribe to your newsletter, until such time as I no longer wish to pay your fees.
March 28th, 2024 at 10:54 AM ^
Pete Rose was the manager of his team when he placed most of his bets.
This whole Pete Rose betting on baseball thing is still interesting to me. I bet no other person is better equipped to know more about their teams strengths and weaknesses vs that of the opposition than the manager of a baseball team.
As long as Rose used his knowledge of baseball as an advantage, and he didn't purposely influence the outcome of a game for his team to lose, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I don't doubt that it's probably too murky a situation for a manager to be in, as they do have a lot of influence in the outcome of a game, but in theory I guess, as long as there is/was no impropriety as to the integrity of the outcome of the game, I don't see it as being problematic.
March 28th, 2024 at 11:03 AM ^
Eh...but what if you bet on the Reds to win by 1.5 runs and you're up by only one run heading into the ninth? Are you truly focused on the long-term success of the team, or--as suggested above--are you going to do whatever you can to make sure that you score the second run? As for the game as a whole, do you start guys that you would have rested otherwise? Are you extra-aggressive on the bases throughout the game to try to make sure you get your two-plus run differential? Do you leave a pitcher in longer than you would have? The conflicts of interest are just too much.
March 28th, 2024 at 11:16 AM ^
I agree that it can get murky, but what manager wouldn't try to score more runs when up by only one? But like I said, theoretically, if he's not doing anything differently than he would have in that situation, than I don't think its a problem. He might just know that its likely the Reds would win by more than 1.5 runs vs the opponent in question, because of XYZ.
March 28th, 2024 at 11:34 AM ^
what manager wouldn't try to score more runs when up by only one?
Maybe he pulls out a good defensive player or good hitter so he can put on a faster pinch runner because he's more interested in going up by 2 than he is worrying about potential extra innings.
Maybe he pulls a double switch because he wants to get a better bat at the plate to get the second run and takes out a pitcher he would have otherwise left in.
And what about my example above that Erik referenced? That he would blow his bullpen on that night and not care about the long term effects.
What if he had a prop bet on his starter to get 10 Ks? He's never taking the pitcher out until he gets 10 Ks.
There are a million examples. It's not murky, it's downright scandalous and VERY bad for the integrity of the game and for your own team.
You're presenting a hypothetical: What if Rose only did moneyline bets on the Reds and literally every decision he made would have been the same without or without the bet? That's a hypothetical that cannot be assumed at all.
March 28th, 2024 at 11:57 AM ^
You're presenting a hypothetical: What if Rose only did moneyline bets on the Reds and literally every decision he made would have been the same without or without the bet? That's a hypothetical that cannot be assumed at all.
Yes exactly, hypothetically if he is only using his insider knowledge as a competitive advantage, then the only real victim here would be the bookie that lets him bet on a game he is managing. Which I guess makes me wonder why a bookie would let Pete Rose bet on a game to begin with, unless there was a way for the bookie to profit on that connection himself.
March 28th, 2024 at 12:08 PM ^
1) As I already pointed out, the hypothetical is just that. A hypothetical that's impossible to assume, difficult to believe, and improbable to even be true even if it was Rose's intention because he's human. So, pointless hypothetical.
2) Rose used an intermediary to place the bet.
3) Rose lost money on gambling, like 99.9% of gamblers. And if you can get an MLB manager to owe you lots of money, that's GREAT news for a bookmaker. Now you have the opportunity to fix games.
4) Some bookmakers like to take bets from sharps because it helps them set their lines.
March 28th, 2024 at 12:10 PM ^
Hypothetically is doing a LOT of work in that sentence. And no one should want to hinge the integrity of the game on "hypothetically."
March 28th, 2024 at 11:39 AM ^
Re: doing something differently, I can as a Reds fan put this in very concrete terms: let's say Rose had rested Reds' star Eric Davis, who stole 80 bases in '86, b/c of a tweaked hamstring...Davis was hurt a lot...And let's say you're at home and up by one run and you get a guy onto first with no outs in the bottom of the eighth. Do you now pinch run Davis to try to steal second to get a second run? Or do you rest him b/c that would be better for the season as a whole?
I agree that things would be fine if Rose really and truly did nothing different b/c of gambling, but I don't see how you could ever count on that being the case. Also, the mere appearance of a conflict is terrible for the game. Fans need and deserve to know that a manager is looking out for his club and not his gambling winnings.
March 28th, 2024 at 11:43 AM ^
Even more obvious, that I just thought of, if you're at home and the game is tied and it's the bottom of the 9th, you should play for 1 run. But you lose your bet, so you don't steal, don't bunt, don't ask for sac flies. You tell everyone to swing for the fences.
March 28th, 2024 at 11:46 AM ^
Yep, great point.
March 28th, 2024 at 11:36 AM ^
"he didn't purposely influence the outcome of a game for his team to lose"
How can you possibly know that? It is impossible to know intent. Are we supposed to simply trust him? That's like saying it's OK for company executives to do insider trading as long as they're not purposely trying to short sell and then tank their own company's stock.
Sports only works as an entertainment product if the audience believes the competitors are both trying their best to win. If athletes or coaches are caught betting on their own sports, it seriously undermines that belief.