Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Twins News & Analysis

    Hall of Fame Day: My Imaginary Ballot, and the Reasons for My Choices


    Matthew Trueblood

    Tuesday evening will bring the results of the 2025 National Baseball Hall of Fame BBWAA election. Before that happens, here are my 10 selections from the annual ballot, and the reasons why I chose each—and why I excluded some other candidates.

    Image courtesy of © Bob DeChiara-Imagn Images

    Twins Video

     

    I hew to a few key principles when considering who I think deserves to enter the National Baseball Hall of Fame. It doesn't really matter, of course, because I don't have a vote, but I go through some version of the exercise each year, because I can't evaluate the choices made by the tenured members of the Baseball Writers Association of America without coming to my own conclusions about who should go in and why. Here are my main thoughts about the ballot as it exists these days, in no particular order:

    • By and large, I'm a "big Hall" guy. There are, for my money, more important and wonderful players on the outside of Cooperstown looking in than guys who have plaques but didn't exactly merit them. Off-field matters notwithstanding, I tend to err on the side of letting in players who don't check all of some old-fashioned voters' boxes but who brightened the field with their presence over long careers.
    • I'll usually favor peak over longevity, but I think some public discourse has run too far in that direction. We ought to value the desire, dedication, and adaptability to stay helpful for more than a decade, even if a player had a truly elite seven- or eight-year peak.
    • I'm unwilling to exclude a player for using performance-enhancing drugs. I do discount players' numbers slightly if we know that they used, but the problem was huge and systemic and while each person bears personal responsibility for the choices they made about how to seek competitive edges during that era, I don't feel that using those drugs (or, in Carlos Beltrán's case, being the focal point of the investigation into the Astros' sign-stealing scandal) should keep a deserving player out of the Hall.
    • On the other hand, I'm something of a hardliner when it comes to more egregious and (in my opinion) serious failures of character. This is the highest honor that can be conferred on a member of this profession, and it's my feeling that we should deny that honor to people who (most especially) inflict violence on family members, intimate partners, or any other group, especially if they were repeat offenders. That also goes for people who espouse hateful things (no Curt Schilling for me, when he was eligible) and those who drink and drive and don't learn from the egregious, wantonly dangerous misdeed (no Todd Helton for me, either, though I lost that argument).

    That should give you some clues as to whose names are about to appear below. Without further ado, here we go.

    CC Sabathia
    A no-brainer. Sabathia pitched 19 seasons as a workhorse, and not just an innings-eater, but an ace. He was, arguably, the last great pitcher of his kind, a threat to go eight innings every time he toed the rubber. Sabathia made 134 starts in which he went at least 7 1/3, which is not only the fifth-most since 1995, but 22 more than the most by any active hurler. (Justin Verlander sits at 112.) I heartily recommend his memoir, Till The End, which documents not only his career, but his long battle with alcohol dependence. He was larger than life on the mound, a great postseason pitcher, and late in his career, a big enough man to admit that he was hurting a great many people he loved by destroying himself. His journey to sobriety is as inspiring to many as his incredible talent and phenomenal performances.

    Ichiro Suzuki
    The most singular player in modern baseball history. Suzuki didn't even come to the States until he was 27, which hid some of his greatest brilliance from us, and yet, no one who ever watched him doubted he was a Hall of Famer. His feel for contact—especially the ability to hit the ball deep enough to the left side of the infield to secure a single almost every time, even if the shortstop managed to keep it on the dirt—was breathtaking, and his arm in right field was the most entertaining of his generation. That was true not only because he threw so well, but because he did it with such a whipsaw grace, from a small frame, and because he augmented the utility of his sheer arm strength by charging every single with fluid speed and confidence. He's one of the 25 best baseball players ever, if we widen our lens to remember that his skill set probably peaked during his final few years in Japan. If you've never looked up his NPB numbers, do so. His lowest full-season average there was .342, and he left after batting .387/.460/.539 in 2000.

    Alex Rodríguez
    Is he truly likable? No. Is he obnoxious on FOX broadcasts now? Yes. Did he use steroids, even after testing went into effect and everyone understood them to be taboo? Absolutely. But unlike (say) Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, Rodríguez was never accused of being violent or criminally inappropriate toward women, and while he might have had a vague reputation as a self-satisfied jerk off the field, his sins outside the lines are relatively tame. They don't remotely erase the fact that, along with Bonds and Willie Mays and Henry Aaron, Rodríguez has a very strong case as the best player of all time. His pwoer and speed were incredible, but some players could loosely match those tools. What no one ever matched was the way he blended those loud tools with subtle but equally valuable refined skills, from an intelligent and adaptable approach at the plate to clever and dazzling defense.

    Carlos Beltrán
    I mentally bin Beltrán with Scott Rolen. While they were different in several obvious ways, both were extremely well-rounded—so much so that it was sometimes regrettably easy to overlook their greatest strengths in favor of marveling at their lack of weaknesses. Beltrán's raw numbers are slightly diminished by the mix of parks and league run environments he encountered over the years, and even so, they're gaudy. He was also, throughout his 20s, one of the best defensive center fielders of his generation, which often got lumped in and treated like an afterthought, given the balanced offensive dynamism he offered as a switch-hitter. That he helped engineer the banging scheme in 2017 is a shame, but not a dark enough mark on his record to make me think twice about wanting to see him enter the Hall. He found so many ways to be good late in his career, and was so respected by teammates throughout that career, that I'm more inclined to give him bonus points for baseball character than to strike him from the list for cheating in his senescence.

    Félix Hernández
    I think that, because he came up so young and was thus in decline by his age-30 season, people remember Hernández's peak as shorter than it really was. From 2009-15, Hernández made six All-Star teams, won a Cy Young Award, finished twice two other times and was in the top 10 for the honor thrice more. He averaged 228 innings and 221 strikeouts per season and had a 2.83 ERA. If those seven years were his whole peak, this would be a thorny conversation. In reality, though, he had come up in the middle of 2005 and had three full, perfectly solid campaigns before really hitting his stride in that 2009 campaign. He also pitched with personality, and was a bit of a throwback: he didn't have to strike you out for you to feel as though you had no chance when he was done with you.

    Andy Pettitte
    Yes, he used HGH, and yes, I hold that against him—almost more than I do for hitters, because one of the chief challenges for pitchers is to stay healthy and I consider things that artificially reduce that risk an especially egregious sin against the game. Pettitte was an emblem of an era, though. Every October, you'd turn on the TV, and he would be there, with the cap pulled so low over his eyes that his face was just a black abyss behind his glove. He'd be coming off a strong regular season, but there would be questions about him—and then he'd answer them with a resounding performance that helped vault his teams to one World Series after another. Pitchers deserve some extra credit for holding up under the hot lights, and for achieving longevity even when piling up extra innings after lots of their counterparts had gone home each fall.

    Chase Utley
    Like Beltrán, Utley was a winner, because he did everything well and sought the edge everywhere it could be found. He bordered on dirty, but if the rest of the league were as dedicated to playing the game ferociously as he was, they wouldn't have been in any danger from him. He was ruthless, and he was everywhere. During his peak, he hit for average, drew walks, stole bases more efficiently than anyone else in baseball, and played better defense at second base than anyone else in baseball. The thing people overlooked too often, because he tended to hit more doubles than homers, was his power. He averaged 27 homers and 67 total extra-base hits per year from 2005-10, and he also perfected the art of being hit by pitches. The second half of his career was underwhelming, but he should have won two MVPs (which, in a testament to him, went to teammtes instead) before that decline began.

    Billy Wagner
    I love the story of Wagner breaking his right arm playing hat football when he was a kid, and thus becoming an accidental lefty. It speaks not only to his resourcefulness, but to his passion for the sport; he couldn't be without baseball long enough to let an injury heal all the way. He just switched arms and kept hucking it.

    You'd like to see more volume, even from a reliever, to put them in. Yet, Wagner had more strikeouts than either Trevor Hoffman or Mariano Rivera, even though they had roughly 180 and 350 more career innings than he did, respectively. You'd like to see a better postseason track record, too. But the fact is that Wagner struck out 33.2% of opposing batters for his career, which would be an elite rate for a single season even now—and that was at a time when the baseline for strikeouts was about 20% lower than it is now. When he came in to close out a game against your team, you knew he was a Hall of Famer.

    Russell Martin
    For me, this is not as controversial as some have made it. Martin was a unique athlete who could have stuck on the infield if he'd insisted upon it, but instead, he made himself a great catcher—one of the best defenders at the most important non-pitching position on the field, in an era full of great defensive catchers. That so much of his value comes from pitch framing inevitably dings him for many, but I love framing and believe its value is real and should be acknowledged. Martin also brought a modicum of power and unusual speed to the position, and you didn't have to make the big tradeoffs that so many catchers force their teams to make. He was well-rounded, an average-plus hitter and a terrific run preventer, as well as a beloved teammate whose teams were a truly wild 212 games over .500 when he started during his career. In 11 different seasons, his team was at least 11 games to the good.

    Ben Zobrist
    This one, admittedly, is a fringy case. I'd like to see Zobrist stick around on the ballot, as much as I'd like to see him actually inducted. He's the guy who probably did have too short a career to make a compelling Hall case, but from 2009-16, he defined an evolving role for the whole league, playing all over the diamond (and being above-average at each spot) and hitting .271/.366/.439, despite a lot of those seasons being fallow ones for offense throughout the league. I also give him some extra credit for being instrumental in two straight World Series runs by teams he was on, the 2015 Royals and the 2016 Cubs.


    Excluded here, but worth a quick mention, are the following:

    • Bobby Abreu makes a very strong case, and once Beltrán gets in, I think it will be easier to fairly judge him and for some voters to find room for him on their ballots.
    • Andruw Jones, Manny Ramírez, Francisco Rodríguez, and Omar Vizquel were not considered, as I consider all of them to have been disqualifyingly violent and/or cruel away from the field.
    • Dustin Pedroia is very close to Utley as a candidate, and probably could have gotten his slot. I'll certainly be taking another close look at him next year.
    • Brian McCann is a similar candidate to Martin, but I want to advocate Martin first.
    • David Wright and Troy Tulowitzki were clearly Hall of Fame talents. I'm not yet sure I can get them over the line, based on how truncated by injuries their careers were, but they're legitimate candidates.

    There's my ballot. It's imperfect; all ballots are. It was fun to put it together, though, and I'd love to hear what you think of it, as well as whom you would support.

     

    Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

    Recent Twins Articles

    Recent Twins Videos

    Twins Top Prospects

    Marek Houston

    Cedar Rapids Kernels - A+, SS
    The 22-year-old went 2-for-5 on Friday night, his fourth straight multi-hit game. Heading into the week, he was hitting .246/.328/.404 (.732). Four games later, he is hitting .303/.361/.447 (.808).

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Featured Comments

    I've generally considered myself a "big Hall" guy and usually I choose the max 10 guys. This year's ballot seems soft to me, however. 

    Ichiro's a no-brainer and I think Wagner will get in on his 10th try. Beyond that, I see a handful of guys that are on the edge, but not enough to get 10 on my imaginary ballot, particularly if I don't consider ARod and Manny.

    I've been a little perplexed by the support Sabathia has gotten. His stats are virtually identical to Pettitte's (Sabathia 251-161 vs. 256-153; 116 ERA+ vs. 117 ERA+; 62.3 WAR vs. 60.2). Both had great success in the postseason. Sabathia has a bit higher peak, but only won one Cy Young, and that was over three guys who had very similar stats. Frankly, Mark Buehrle's stats are quite similar to the two of them (59.1 WAR; 117 ERA+), with less postseason success and less longevity, but he hasn't topped 11 percent.

    Pettitte was in the Mitchell Report, but claimed it was a two-day injury rehab thing and his career doesn't show the kind of arc common to other users. Is that enough to provide the difference between Pettitte never topping 18 percent in his six years to date and Sabathia tracking at over 92 percent in the public balloting to date and seeming like a shoo-in? And Buehrle was clean, so is there enough difference in postseason and longevity to warrant the discrepensy in support for him, which has never topped 11 percent? (And it pains me to type that question about a White Sox guy.) And I get that Schilling was a jerk, but his numbers are way better than any of these three. 

     

    I'm not as adamantly against the steroid users as I used to. I probably still don't put them in, but I also don't care if they do get in.

    But at this point they all have to stay out. Most have aged off the ballot, so it seems kind of BS that the back end guys would end up benefitting. I mean really, Pettite gets in and Bonds and Clemens don't? That looks shadier than none of them getting in. Sometime after they're all off the ballot, then it's time to have a special referendum to reconsider. Not the regular voters but a committee like they do with the special eras.

    You won't exclude steroid cheaters yet would exclude a guy who gets a DWI or if you don't agree with his political views? I have no respect for that viewpoint and couldn't get beyond the introduction. 

    My opinion is such a mixed bag that it's hard to say. I don't like adding the "cheaters" from the steroid days...but...some of them were so damned good before the supposedly juiced that it's hard to say no. I'm thinking Bonds and others. Maybe down the road for the veterand committee with an asterisks by their name?

    I'm a believer in BOTH length of service time and quality despite supposed lack of dominance...Kaat and Blyleven for example...as well as pure dominance over a shortened career due to injury...think Puckett, Oliva, and Koufax.

    I always think about guys who were just dominate in an 8-10 year stretch. And I tend to look at numbers posted differently because every decade the game does subtly change. Through a 10yr stretch of the late 80's and early 90's, Jack Morris was just a STUD. The same way Verlander has been in the aughts. You just never wanted to face him.

    I'm not a fan of Harold Baines being in the HOF personally...not because he played for the Dirty Sox...but because I think he snuck in between the category of really good for a long time, and dominate for a 7-8yr time frame.

    I don't have an answer. But were I a voter, and if I was going to leave out steroid users for NOW, my criteria would be very good for a long period of time, occasionally dominate, and elite/dominate for a shorter period of time.

    Hard to not then vote for guys like Sabathia or King Felix. But I'm a bit prejudice that Koufax is IN while Santana is out. Yes, call me a Homer. LOL.

    Posthumous, I would like to see Rose in the HOF. I know he broke a cardinal rule! But his career as a player still marks him as a HOF inductee at some point. 

    2 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

    But at this point they all have to stay out.

    I'm ok with the opinion even if i disagree, but it is too late. ... Ortiz is in already. Unless you meant from today forward.

    On a totally different point, everyone has to go watch the interview on mlb.com with Ichiro. It isn't really important that he missed the one vote, but what a fabulous human being. Ichiro is a star.

    3 hours ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

    Rather than provide specific names, I'll just say NO cheaters, and only those with HIGH morals on and off the field.

    You'd toss out half the players already inducted?

    10 hours ago, DocBauer said:

    Posthumous, I would like to see Rose in the HOF. I know he broke a cardinal rule! But his career as a player still marks him as a HOF inductee at some point.

    I agree, You can debate the character stuff, and with Rose the betting on baseball games was an obvious error, but he was such an amazing player for so long that it really seem unjust to exclude him. Of course now that he's passed away, any slight impetus to get him in the hall has probably come and gone. Meanwhile, of the players not selected yet, I'd pick Andruw Jones. Relatively short career but for his first 10 years he was a definite hall of fame type player.

    2 hours ago, Doctor Wu said:

    with Rose the betting on baseball games was an obvious error, but he was such an amazing player for so long that it really seem unjust to exclude him. 

    The betting on baseball games was an obvious mistake with a penalty that is known to every single player - lifetime ban. You can't say "It's okay to bet on baseball games if you're a really good player, you should only get penalized if you're not very good".

    I am a medium hall guy.  I am not the small hall like many want, but I do think it should really mean something.  That also being said I am a fan of the more compare to the era they played in and how did they compare to their counterparts at the time.  I am a longevity guy too, unless it was a career ending injury that stop the player, however they need the peak numbers too.  In terms of the performance enhancing drugs era I agree that if most were using, you compare them to their counter parts.  I also agree that if the numbers were there before any use was really established then let them in.  

    Personally, I do not know why Ichiro was not unanimous.  Pitchers right now are so hard to determine.  Take Hernandez for example. His peak was one of best pitcher in the game.  Then he fell off the cliff like many pitchers do.  Injuries started to set in, not career ending exactly but he never adapted to his loss in stuff.  I would not be opposed to him being in, but if he gets in I still ask why Johan did not get in.  He did not even get past first ballot, which is crazy in my mind. I do feel pitchers should show longevity because it showed how good they really were when they could adjust to their loss in stuff.  Again, injuries that made them retire should be considered but there are many pitchers on a HOF path in 20's only to hit the cliff at 30 and never pitcher after 33 because they lost it completely. One reason giving a pitcher a long term deal at age 30 is a huge risk. 

    1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

    Wagner is an obvious mistake. He's the 5th best pitcher on the ballot.

    You knew he would get in - all the articles have been building momentum and that seems to be the way so many get in.  I would cut the time on the ballot to five years myself = in fact my preference would be a ballot with all the names on a list with two boxes - in or out and then move on. 

    With all the committees the HOF is getting watered down, but then in reality it does not matter and those who do not get in like Rose, Bonds, Clemens, Shoeless Joe get more publicity than those who make it.  

    14 hours ago, DocBauer said:

    My opinion is such a mixed bag that it's hard to say. I don't like adding the "cheaters" from the steroid days...but...some of them were so damned good before the supposedly juiced that it's hard to say no. I'm thinking Bonds and others. Maybe down the road for the veterand committee with an asterisks by their name?

    I'm a believer in BOTH length of service time and quality despite supposed lack of dominance...Kaat and Blyleven for example...as well as pure dominance over a shortened career due to injury...think Puckett, Oliva, and Koufax.

    I always think about guys who were just dominate in an 8-10 year stretch. And I tend to look at numbers posted differently because every decade the game does subtly change. Through a 10yr stretch of the late 80's and early 90's, Jack Morris was just a STUD. The same way Verlander has been in the aughts. You just never wanted to face him.

    I'm not a fan of Harold Baines being in the HOF personally...not because he played for the Dirty Sox...but because I think he snuck in between the category of really good for a long time, and dominate for a 7-8yr time frame.

    I don't have an answer. But were I a voter, and if I was going to leave out steroid users for NOW, my criteria would be very good for a long period of time, occasionally dominate, and elite/dominate for a shorter period of time.

    Hard to not then vote for guys like Sabathia or King Felix. But I'm a bit prejudice that Koufax is IN while Santana is out. Yes, call me a Homer. LOL.

    Posthumous, I would like to see Rose in the HOF. I know he broke a cardinal rule! But his career as a player still marks him as a HOF inductee at some point. 

    I agree with much of this, but Rose has some off the field things that would be enough to keep him off my ballet. Especially when you add it to the betting. Some of the things that came out about him, or he was alleged to have done, back in the 70s were truly horrendous. He acknowledged some of it while denying the illegal parts. It's why he got fired from Fox Sports and why the Phillies wouldn't honor him. Amazing hitter, not so amazing of a person.

    I'm comfortable leaving the PED guys off and letting them get evaluated further down the line in history, when hopefully more the emotion has been taken out of it. Lot of complexity and nuance to these issues, IMHO. But they brought this on themselves through the choices they made, and no one is entitled to a Hall of fame vote.

    Ichiro is easy. For me Billy Wagner is too: reliever is a position in baseball, so to ignore them makes little sense to me. Wagner is one of the best of all-time, and owns every LH relieving stat. 

    I would have voted for Sabathia: he had peak years, longevity, and I'll admit I'll give a little extra credit for a guy overcoming alcoholism to get back his career. He was always considered a guy who could lead your pitching staff and threw a ton of effective innings.

    I'm a yes on Utley: the peak years are unbelievable. I don't care if the post-Philly injury years were unimpressive, or if he didn't clear 2000 hits (he did clear 1000 runs, 400 doubles, and clawed his way on base a ton). Utley was the best player on those Philly championship years, and deserves to be in.

    yes on Beltran too: yes, he was part of the Houston cheating scandal, but that was as a coach, not a player. in his prime he was a great combination of power, speed, and defense, and was a useful player almost until the end. he did some of everything, which is why he's probably not as well-regarded as he should be (playing for KC early in his career didn't help), but I would put him in. The fact that the Hall screwed up on Lofton and/or edmonds isn't a good reason to perpetuate the problem by keeping Beltran out.

    I'm a yes on Andruw Jones too. yes, he fell apart after he turned 30, but the peak was so high and the defense so good, that I think he's worthy. 

    I don't know what to do with Abreu, who was very good, but didn't have the MVP kind of years (and the Gold Glove was a joke) I'd like to see at least once? But he did get on base a ton and was consistently deserving of being an all-star even if he didn't get there often. Borderline for me.

    Pettite & Buehrle are close but no cigar for me. Pettite's got the PED issue, and was good forever rather than being great most of the time. people seem to want him to get extra credit for his postseason pitching, but he was more often good rather than great there too; how much extra credit should he get for playing for great teams? how often was he seen as the best pitcher on his own team? Once? Twice? Buehrle was about as good as Pettite, but didn't have the advantage of playing for great teams nearly as often. He didn't have the post-season record, but also got very little opportunity, and he was great when CWS won. he doesn't have any PED issues, and gets a little extra credit from me for keeping a game moving: I hated when the Twins faced him, but also kinda loved it because the game would MOVE, at a time when games were starting to drag. both fit into the Hall of Very Good for me

    I liked how Jaffe grouped Torii Hunter and Jimmy Rollins together: both were "face of the franchise" kind of guys, who had excellent careers, were very popular, and in Rollins' case won a title. but neither are real Hall of Fame candidates to me. Rollins won an MVP when he wasn't the best player on his own team, let alone the NL; Torii never really came close to that kind of peak. Torii was very good for like 13 seasons in a row, which is no small thing, and stayed good deep into his 30's, but his defense was overrated (he wasn't as consistently great as the GG's would suggest). Love the dude, but he's not a Hall of Famer, especially not compared to guys like Beltran, Lofton, or Edmonds who were contemporaries.

    With respect to the steroid and other PEDs, if the pitchers were 'roiding and the hitters were 'roiding it seems that there should be a cancellation of impact.

    Bonds.  Clemons and most of the top players from that era should be in the HOF.  

    For example, Pete Rose MUST BE in the Hall of Fame.  His off field issues can be discussed but if we compare him to others in the Hall his conduct isnt as egregious as it seems.  

    The sole criteria for being in the HOF should be being amongst the absolute best players of your era.

    It should not be some career stats players get over a long period of time like Don Sutton.

    Nor should it be because they are golden boys or match your political philosophy.  

    I

     

     

    Like this year did for me, next year's ballot is also pretty soft. 

    Beltran got 70 percent and Jones 66 this year. Those are close enough to have a good chance of getting in with the bump that usually happens when you get to that level.

    The next guy was Utley at 39.8 percent. Some of the talking heads were suggesting that he will likely get in next year, but I don't know that anyone has ever increased that amount in a single year.

    Tenth-year guys usually get a bump, but the only one is Manny (34 percent). He won't get that much of a bump. 

    And among newcomers, the highest WAR is Cole Hamels, who is slightly below Buehrle (11.4 percent this year) and well behind Pettitte (27.9 percent). The next highest WAR, and highest among position players, is Ryan (PED) Braun at 47.1. The comparable for him is Curtis Granderson, who didn't use PEDs and got three votes.  

    11 minutes ago, LyleCole said:

    For example, Pete Rose MUST BE in the Hall of Fame.  His off field issues can be discussed but if we compare him to others in the Hall his conduct isnt as egregious as it seems.  

    Betting on baseball games comes with the most severe punishment for a reason. It ruins the integrity of the sport. Fans won't watch baseball if they think the outcome is rigged. Rose's off field actions cannot be excused, no matter what he did on the field.

    5 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

    Betting on baseball games comes with the most severe punishment for a reason. It ruins the integrity of the sport. Fans won't watch baseball if they think the outcome is rigged. Rose's off field actions cannot be excused, no matter what he did on the field.

    I'd take this a step further. His off field actions like betting the horses, yadda, yadda, are problematic, but he was betting when he was on field. It was as a manager, rather than as a player, but that might actually be more egregious because of the amount he can control. As a player, he basically affects his several plate appearances and a few balls hit to him. 

    2 hours ago, jmlease1 said:

    For me Billy Wagner is too: reliever is a position in baseball, so to ignore them makes little sense to me. Wagner is one of the best of all-time, and owns every LH relieving stat. 

    Pitcher is a position, not reliever. Reliever is a role that allows a pitcher who isn't good enough to start to contribute to a team's success. John Franco owns several of the LH relief stats.

    10 minutes ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

    After reading your post a question popped into my head.  Does anybody know if ballplayers are monitored by MLB for betting through all/any of those online betting forums that I see ads about daily?  Couldn't a player create a fictitious ID like abc123 and bet on their own game that day?  If they wanted to go that far they could create a shell company to collect the winnings.  Just curious whether anybody knows the answer to this question.

    Or use your interpreter as a middleman to place bets for you. That was the whole reason they investigated Ohtani.

    38 minutes ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

    After reading your post a question popped into my head.  Does anybody know if ballplayers are monitored by MLB for betting through all/any of those online betting forums that I see ads about daily?  Couldn't a player create a fictitious ID like abc123 and bet on their own game that day?  If they wanted to go that far they could create a shell company to collect the winnings.  Just curious whether anybody knows the answer to this question.

    My name should be "IowaTwin," since that's where I'm from. I've just lived two-thirds of my life in Indiana. 

    That to say that I don't know the details, but a couple years ago, both Iowa and Iowa State had multiple players suspended related to sports betting. From an ESPN article: 

    "In May 2023, Iowa law enforcement and prosecutors, noting data showing that sportsbooks rarely flag their own bettors, acted on what Brian Sanger, an agent of the Iowa Department of Criminal Investigations, saw on that screen."

    A later quote says, "Iowa state law requires sportsbooks to report suspicious or illegal wagering activities, including the use of false identification."

    Lawsuits were filed, at least in part because of search warrant issues, and I don't how everything played out, but it points to law personnel having some sort of access to betting records. I assume similar things would play out in other states and with other athletes.

    https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/40575467/inside-iowa-iowa-state-ncaa-gambling-investigation

    28 minutes ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

    Thanks for the article and feedback IOWATwin :-)  This article was focused on college sports and was highlighted by transactions based on their campus location.  It was also identified by law enforcement.  I was looking more for professionals and since sports betting, albeit legal, would not be enforced by law enforcement but rather be enforced by the sports entity, in this case MLB.

    One comment on the article... how dumb by the players to invoke the bet while on campus.  One would assume that amateur or professional athletes would either do this from a common location (a bar maybe) or be smart enough to have a VPN.

    Agreed. I was mainly noting that sportsbooks are supposed to communicate suspicious activity, but as you note, there’s nothing illegal (to my understanding) about professional athletes betting on their games. It also doesn’t seem like there’s any real motivation for them to do. 



    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...