respectfully disagree PED users affected the outcome of games as well by their [augmented] abilities shoeless joe and pete were just more direct
No denying that both affect the outcomes of games I'll take the ones that try to win, you can have the guys willing to sell out for losses.
I was referring to Biggio, RJ, Pedro, and Smoltz. Not Kent. But really I'm talking more about the overall futility of trying to guess who used and who didn't, and in the end we are letting in the guys who are better at lying and covering their tracks. Kent might be clean. I suppose Kent's as good a bet as anyone to be a clean player. But then again we really don't know.
To me it's more about the consumer, not Pete. I could care less if he wants to be in or not. As far as I can tell, Pete is a tool. But if I want to learn about the greatest players to ever play baseball, the HOF is increasingly becoming a place not to look.
I don't pretend to know all the facts, but has it been proven that Pete tried to lose? For the record, I've always been a proponent of Pete for the Hall. His accomplishments can't be denied. He broke the rules, so did many, many others.
Pete always bet on his team to win. He gambled on baseball. He never tried to throw a game. He never cheated. He was just the greatest non power hitter in history that broke a rule by betting on baseball and was punished for it. But he belongs in there before any juicer does.
If you only go once in your life, yes. There is simply too much baseball history to be learned by any one visit and pete not being inducted isnt the problem. the overwhelming majority of what they have is in storage and so it changes all the time which makes it great to go back to again and again. While the members plaques are one of the few things thats always on display, its honestly the least impactful part of the experience and its all that is affected by him not being inducted. There are record boards on display, petes name is there as the hits leader, his memorabilia is there and has been displayed. Sometimes in life its also the things that don't happen that make them memorable. Pete is probably known by a larger number of fans because of hall of fame debates. Ask yourself, can you name the rest of the top ten hits leaders and what team they played for without looking it up? Who's the all time batting average leader? I can't name most of the guys who have pitched a perfect game, I'll never forget the name Armando Gallaraga
He wasn't caught betting against his own team but he didn't bet they would win every night. I'd hate to be a reds fan at the game a night before the game Pete bet on. He was a degenerate and broke gambling addict, he painted that picture himself in his own book, why wouldn't he change his managerial decisions to protect his investment?
Certainly. The ethic that gambling speaks to is that you won't try as hard to win the games you didn't bet on and maybe save your bullpen or rest some starters for the next day when you do have money on the line. Most of what Pete bet on had no certainty of winning, it's why his ass is broke and signing autographs at a vegas casino for a living.
I can see that take. I can also see him not betting on certain games because he knew which relievers would not be available or which starters might have health issues, or even knowing certain players not being effective against certain pitchers. He obviously had access to information the casual gambler probably had no clue about. That he had this information and still lost his ass speaks to a lesser likely hood that he wouldn't try as hard. The games he didn't bet were probably because he knew the cards were stacked against him. It doesn't mean he didn't try to win, it just means he knew there was little chance to win.
I still go back to the fact that there are not any positive tests for the Bonds and Clemens of the world. I'm not saying they don't look like they used but I need actual results to completely shit on them going in, it's all circumstantial evidence if this were a court. If you want to counter and say they used great masking agents then you'll have to concede that we don't know how many others used and therefore have to say nobody had an advantage. Then it becomes each individuals talent that set them apart. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel just stating my opinion. It's really confusing but what isn't confusing is the voters who don't give obvious players a vote should have their voting rights suspended.
