Quote:
Originally Posted by robw1959
Pete, as a manager, bet on the Reds to win. His bets were the manifestation of a gambling addiction - not an effort to undermine the game in any way.
|
When you bet on the team you manage on SOME games, but not others, you are setting up a personal conflict. For example, if your starters need a rest here and there throughout the season, you are much more likely to rest them on games you are not betting on. If your light-hitting backup catcher needs a little work, he will get it in a game you are not betting on. Even if your best relief pitchers are a little tired, you will be more likely to use them in a game you are betting on.
And so on, and so forth. People say "Pete never bet against his own team..." Well, I would argue that if he's betting on them in some games, but not others, he effectively was.
Baseball doesn't ask a lot of its players, coaches, and managers, but after 1920 so severely damaged the National Pastime, baseball does demand one thing: Don't gamble on baseball, especially games where you can affect the outcome, and certainly, managers have that power. You can drink, cheat on your wife, rob a bank, misspell the word "Damn," and do all sorts of other things the world frowns on.
But don't bet on baseball. So Pete, a student of the game and its history, looks at that and says to himself, "Dam, I'm going to bet on baseball."