Should Ty Cobb be taken out of the Hall O fFame due to his racist ways & being accused of trying to fix a game

Question

He was also at one point investigated for a possible murder that was never solved.

Answer 1

no. The criteria for the hall of fame was never a player's character. It is strictly a player's statistics.

That said, it is hypocritical to keep Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame. Let the man in, give him his plaque and the plaque should say something about his gambling problems keeping him out of the Hall of Fame for 20 years. After Pete is in the Hall of Fame, he should never be allowed to manage a team or meaningfully participate in baseball again.

Answer 2

No. The only relevant charge is the accusation of fixing -- the other allegations do not pertain to baseball, and the Hall is not an arbiter of society, only of its chartered subject. Cobb's plaque in Cooperstown does not indicate that he was a nice man, only that he was a great ballplayer, which he was.

Beyond that, the Hall has no method -- not to public knowledge anyway -- for revoking its honors and expelling a member, once bestowed. And, really, it should not; judgments of history should stand unless significant, compelling, and supportable evidence comes to light that a mistake was made. So far, that's not the case.

The fixing accusation, which is important here because such would constitute an offense, a grave offense, against baseball, eventually got dismissed by Commissioner Landis. If he found anything, he never disclosed it officially. And allegations, which are not evidence, should never be used as a basis for condemnation (no matter how stupid-happy that makes the talk radio dorks).

Turning to some expressed misconceptions above...

Rose and Jackson (which, other than both being ineligible, have nothing to do with each other) are not under "lifetime" bans. Their bans are "permanent". When permanent expires, they can rejoin baseball's good graces. Don't make vacation plans to visit their induction ceremonies in the next 1000 years.

Jackson, in particular, was eligible when the Hall was founded (the ineligibility requirements were not codified until 1991). Realize that many of the early voters were first-hand witnesses to the 1919 World Series; they had evidence, live viewing of gameplay, that we cannot ever hope to capture. And they had the chance to vote for Jackson if they wanted. Jackson got four votes, total, in seven elections. That is pretty decisive -- history dismissed and rejected him. Even considering overturning that judgment at this far remove in time is unconscionably misguided.

As for question about Jackson's complicity, the only relevant question is "Was he complicit?" to which the answer is "Yes", and by his own admission. How he played (or didn't) on the field is not relevant; he knew what was going on. And, while it proves nothing -- too small an amount of data to be certain -- his performance in the four clean games was significantly better than in the four thrown games. Proves nothing but certainly doesn't make him look better. And, yes, this is an important point most Jackson supporters conveniently overlook, not every game was thrown, only those started by Cicotte and Williams.

Answer 3

Interesting question. Racist Ways? That was a way of the times and I am sure there are many racists in the HOF. Accused to trying to fix a game? Depending on who you believe, he not only tried but DID fix games. Cobb threatened a lawsuit against Judge Landis and MLB and thought he could win as much as $100 million if MLB banned him. MLB did the obligatory research into the allegations and conveniently absolved Cobb of any responsibility. The owners were not going to stand and lose the money they would if Cobb and Tris Speaker were banned from baseball. Especially with this occurring just a few years after the Black Sox fiasco. Some players were bigger than the game, the definition of which is a player who, if not playing, would cause the owners to lose a whole lot of money. In that sense, Cobb was bigger than the game. If we dissect Cobb's life then we must do the same for all possible HOFers. It's not worth it.

Answer 4

No. Being accused of something (i.e.; being a racist and trying to fix a game) and being convicted or found guilty of said charges are two different things. Ty Cobb was a great ballplayer. It is unfortunate that during the era in which he played, things such as bigotry were the norm. Although he was not an angel, Cobb excelled as a ballplayer and is in the Hall of Fame for his actions on the field of play. His way of living was never questioned until his playing days were long over and new standards of conduct had been put in place.

Answer 5

well you cant blame her for applying to a job which she has been accepted for. Thats just like a job with a specification of 'you must hold a degree'. If the selection process is half soaked and anyone can apply then they will. If she could not do the job this should have been picked up on before you gave her the job. Giving her the job means you have opted to accommodate for her circumstances. why did you say no? surely if she has asked for the position she must feel she can do the role, otherwise she wouldnt have asked. I understand you think she cant but you havent even given her a chance to prove otherwise. If you had done this and then seen for yourself she cannot hear/ do the job which im sure shell agree on if she cant then fair enough you have the right to say no, but to dismiss her before she has the chance to try is wrong. If there was a disabled man who needed an arm rest to use the computer what would you do? Youd order an arm rest. If a pregnant woman had a bad back and needed a back rest you'd order one! The same with a muslim girl who cant hear.. you need to order a headset which she can use!! You have to do what you can to accommodate people. At my workplace thats what my managers do ive seen it with my own eyes!! So unless you can say you've tried to accommodate her i think you will have some explaining to do when the investoigation is done as all these things will be asked!

Answer 6

No, but that is exactly why Joe Jackson, having served his sentence of being banned for life, should go IN the hall. There is question about his actual complicity in the Black Sox scandal and quite a lot of evidence of Cobb's guilt in doing what Jackson is accused of, so put Shoeless Joe in. As to the charge of racism, while you are no doubt right in your charge, rectifying history in such a way is a little too tricky to attempt. Some folks back then might be accused unfairly of racism because it might be assumed that they were racist because racism was institutionalized when if fact they might not be. Cobb did not have the advantage of being around during society's attempt to rectify the situation, so let his baseball record be his standard.

Answer 7

No, Cobb should not be taking out of the Hall for being a racist, (if he really was one, because he hated everybody) I never heard of him trying to fix a game, he is the one that sharpend his cleets and "spiked" people with it, and would would do what ever it took to win, even breaking the rules. It doesn't sound like something he would have done.

Answer 8

He was a suspect in two separate murders but Kennesaw Mountain Landis pretty much got him off the hook. He was a GREAT hitter, GREAT base runner but an awful person. That should have nothing to do with him in the hall. He deserves to be there.

Answer 9

No. He will always be part of the HOF. Racism was par for the course and it was never proven that he fixed a game. He played baseball the right way, and maybe a little dirty at times, but you would have loved him if he was on your team.

Answer 10

absolutely not.
for exactly the same reason susan b anthony's conviction for voting before sufferage in 1919. ex post facto. a lot of people did good and bad things before attitudes as a whole changed and cannot always be judged looking with the current paradigm.
facts are facts history says he was a bit of a jack a** but history also says he played great ball.