PDA

View Full Version : Ted Lyons...HOF?


jabrch
01-07-2009, 12:19 PM
Guys - can anyone with more knowledge of that period of Sox history tell me a bit more about WHY he is in the HOF?

He only had a .530 winning %. Only won 260 games. Had an ERA of 3.67 on his career. Didn't strike out hitters at all.

Looks good - for 20+ years, but I can't figure out how he is in the HOF.

Paulwny
01-07-2009, 12:57 PM
Guys - can anyone with more knowledge of that period of Sox history tell me a bit more about WHY he is in the HOF?

He only had a .530 winning %. Only won 260 games. Had an ERA of 3.67 on his career. Didn't strike out hitters at all.

Looks good - for 20+ years, but I can't figure out how he is in the HOF.

Yank manager Joe McCarthy, ~ If he had pitched for the yankees, he'd have won 400 games.
Lyon's numbers don't reflect his ability, he played on some piss poor sox 2nd division teams for years.

LITTLE NELL
01-07-2009, 01:07 PM
My guess is that that the HOF voters took into consideration that Lyons pitched for a team that never contended for a pennant and only finished over .500 a few times during his career.
Two other Sox pitchers also are in the HOF that won fewer games than Lyons, Ed Walsh and Red Faber.
Another factor is that 300 wins was not the benchmark for getting into the hall at that time. I may be wrong on that point as its a guess.
Look at guys like Don Drysdale, he did'nt come close to 300 victories and Koufax only had a little over 150 wins, however Koufax's career was cut short due to injury. Anyway both are in the HOF as should Billy Pierce.

NLaloosh
01-07-2009, 02:37 PM
He pitched after the Black Sox scandal for the worst White Sox teams ever. The Sox lost so much talent for a long time. It took them many years basically until the 50's to rebuild.That's why his winning percentage was so bad. Basically, he was about all the Sox had for many years.

The guy was very deserving of the HOF. He was a horse.

BleacherBandit
01-07-2009, 06:17 PM
He pitched for the Sox for over 20 years, that's why.

TDog
01-07-2009, 06:25 PM
Guys - can anyone with more knowledge of that period of Sox history tell me a bit more about WHY he is in the HOF?

He only had a .530 winning %. Only won 260 games. Had an ERA of 3.67 on his career. Didn't strike out hitters at all.

Looks good - for 20+ years, but I can't figure out how he is in the HOF.

The writers who voted Lyons into the Hall of Fame saw him pitch. The Hall of Fame isn't about stats.

Lyons was one of the great pitchers of his era.

Medford Bobby
01-07-2009, 08:10 PM
He pitched for the Sox for over 20 years, that's why.
And he could throw a knuckleball...:cool:

http://memory.loc.gov/ndlpcoop/ichicdn/s0654/s065436.jpg (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/I?cdn:12:./temp/~ammem_igPt::displayType=1:m856sd=ichicdn:m856sf=s 065782b:@@@)http://memory.loc.gov/ndlpcoop/ichicdn/s0657/s065782b.gif (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/I?cdn:12:./temp/~ammem_igPt::displayType=1:m856sd=ichicdn:m856sf=s 065782b:@@@)
Ted Lyons, White Sox, demonstrating a knuckleball grip on a baseball in front of a dark backdrop in a room in 1925 and winding up to throw a baseball at Comiskey Park, circa 1926.

PennStater98r
01-08-2009, 10:24 AM
Thing about Walsh though (not saying Lyons doesn't deserve to be in) was that he has the all-time lowest ERA for someone with the minimum innings requirement.

NLaloosh
01-08-2009, 10:35 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Lyons

Craig Grebeck
01-08-2009, 10:36 AM
The writers who voted Lyons into the Hall of Fame saw him pitch. The Hall of Fame isn't about stats.

Lyons was one of the great pitchers of his era.
Which is why the Hall of Fame is worthless.

Lyons probably deserves to be in -- he was wildly inconsistent but played during a very offensively inflated time.

NLaloosh
01-08-2009, 10:41 AM
There's no "probably" about Lyons. He was a lock.

In 1942, at the age of 42 he went 14-6 with an ERA of 2.10. He then joined the Army to go to WW2 and served 3 years. Then, at age 45 he came back and pitched a few games with an ERA of 2.32.

He was without a doubt one of the biggest draws and greatest pitchers of his era.

gobears1987
01-08-2009, 10:44 AM
He's in the HoF because his win-loss record was out of his control.

Jim Shorts
01-08-2009, 10:45 AM
Which is why the Hall of Fame is worthless.

Lyons probably deserves to be in -- he was wildly inconsistent but played during a very offensively inflated time.

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/2444/palmeiro0jv.jpg
And what very offensively inflated time was that?

Craig Grebeck
01-08-2009, 10:54 AM
http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/2444/palmeiro0jv.jpg
And what very offensively inflated time was that?
Are you really questioning how offensively inflated the 1930's were? From 1934-1939, the league average OPS was never lower than .782. In 1936, the league average OPS was .826; league average ERA: 5.19. For comparison's sake, the highest league average OPS since the strike was .804 in 1999. Highest league average ERA in that time span? 5.05 in 1996.

These are from the AL, of course.

The 1930's were undoubtedly more offensively inflated than the "steroid era."

spiffie
01-08-2009, 11:09 AM
The writers who voted Lyons into the Hall of Fame saw him pitch. The Hall of Fame isn't about stats.

Lyons was one of the great pitchers of his era.
Bingo. Using numbers to figure out who the best players are is mental masturbation.

doublem23
01-08-2009, 11:23 AM
Bingo. Using numbers to figure out who the best players are is mental masturbation.

People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of all people know that.

hi im skot
01-08-2009, 11:33 AM
People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of all people know that.

:rolling:

Jim Shorts
01-08-2009, 11:51 AM
Are you really questioning how offensively inflated the 1930's were? From 1934-1939, the league average OPS was never lower than .782. In 1936, the league average OPS was .826; league average ERA: 5.19. For comparison's sake, the highest league average OPS since the strike was .804 in 1999. Highest league average ERA in that time span? 5.05 in 1996.

These are from the AL, of course.

The 1930's were undoubtedly more offensively inflated than the "steroid era."

No. I was just funnin'

gobears1987
01-08-2009, 12:17 PM
The 1930's were undoubtedly more offensively inflated than the "steroid era."
And that is with pitchers batting in the 1930s. Imagine how much more the numbers would be inflated with a DH.

rookieroy
01-08-2009, 11:37 PM
Hmmmm. The more I hear about all the reasons why Ted Lyons belongs in the hall of fame really makes me wonder how come Bert Blyleven is not. Say all you want. Berts numbers far exceed Teds. This type of injustice really does diminish the Hall of Fames respectability imo. :?: