Tim Hudson a HOFer?

[packs]

I'm just wondering why you don't think he belongs. Being a winner for an entire 15 year career and being so close to the 100 wins over losses mark of other HOFers seem like qualities of a HOF career.

Here is a list of pitchers ahead of Hudson in winning percentage who pitched at least 15 seasons: Roger Clemens, Roy Halladay, Christy Mathewson, Lefty Grove, Pedro Martinez and Whitey Ford.

All of these players are considered to be all time greats. Why not Hudson? A career ERA of 3.44 over 15 seasons in the absolute height of the steroid era is pretty incredible. His career ERA is better than both Mussina and Pettite's by a wide margin.

[drcy]

His statistics are solid. I see nothing wrong with his ERA. If he pitched at that rate for a few more years at that rate, I think he'd be in the Hall.

For players I consider borderline, I wouldn't pick them for the Hall, but I also won't complain if they get voted in.

I don't focus on one statistic. Winning percentage is nice, but is one thing and a stat usually influenced by factors outside the control of the pitcher. Inevitably, players with high winning percentages play for really good teams. Though there's no question Clemens, Mathewson and Hudson contributed to their teams success.

When a player has a high win count for a season, I look at his other stats to see if he earned it. If a player had a 4.25 era, I figure his team provided him with a ton of run support. if he had a 2.80 ERA and racked up a lot of innings, that I say he deserved it.

As I said, I think Hudson had solid stats across the board for a good number of years. I'm not saying his winning percentage was a fluke. I'm not comparing him to the 4.25 ERA guy. But he'd qualify as a borderline guy for me. I think he needs a few more years.

Duly note my opinion is just my opinion. I don't speak for Hall voters or anyone else. Perhaps the Hall will see it your way.

[nolemmings]

Plus Pettitte used PEDS and (just my opinion) probably lied about the extent of his use . I don't know why so many people give him a pass on that. Being a 'nice' guy doesn't matter.

Agreed, and I'm a Yankee fan.

His career ERA is better than both Mussina and Pettite's by a wide margin.

It should be--he's pitched in the N.L. for half his career whereas the others pitched exclusively in the AL. None of them is HOF worthy, IMO, so comparing Hudson to the other two does not advance the cause. BTW, Hudson was in the Cy Young discussion (top 5 vote getter) only three times in his career, in an era that lacked great starting pitchers. If you can't impress your contemporaries as one of the top 5 more than three times, you can't seriously be considered an all-time great. Hell, I think Ron Guidry is more deserving than Hudson--at least he dominated for a short while and had similar career numbers.

[packs]

I don't know how you can say he's pitched in an era that lacked quality starting pitching. During his career Pedro won 2 CY's, Randy Johnson won 4, Clemens won 2, Halladay won 2, Lincecum won 2 and Johan Santana won 2. Seems like great starting pitchers to compete against to me.

[KCRfan1]

I could certainly see Guidry in the Hall before Hudson, Moose, or Pettitte. Guidry was a beast, something I would never ascribe to those other three.

[howard38]

/

[packs]

I'm not a Hudson lobbyist or anything but I don't understand the lack of credit you guys are giving Hudson. Is it just because his name doesn't get mentioned a lot? You can't argue with his stats.

Hudson is third amongst active players in shutouts. Over the first ten years of his career he was 144-77 with 22 complete games and 11 shutouts. In today's baseball that is really hard to do.

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm just wondering why you don't think he belongs. Being a winner for an entire 15 year career and being so close to the 100 wins over losses mark of other HOFers seem like qualities of a HOF career.

Here is a list of pitchers ahead of Hudson in winning percentage who pitched at least 15 seasons: Roger Clemens, Roy Halladay, Christy Mathewson, Lefty Grove, Pedro Martinez and Whitey Ford.

All of these players are considered to be all time greats. Why not Hudson? A career ERA of 3.44 over 15 seasons in the absolute height of the steroid era is pretty incredible. His career ERA is better than both Mussina and Pettite's by a wide margin.

Hudson NEVER was as dominant as any of these pitchers, and each of those pitchers were considered to be the best in the game at the time. Hudson has never been considered as the best in the game at his position. He is a very good pitcher with a nice career. Nothing more, nothing less.

[packs]

I hear you but I would think the company you keep says something about you.

[nolemmings]

Over the first ten years of his career he was 144-77 with 22 complete games and 11 shutouts. In today's baseball that is really hard to do.

Sorry, these are just not that eye-popping. Hudson's own teammate for years, Mark Mulder--Mark Flippin' Mulder-- had 103 wins, 25 CG and 10 shutouts in a nine-year career (really closer to 7, as he pitched only 12 innings the last two seasons).

[packs]

I wouldn't discount Mulder. You talk about him like he was nothing. Between 2001 and 2005 he was 88 - 40 with a 162 game average season of 20 - 9 with 6 complete game and 3 shutouts. Not sure what you mean by Mark Flippin' Mulder. He just didn't have the health. He had all of the gifts.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by packs

I wouldn't discount Mulder. You talk about him like he was nothing. Between 2001 and 2005 he was 88 - 40 with a 162 game average season of 20 - 9 with 6 complete game and 3 shutouts. Not sure what you mean by Mark Flippin' Mulder. He just didn't have the health. He had all of the gifts.

Mulder was a very good pitcher--that's it. He was inconsistent--his lifetime ERA was well over 4.00. My point is that your reference to Hudson having some sort of special numbers is softened by his own teammate having the same or better numbers. Heck, an argument can be made that there were times when Hudson wasn't even the SECOND best pitcher on his own team--such as when Zito won the Cy in 2002.

As you lower the bar by continually praising those who are further and further away from the Hall you yourself start to make the argument against Hudson, IMO.

[packs]

I was simply saying that comparing him to Mulder doesn't hurt Hudson. Mulder was a great pitcher when healthy. It would be like saying someone wasn't a great pitcher because they compare to JR Richard.