Tim Hudson a HOFer?
 

Since he broke his ankle last night, Tim Hudson's career may be over. I was looking over his stats today.

In 15 seasons he has a 205 - 111 record, 94 wins above .500. In all of his 15 seasons he's never had a losing record. I'm pretty sure he's the only pitcher in history to pitch that long and never finish below .500.

My question is, given that he may be the one and only pitcher in history never to have a losing season over such a long career, is he a HOFer?

NO

+1

No, and I'm a Braves fan

Andy Pettitte has never finished below .500, although he stands at 7-8 this season.

If you compare Tim Hudson's number's to those of existing Hall of Fame members, he's as good or better than a number of pitchers. Unfortunately, many of the voters believe they need to raise the Hall of Fame's standards by holding modern players to a higher standard. I think it's a bunch of baloney, but I realize I'm in the minority here. I say open the floodgates. If a pitcher was as good as Jesse Haines, Eppa Rixey, Chief Bender, Lefty Gomez or a bunch of other guys, he should get in ...

I'm with you- I think that he could get in depending on how voters see the steroid-users...

I guess Pettite qualifies because he wasn't below .500, but he was 14-14 in 2008. Hudson has been over .500 his entire career. 100 wins above loses is considered HOFer. He's at 94. Never a losing season. I think he should be in.

Pettitte is better than Hudson. Pettitte is 102 wins over losses. Pettite likely will not make the HOF. Hudson won't either. IMO.

No!

Tim Hudson couldn't carry Dave Stewart's jock strap.

In Hudson and Pettitte, I see two very good pitchers who were able to play the game for a long time and produce fairly consistant numbers each season. Neither pitcher is viewed as the best, or was the best at their position at any point of their career. I'm not even sure if they were ever a top 10, certainly not top 5 at their position as a pitcher. Each of us has differing opinions on critera for the Hall, and I look for players truely dominant at their position, and widely viewed as the best at their craft over a period of time. When you think of the position, this is the player you think of. I don't see that in Hudson or Pettitte.

Neither are Hall of Fame material. And I think the 'toughness' of my standards for getting into the Hall of Fame are about average.

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.

Mike Mussina is more worthy than those two, and I don't think he is Hall worthy either. But if Mussina gets voted in, I wouldn't consider it a crime. He was a solid pitcher and I think there's a chance he will get in. My main problem with Mussina is his ERA was too high, even during his peak years. Indicates many of his wins are from pitching for teams that gave him an overabundance of run support. Though a big positive for Mussina is he pitched a lot of innings year in and year out. My saying for all sports is you'd rather have an average player on the field than an all-star on the bench.

I assume some of you know where my Dave Stewart jock strap quote came from. Hudson and Pettitte are more HOF worthy than Stewart, who had four good years.

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.

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.

Agreed, and I'm a Yankee fan.

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.

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.

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.

/

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

You keep on making your comparisons then--suit yourself. BTW, CC Sabathia has never had a losing season either. CC in his first 10 years had 30 CG and 11 shutouts--all in the American League, and has 90 more wins than losses. Is he a HOFer? Not through those numbers, impressive as they are. Yet I believe a stronger case can be made for him than Hudson.

Yeah, I think I saw someone pull out a trivia question a while back about pitchers who had NEVER had a .500 or lower season(only counting seasons in which they recorded a decision).. There was some oddball old-timer who was the only correct answer(can't remember who though)... CC and Hudson were the only current players who qualified. Pettitte had a 14-14 season, so he didn't qualify as a potential answer(he's also sub .500 so far this year). Hudson is 8-7 right now, so if he were to retire he would qualify as the 2nd answer to that question...

As far as HOF for Hudson.. I'm thinking probably no. I'm not opposed to him, or anything, but I just don't think he gets in..

Neither would he want to I imagine.

I don't think Petitte or Hudson are HOFers.
I think Petitte would have made had he not been a PED user bc he was a Yankee. And I agree, I assume his usage was more extensive than what he copped to. Also I believe he lost a ton of credibility in voters eyes when he backed off on his Clemens testimony.

Tim Hudson is not a Hall of Famer. If there's a Hall of very good, he could get in there.

He's never won the Cy Young, and he was only top 3 in the voting once. He led the league in wins once. Never in strikeouts, never in ERA. His career ERA of 3.44 would be one of the highest ever for a Hall of Fame pitcher. I've never at any time during Hudson's career thought to myself "Tim Hudson is one of the top 5 pitchers in baseball".

As to his never having a losing season, that's not really all that impressive. So much of a pitcher's win-loss total is beyond their control. A pitcher can have a Cy Young caliber season, and finish below .500. In 2010, Felix Hernandez won the AL Cy Young Award with only a 13-12 record. His offensive support stunk. If he'd given up another run or two in any of the games he pitched, he could have easily gone 12-13, yet he still would have won the Cy Young Award. Look at Ben Sheets. He was absolutely spectacular in 2004. He had a 2.70 ERA, a 0.983 WHIP, struck out 264 batters while walking only 32. 10 Ks per 9 IP and 8.25 K:BB is outstanding (the 11th best ratio in MLB history!). Yet he was only 12-14 because his offense and defense were really bad.

I'm with you, I think Huddy deserves strong HOF consideration, and hope he gets in. Without re-hashing all the numbers that have been cited, the guy has been one of the most consistently good pitchers of this generation. He's had one off season in his career, and even then managed a 13-12 record. His numbers compare more than favorably with many of the lower tier per-war HOFers like Rube Marquard, Jessie Haines, Vic Willis, etc.. And I think he's a guy that is better than his numbers.

I watched those A's teams and loved the way Hudson competed. He was/is small and slight, but was/is an absolute bulldog. Seeing him as a 24 year old stare down guys like Nomar and Jeter, pitching for a young underdog A's team that was taking on the Yanks and Sox every year in the playoffs. He definitely has some imcredible toughness and intangibles that have made him better than any pure arm "stuff" he may possess.. And which I also think it rubs off on the other pitchers, especially on that A's staff where he was the elder of the big 3. No one should downgrade Mulder either. Hudson was definitely the leader of that crew, but Mulder was the guy everyone pegged as a sure fire HOFer as long as he stayed healthy.. And he was also considered the most likely pitcher of his generation to reach 300, given how many he'd won at such a young age. Bummer his shoulder gave out.

Hopefully Hudson makes a good recovery and notches another 2+ solids seasons to eliminate doubt.

I also think CC, given his age has a great shot to get into the upper 200's, and well over 3000 K's and if so, should be nearly a shoe in. ERA's for anyone who pitched in the 90's-2000's are inflated.. Especially when compared to the high mound pitching dominated 60's, or the dead ball era. Heck even Maddux, Clemens and Randy Johnson ended up above 3.00, and Glavine up above 3.50. Only Pedro in this period had 200 wins plus and a sub 3.00 ERA. Pedro should be a first ballot lock in my opinion.

no

Before entering this thread, I would have said no, but some of you have made some strong arguments.

I sometimes think we are harsher critics than we should be on some of the modern players.

We put the pre-war guys on pedestals because we weren't able to see them play everyday, and thus, notice their flaws. On the other hand, I can watch every game CC pitches thanks to MLB.TV.

We have guys like Jesse Haines in the HOF - with a 3.64 ERA and 210 wins vs. 158 losses. How does he compare to modern players. We can argue that he shouldn't be in, but the fact is, he is in the HOF.

We can say that pitchers of that era faced some of baseball's greatest - but we can also say that they didn't go up against any black ball players or darker hispanic players. They also didn't face the juiced batters that the steroid era produced.

BTW - nothing agaisnt Haines - I just saw his name mentioned.

Would I vote in Tim Hudson - I'm not really sure.

With that said, who are the shoe-in HOF pitchers from this era (recently retired or still pitching)?

Greg Maddux?
Tom Glavine?
Randy Johnson?
Pedro Martinez?
John Smoltz?
Mariano Rivera?
Felix Hernandez?
Justin Verlander?
CC Sabathia?
Mike Mussina?
Curt Schilling?
Roy Halladay?
Tim Hudson?
(Kershaw is still too young imo - once he nears 9-10 years experience)

Greg Maddux?
Tom Glavine?
Randy Johnson?
Pedro Martinez?
John Smoltz?
Mariano Rivera?

Shoe ins, the rest - eh, not so sure.

Jeff,

That's fair enough. I believe that Felix Hernandez and Justin Verlander may be the best bet for active pitchers (not counting Mariano since he'll be retiring in a few months). Not counting this year, Verlander has had six excellent seasons, and one rough year. If it wasn't for Felix Hernandez abysmal run-support, his W/L ratio would be far different.

Some of the guys on that list are too young to make a judgment about yet.