Tim Hudson a HOFer?

[chris6net]

No!

[drcy]

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

[KCRfan1]

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.

[drcy]

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.

[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.

[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.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by drcy

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

Neither would he want to I imagine.

[HRBAKER]

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.

[EvilKing00]

no

[CharleyBrown]

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)

[HRBAKER]

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

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