Tim Hudson a HOFer?

[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.

[CharleyBrown]

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.

[drcy]

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