Tim Hudson

[Gregory Pratt]

Thoughts on whether or not he belongs or will someday?

[jjpm74]

If he wins a pair of Cy Young Awards or sticks around and has 10 more years on par with his first 10 years, he has a good chance. Right now, it's too early to tell. His 2000 season was an amazing year, but other than that, he's just been a consistent pitcher.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Tough call. It depends on how he ages. He has 135 wins through age 31. That's kind of on 300 win pace. But he'll have to pitch past age 40.

[RubeBaker]

It's iffy, but at this point I would say he's a solid no. He had a couple of rough seasons in Atlanta, but he was very good last year.

135 wins at age 32, he's not even halfway to 300. The fact is, even if he were to play another 8 years until he was 40, he would need to average 21 wins per season to make 300. He's probably got a couple of good years left, but I don't think he'll get much past 200.

In the end, I think he will wind up as one of those in the Hall of Very Good.

[dgarza]

It's iffy, but at this point I would say he's a solid no. He had a couple of rough seasons in Atlanta, but he was very good last year.

135 wins at age 32, he's not even halfway to 300. The fact is, even if he were to play another 8 years until he was 40, he would need to average 21 wins per season to make 300. He's probably got a couple of good years left, but I don't think he'll get much past 200.

In the end, I think he will wind up as one of those in the Hall of Very Good.

Mostly agree with this. He has to be better than simply "consistent" from here on out. It's kinda hard to say "Too early to tell" when the guy's in his 30s at this point.

So am I reading it right that he was a DH in the ASG in 2000? That's pretty unique, for a pitcher.

[Paul Wendt]

I presume his team lost the DH. Easy to do, maybe should happen routinely in all-star games.
Why don't they have a special DH rule for that so-called showcase?

[Mike D.]

5 more seasons of 15 wins each would put near Schilling territory as far as wins go. If he were to maintain his career ERA, he'd be in Schilling's ballpark, too. Right now, his winning percentage is higher than Schillings, but he doesn't have as many awards, high-CYA voting finishes, or post-season heroics as Schilling.

Since most consider Schilling a probable hall of famer, but not on the "lock" level, I'd say Hudson's chances aren't very good.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

He's looking a lot like Mussina so far - a consistently good, but not dominant pitcher. I think Mussina will have a hard time getting into the HOF. I'm not saying he won't make it, but, if he does, it will take a while. If Hudson wants to have a good chance, he needs to step it up a level. He needs a Cy Young or at least a 20 win season with a sub 3.00 ERA. As far as steady compilers go, Hudson's a step or two behind Roy Oswalt.

[TheMadDog31]

He's looking a lot like Mussina so far - a consistently good, but not dominant pitcher. I think Mussina will have a hard time getting into the HOF. I'm not saying he won't make it, but, if he does, it will take a while. If Hudson wants to have a good chance, he needs to step it up a level. He needs a Cy Young or at least a 20 win season with a sub 3.00 ERA. As far as steady compilers go, Hudson's a step or two behind Roy Oswalt.

I don't really understand why everyone says that Mussina won't, or will have a hard time getting in the Hall. In his years with Baltimore, and a few years with the Yankees, he was very dominant. Look at his 1992 season with Baltimore. His second year in the Bigs and he wins 18 games and has a 2.51 earned run average. He should've won the Cy Young because I believe that A.) relief pitchers shouldn't be eligible, B.) Jack McDowell had a much higher ERA despite winning 20 games, and C.) Mussina had a much better winning percentage than Clemens. I mean, that's better than any season Schilling had, excluding his D-Backs' years, especially considering Schilling had problems with keeping his ERA low. Plus, I think Schilling juiced because he went from being very mediocre and having a 110-95 record, to winning 20 games in back-to-back seasons for Arizona. Then injuries beat the crap out of him, and he wins 20 games when he gets to Boston, I mean come on. Either he is the most inconsistent, lucky, and annoying pitcher ever, or he was using 'roids...but he is still annoying.

Schilling has had a losing record eight times, and he started his career with four consecutive losing seasons. Hell, it even took him three seasons to win his first game. He has had an ERA above 3.50 eleven times in his 20 year career. In 17 years, Mussina has had his ERA above 3.50 eight times in 17 years, and only two losing seasons. Mussina has 34 more wins than Schilling, and a .038 better career winning percentage. The only thing that Schilling has better is the fact that he is in the 3,000 club, which Mussina could very well be a part of someday considering he is only 39 years old, and Schilling has a .24 better ERA.

Back to the topic. Should Tim Hudson have a few more seasons like his 2003 season, or even his 2000 season (with a much, much lower ERA) Hudson could in fact be destined for the Hall. He just needs to go back to his A's form. He averages 16 wins a season, so he need to pitch for about another decade to get to 300, but I doubt that will happen. Even if he gets to around 250-275, he could probably get in.

And Hudson is about a mile and a half behind Oswalt.

[KCGHOST]

If Hudson can get to 250 he will have a real shot at it. The only worry is whether he can hang on long enough to rack up the stats he needs.

[jjpm74]

I don't really understand why everyone says that Mussina won't, or will have a hard time getting in the Hall. In his years with Baltimore, and a few years with the Yankees, he was very dominant. Look at his 1992 season with Baltimore. His second year in the Bigs and he wins 18 games and has a 2.51 earned run average. He should've won the Cy Young because I believe that A.) relief pitchers shouldn't be eligible, B.) Jack McDowell had a much higher ERA despite winning 20 games, and C.) Mussina had a much better winning percentage than Clemens. I mean, that's better than any season Schilling had, excluding his D-Backs' years, especially considering Schilling had problems with keeping his ERA low. Plus, I think Schilling juiced because he went from being very mediocre and having a 110-95 record, to winning 20 games in back-to-back seasons for Arizona. Then injuries beat the crap out of him, and he wins 20 games when he gets to Boston, I mean come on. Either he is the most inconsistent, lucky, and annoying pitcher ever, or he was using 'roids...but he is still annoying.

Schilling has had a losing record eight times, and he started his career with four consecutive losing seasons. Hell, it even took him three seasons to win his first game. He has had an ERA above 3.50 eleven times in his 20 year career. In 17 years, Mussina has had his ERA above 3.50 eight times in 17 years, and only two losing seasons. Mussina has 34 more wins than Schilling, and a .038 better career winning percentage. The only thing that Schilling has better is the fact that he is in the 3,000 club, which Mussina could very well be a part of someday considering he is only 39 years old, and Schilling has a .24 better ERA.

Given past trends of the BBWAA, a pitcher has a shot at the hall if he manages to rack up 300 wins or was seen as a truly dominant pitcher for a prolonged period of time. Mussina has neither of those going for him. Given that Bert Blyleven; a pitcher who was much more dominant than Mussina isn't in the HOF, I don't think Mussina has a chance unless he manages to hang around long enough to rack up 300 wins.

[Brooklyn]

He's looking a lot like Mussina so far - a consistently good, but not dominant pitcher. I think Mussina will have a hard time getting into the HOF. I'm not saying he won't make it, but, if he does, it will take a while. If Hudson wants to have a good chance, he needs to step it up a level. He needs a Cy Young or at least a 20 win season with a sub 3.00 ERA. As far as steady compilers go, Hudson's a step or two behind Roy Oswalt.

I was thinking the same thing with the Mussina comparison when I saw this thread. And I agree Mussina is going to have a hard time. I also agree he is behind Oswalt, who I think has a very good chance, albeit still too ealry in his career.

I don't really understand why everyone says that Mussina won't, or will have a hard time getting in the Hall.

There are too many other people like Mussina out there. Does he really differentiate himself from Jack Morris? Denny Martinez? Kevin Brown? David Wells? Bob Welch? Frank Tanana?

If he can stick around long enough to get another 30 or so wins, without drastically raising his ERA, then he'll be involved in serious discussions.

Plus, I think Schilling juiced because he went from being very mediocre and having a 110-95 record, to winning 20 games in back-to-back seasons for Arizona. Then injuries beat the crap out of him, and he wins 20 games when he gets to Boston, I mean come on. Either he is the most inconsistent, lucky, and annoying pitcher ever, or he was using 'roids...but he is still annoying.

Schilling is the one person who'd I actually be shocked if he juiced. he is outspoken against it, and has always been in favor of testing. Either he is squeaky clean, or has incredible balls

[TheMadDog31]

I was thinking the same thing with the Mussina comparison when I saw this thread. And I agree Mussina is going to have a hard time. I also agree he is behind Oswalt, who I think has a very good chance, albeit still too ealry in his career.



There are too many other people like Mussina out there. Does he really differentiate himself from Jack Morris? Denny Martinez? Kevin Brown? David Wells? Bob Welch? Frank Tanana?

If he can stick around long enough to get another 30 or so wins, without drastically raising his ERA, then he'll be involved in serious discussions.



Schilling is the one person who'd I actually be shocked if he juiced. he is outspoken against it, and has always been in favor of testing. Either he is squeaky clean, or has incredible balls

Just because someone denounces it, doesn't mean that they weren't doing it. Look at Clemens and Bonds. They have denounced steriod use before, but they are on the rocks in this conversation. And yes, Mussina is much different than Kevin Brown and Wells. Brown used steriods, so that's one thing, and Wells has an extremely high career ERA. Bob Welch has less wins, less strikeouts, a lower winning percentage, and a lot more walks. That's another thing about Mussina is his command. He has great control, and has never walked over 69 batters. Like in 1997, he had a career high 218 strikeouts to only 54 walks, which is pretty damn good. Mussina has only 754 walks in his career, as opposed to his 2,663 strikeouts. I suppose the pitcher he would be most compatible with would be Jack Morris, in that they have similar amounts of wins and similar amounts of K's. Mussina, however, had far better control, in that he walked 636 less batters than Morris, and struck out 185 more. He had four less wins, but a .058 better winning percentage than Morris.

The other similar one that you mentioned was El Presidente. They had the same ERA, but Martinez had 5 less wins, 409 more walks, 514 less strikeouts, 49 more losses, a .076 less worse winning percentage, and a 106 adjusted ERA+ to Mussina's 122 *ERA+.

I think Mussina could definetly get in if he pitches a few more years and gets 25+ wins. His command and lack of BB's is pretty remarkable, considering he has pitched for only one more season than Pedro Martinez (another player I suspect of juicing) and has only 46 more walks than Martinez.

[TheMadDog31]

Given past trends of the BBWAA, a pitcher has a shot at the hall if he manages to rack up 300 wins or was seen as a truly dominant pitcher for a prolonged period of time. Mussina has neither of those going for him. Given that Bert Blyleven; a pitcher who was much more dominant than Mussina isn't in the HOF, I don't think Mussina has a chance unless he manages to hang around long enough to rack up 300 wins.

Why do you think that Blyleven was more dominant? Because of his 3,701 strikeouts?

Well, consider the fact that Bert ended his career 37 games over .500 and 250 losses, which is how many games Mussina has won. He has those 3,710 strikeouts because he pitched for 22 years. Randy Johnson has almost 1,000 more strikeouts than Blyleven and he's only been pitching for 20 years. And Johnson is 134 games over .500. And Johnson has a lower ERA.

So, even if Blyleven has 3,701 strikeouts, he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

[Paul Wendt]

I was thinking the same thing with the Mussina comparison when I saw this thread. And I agree Mussina is going to have a hard time. I also agree he is behind Oswalt.

Behind in probability, I guess, and I doubt it. Pitchers are susceptible enough to rapid declines and traumatic injuries that Oswalt has too much chance of falling victim before catching up to Mussina's resume.

Do some of you mean Oswalt is ahead of Mussina at O's current age?

There are too many other people like Mussina out there. Does he really differentiate himself from Jack Morris? Denny Martinez? Kevin Brown? David Wells? Bob Welch? Frank Tanana?

He is different from all but Brown by much superior performance, measured by ERA+ 122 (ERA adjusted for leagues-seasons, home ballparks, and teammates).

On the other hand, Mussina's last six seasons look a lot like Munson's last two. When he turned 33 he sported ERA+ 130, much better than all of his most similars except Dizzy Dean (129). Among his ten most similars now, at age 39, he is clearly ahead of four most similars, roughly tied with two (Griffith and Glavine) and clearly behind four (Hubbell, Gibson, Brown, and Schilling).

If he can stick around long enough to get another 30 or so wins, without drastically raising his ERA, then he'll be involved in serious discussions.

People should include Mussina in serious discussion now. What may await "another 30 or so wins" is a high probability of election by the BBWAA.