Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tim Hudson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post

    Hudson has a + 0.53 postseason WPA. Just a tick above average. Depends on how one wants to define "ineffective."
    Using WPA to justify a player's post season performance is inherently very flawed when it comes to pitchers:

    https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/wpa/


    WPA is tricky because there’s an innate desire to use it as a measure of “which player has delivered when it matters most!” In reality, it’s far more complicated than that because it’s an additive measure. To accrue big WPA totals, you need to be presented with many opportunities to come through with the game on the line. A player with a 5.0 WPA for the year hasn’t necessarily been more “clutch” than one with a 2.0 WPA, they may simply have had many chances with the bases loaded late in close games.

    Also, WPA is not a predictive statistic and there is little evidence that there is anything like a WPA-skill. Players who have higher WPAs in one year don’t necessarily repeat that performance in the following year, other than to say good players typically have higher WPAs than worse players.

    Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
    That bad W-L record hides a game by game record that comes out looking much like what BA describes. A tick above average. Kyle Farnsworth's epic meltdown in '05 epitomizes that, perfectly.
    Hudson career post season ERA and WHIP are 3.69 and 1.282. Neither are anything special for a post season. He was in the post season 7 times and the team only won it all once and in that one instance, Bumgarner and Affeldt are why the team won. Hudson was ineffective.His era was 6.14 and WPA since you both insist on using it was -0.18.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
      He was in the post season 7 times and the team only won it all once
      Post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't much of an argument

      2000 - One start in the ALDS against the Yankees. 8 IP 4R (3ER) took the loss. Not overwhelming but not exactly "ineffective"

      2001 - ALDS game 2 start, 8 innings 0 R took the win. I think that qualifies as effective.
      ALDS game 5 1.2 innings in relief, 1 ER, ND.

      2002 - ALDS game 1 start 5.1 innings 4 ER. Kind of "Meh" but not exactly ineffective
      ALDS game 4 start 3.1 innings 7 R (2 ER) Okay, that one qualifies

      2003 - ALDS Game 1 start 6.2 IP 3 ER ND Again, not "ineffective"
      ALDS Game 4 start 1 IP, left with an injury

      2005 - NLDS Game 1 start 6.2 IP 5 ER Again, rather meh but he didn't get bombed or anything
      NLDS Game 4 start 7 IP 3 ER ND because of that bum Farnsworth

      2014 - NLDS Game 2 start 7.1 IP 1 ER 8K very effective
      NLCS Game 3 start 6.1 IP 4 ER
      WS game 3 start 5.2 IP 3 ER
      WS game 7 start 1.2 IP 3 ER

      His overall postseason ERA was 3.69. That included 2.89 in 3 NLDS and 3.44 in 4 ALDS.

      You can make a case that those numbers aren't exactly the stuff of legend but "ineffective", at least as a descriptive term for his overall October record, simply doesn't fit.


      3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post

        Using WPA to justify a player's post season performance is inherently very flawed when it comes to pitchers:

        https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/wpa/




        .
        So is ERA and WHIP. Certainly so is looking at team WL.

        There is not a single unflawed method.

        That being said, 3.69 and 1.28 would both be decidedly above league average. The phrase you used was "ineffective." Ineffective is kinda an ambiguous term and for me, at least, does not really define a guy who had an above average ERA, WHIP, AND WPA for the postseason. I think "less than spectacular" is the phrase I would have used. But again, it depends on what you mean bu "effective" personally."

        On my end, when a pitcher is just "meh" in the postseason after just 70 IP - it doesn't move the bar for me. Esp. with only a 7 IP world Series sample. I definitely consider postseason pitching, but Hudson's doesn't stand out one way or another.
        Last edited by Bothrops Atrox; 07-16-2019, 04:17 AM.
        1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

        1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

        1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


        The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
        The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post

          Post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't much of an argument

          2000 - One start in the ALDS against the Yankees. 8 IP 4R (3ER) took the loss. Not overwhelming but not exactly "ineffective"

          2001 - ALDS game 2 start, 8 innings 0 R took the win. I think that qualifies as effective.
          ALDS game 5 1.2 innings in relief, 1 ER, ND.

          2002 - ALDS game 1 start 5.1 innings 4 ER. Kind of "Meh" but not exactly ineffective
          ALDS game 4 start 3.1 innings 7 R (2 ER) Okay, that one qualifies

          2003 - ALDS Game 1 start 6.2 IP 3 ER ND Again, not "ineffective"
          ALDS Game 4 start 1 IP, left with an injury

          2005 - NLDS Game 1 start 6.2 IP 5 ER Again, rather meh but he didn't get bombed or anything
          NLDS Game 4 start 7 IP 3 ER ND because of that bum Farnsworth

          2014 - NLDS Game 2 start 7.1 IP 1 ER 8K very effective
          NLCS Game 3 start 6.1 IP 4 ER
          WS game 3 start 5.2 IP 3 ER
          WS game 7 start 1.2 IP 3 ER

          His overall postseason ERA was 3.69. That included 2.89 in 3 NLDS and 3.44 in 4 ALDS.

          You can make a case that those numbers aren't exactly the stuff of legend but "ineffective", at least as a descriptive term for his overall October record, simply doesn't fit.

          Do you think that helps or hurts his HOF case? It definitely doesn't help.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post

            So is ERA and WHIP. Certainly so is looking at team WL.

            There is not a single unflawed method.

            That being said, 3.69 and 1.28 would both be decidedly above league average. The phrase you used was "ineffective." Ineffective is kinda an ambiguous term and for me, at least, does not really define a guy who had an above average ERA, WHIP, AND WPA for the postseason. I think "less than spectacular" is the phrase I would have used. But again, it depends on what you mean bu "effective" personally."

            On my end, when a pitcher is just "meh" in the postseason after just 70 IP - it doesn't move the bar for me. Esp. with only a 7 IP world Series sample. I definitely consider postseason pitching, but Hudson's doesn't stand out one way or another.
            So this is about semantics? Do you like the work insignificant better? Hudson did nothing in the post season to help his HOF case. There will not be any Jack Morris type support for him and there will be some who use his "insignificant" post season resume against him. Better?

            It really is going to take a tremendous amount of campaigning to get Hudson into the HOF. I personally don't think he should just be dismissed, but also won't be campaigning for him. His career falls into that nebulous gray area where so many other durable pitchers fall.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post

              Do you think that helps or hurts his HOF case? It definitely doesn't help.
              I concur with what nearly everyone else seems to think; Hudson's postseasons really don't amount to either a bonus or a demerit. I think one would need to strain to argue either pro or con.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post

                So this is about semantics? Do you like the work insignificant better? Hudson did nothing in the post season to help his HOF case. There will not be any Jack Morris type support for him and there will be some who use his "insignificant" post season resume against him. Better?

                It really is going to take a tremendous amount of campaigning to get Hudson into the HOF. I personally don't think he should just be dismissed, but also won't be campaigning for him. His career falls into that nebulous gray area where so many other durable pitchers fall.
                I said exactly what my opinions are RE: Hudson and his postseasons. Insignificant is perfect.

                1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                Comment


                • I doubt Hudson will get the necessary 5 percent in 2021. He should, but it's unlikely.
                  "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                  "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                  "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                  "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                  Comment


                  • Hudson, I predict, will stay on the ballot, but will not come near induction.
                    "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

                    NL President Ford Frick, 1947

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post

                      Post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't much of an argument

                      2000 - One start in the ALDS against the Yankees. 8 IP 4R (3ER) took the loss. Not overwhelming but not exactly "ineffective"

                      2001 - ALDS game 2 start, 8 innings 0 R took the win. I think that qualifies as effective.
                      ALDS game 5 1.2 innings in relief, 1 ER, ND.

                      2002 - ALDS game 1 start 5.1 innings 4 ER. Kind of "Meh" but not exactly ineffective
                      ALDS game 4 start 3.1 innings 7 R (2 ER) Okay, that one qualifies

                      2003 - ALDS Game 1 start 6.2 IP 3 ER ND Again, not "ineffective"
                      ALDS Game 4 start 1 IP, left with an injury

                      2005 - NLDS Game 1 start 6.2 IP 5 ER Again, rather meh but he didn't get bombed or anything
                      NLDS Game 4 start 7 IP 3 ER ND because of that bum Farnsworth

                      2014 - NLDS Game 2 start 7.1 IP 1 ER 8K very effective
                      NLCS Game 3 start 6.1 IP 4 ER
                      WS game 3 start 5.2 IP 3 ER
                      WS game 7 start 1.2 IP 3 ER

                      His overall postseason ERA was 3.69. That included 2.89 in 3 NLDS and 3.44 in 4 ALDS.

                      You can make a case that those numbers aren't exactly the stuff of legend but "ineffective", at least as a descriptive term for his overall October record, simply doesn't fit.

                      Huddy also started game 1 in the Braves' 2010 postseason LDS vs San Francisco:

                      2010 NLDS Game 1 start 7 IP 1 R (0 ER) ND

                      Comment


                      • How would you rank the following Hall of Fame candidates?

                        Mark Buehrle
                        Tim Hudson
                        Andy Pettitte
                        CC Sabathia
                        "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                        "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                        "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                        "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
                          How would you rank the following Hall of Fame candidates?

                          Mark Buehrle
                          Tim Hudson
                          Andy Pettitte
                          CC Sabathia
                          In terms of worthiness:

                          Sabathia
                          (gap)
                          Pettitte
                          Buehrle

                          (big gap)

                          Hudson

                          In terms of likelihood of election, change "big" to "massive".
                          They don’t think it be like it is, but it do.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
                            How would you rank the following Hall of Fame candidates?

                            Mark Buehrle
                            Tim Hudson
                            Andy Pettitte
                            CC Sabathia
                            Interesting question. They are all within a couple of WAR of each other; was that what prompted your question?

                            Hudson's career ERA is the lowest by far, but that may be more due to him pitching more in the NL than the others (and in particular avoiding the AL East).

                            I'd probably concur with PRC above, CC, Andy, Buerhle, Hudson. While CC is a clear number one, I don't feel at all strongly about the rank order of the other three men.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by pedrosrotatorcuff View Post

                              In terms of worthiness:

                              Sabathia
                              (gap)
                              Pettitte
                              Buehrle

                              (big gap)

                              Hudson

                              In terms of likelihood of election, change "big" to "massive".
                              Why so down on Hudson relative to the other three?

                              Comment


                              • Potential BBWAA Ballot Tenure
                                2019-2028 Andy Pettite
                                2021-2030 Mark Buehrle
                                2021-2030 Tim Hudson
                                2025-2034 CC Sabathia

                                First, I should point out that we're not going to see any other pitchers hit the ballot worth looking at other than the aforementioned, at least until Verlander, Greinke and Scherzer begin showing up. (Sorry, Joe Nathan.)

                                Pettitte, Buehrle and Hudson could be on the ballot together for two years between Clemens/Schilling falling off (2022) and Sabathia entering (2025). They are all second-tier candidates; borderline or better than borderline Hall of Famers, but certainly belong the standard of guys like Glavine, Schilling, Mussina or Halladay. I agree about Sabathia so I suppose the real question is how one would rank the other three.

                                Even if all three remain above the 5 percent line for 10 years, I'm hard pressed to identify a distinguishing characteristic of one case that would elevate it over the others.

                                I am surpised that Pedro sees a "big gap" between Buehrle and Hudson. In their playing days, Hudson was thought of as an ace and Buehrle also seemed like a compiler. Of course that's just my impression - feel free to chime in with your own - and that's hardly a basis for analysis. I'm just throwing out that I was surprised that it's more than a marginal difference for someone.
                                "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                                "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                                "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                                "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X