Tim Hudson

[jjpm74]

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.

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.

[Los Bravos]

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.

[Bothrops Atrox]

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.

[jjpm74]

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.

[jjpm74]

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.

[Cougar]

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.

[Bothrops Atrox]

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.

[Chadwick]

I doubt Hudson will get the necessary 5 percent in 2021. He should, but it's unlikely.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hudson, I predict, will stay on the ballot, but will not come near induction.

[blacknwhiterose]

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

[Chadwick]

How would you rank the following Hall of Fame candidates?

Mark Buehrle
Tim Hudson
Andy Pettitte
CC Sabathia

[pedrosrotatorcuff]

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".

[Cougar]

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.

[Cougar]

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?

[Chadwick]

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.