Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tim Hudson

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by TheMadDog31 View Post
    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.
    For the record, I was not questioning (or even examining) Mussina's quailifications. What I was examining were his chances...his odds. I can't say 100%, but I would probably vote for Mussina if I had a vote. The top tier of pitchers from this generation are Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, and Glavine. I know Glavine's not quite as good as the others, but he's clearly better than everyone else. Mussina falls squarely in the second tier with Smoltz, Schilling, Kevin Brown, and perhaps some others. All of those guys are statistically comparable, but, for various reasons, be them fair or not, Smoltz and Schilling clearly have the best chances of getting into the HOF. Bert Blyleven is statistically comparable to Mussina and look at what a hard time he's had. To get back on topic, Tim Hudson is building a resume similar to those second tier guys. He doesn't have the track record of Johan Santana or Roy Oswalt. To have a good chance at getting into the HOF, he would need to step it up a level. Once again, I'm not asserting my opinion on whether or not he is or will be qualified. I'm asserting my opinion on whether or not he will actually get in as a result of a vote held by people who don't always think logically.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Otis Nixon's Bodyguard View Post
      For the record, I was not questioning (or even examining) Mussina's quailifications. What I was examining were his chances...his odds. I can't say 100%, but I would probably vote for Mussina if I had a vote. The top tier of pitchers from this generation are Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, and Glavine. I know Glavine's not quite as good as the others, but he's clearly better than everyone else. Mussina falls squarely in the second tier with Smoltz, Schilling, Kevin Brown, and perhaps some others. All of those guys are statistically comparable, but, for various reasons, be them fair or not, Smoltz and Schilling clearly have the best chances of getting into the HOF. Bert Blyleven is statistically comparable to Mussina and look at what a hard time he's had. To get back on topic, Tim Hudson is building a resume similar to those second tier guys. He doesn't have the track record of Johan Santana or Roy Oswalt. To have a good chance at getting into the HOF, he would need to step it up a level. Once again, I'm not asserting my opinion on whether or not he is or will be qualified. I'm asserting my opinion on whether or not he will actually get in as a result of a vote held by people who don't always think logically.
      I understand that, I was merely asserting my opinion as well. All I wanted to do was to throw out some things on Mussina that I felt qualified him for the Hall. If I came off sounding like a jerk towards you, I sincerely apologize, as I was just speaking on what I felt was the things that qualified Mussina. Really, I was saving all of that for Brooklyn and the other guy, not for you, and if I seemed as if I was questioning your intelligence or something of that sort, then I do apologize. But, like you, I was just voicing my opinion.
      5,008 innings pitched, 13th all-time, most active
      355 wins, 8th all-time, most active
      3.16 lifetime ERA
      3,371 strikeouts, 10th all-time
      109 complete games, most active
      18 Gold Gloves, most all-time
      First to win four consecutive Cy Young Awards

      He could throw a baseball through a lifesaver if you asked him!-Joe Morgan

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by TheMadDog31 View Post
        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.

        I don't see him as more dominant. Many people here use Blyleven as a litmus test so I threw him out there as an example. Jack Morris would be another example of a pitcher comparable to Mussina. As both of those pitchers have received lukewarm support by the BBWAA at best, I don't see how Mussina could be seen as anything near a lock at this point. Within his own generation, he is not among the 5 best in the league. Clemens, Johnson, Maddux and possibly Smoltz and Schilling are all ahead of him depening on who you ask and what you look at.

        Personally, I think Mussina does belong in the HOF, but given the past trends of how the voting has gone, don't think he will get in barring an unexpected 4 year stretch where he starts winning games again.
        Last edited by jjpm74; 04-03-2008, 10:00 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
          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?


          I meant Oswalt was ahead of Hudson. I wasn't comparing him to Mussina

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by TheMadDog31 View Post
            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.
            So, the basis of your argument against Blyleven is that he doesn't compare to Randy Johnson - a surefire first rounder?

            In that case, I don't think Griffey should get in because he is no Willie Mays.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by TheMadDog31 View Post
              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.
              They didn't denounce it until they were accused, Schilling has denounced it and never been accused. Does that make him innocent? Of course not. But I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

              Originally posted by TheMadDog31 View Post
              And yes, Mussina is much different than Kevin Brown and Wells. Brown used steriods, so that's one thing
              Do you know that Mussina didn't? Why would you accuse Schilling and not Mussina? This is a slippery slope when you denounce Schilling becuase you think he juiced but give Mussina credit for not juicing.



              Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
              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).
              My reason for including some of these others was while their ERA+ may have been inferior, some did it over many more innings.

              Marrosi pitched 460 more innings than Mussina. Martinez 650 more. Tanana 800.

              If he continues to pitch to get the accumulation stats that I think he needs, how much further will his ERA+ fall?

              I agree he is ahead of most of the guys I named, with the possible exception of Brown. But where will he be when he retires.

              In many ways he is the anti-Blyleven. Those that think Blyleven belongs, despite his high loss total and low winning percentage, point to his bad teams. Mussina is the opposite. He played on some very good Orioles teams in the 90's, and outstanding Yankees teams since. Other than his rookie year in which he only had 12 starts, he never really played on a bad team. From 1992-2000, when he played on the O's, the O's went 725-665. From 2001 - 2007, when he played on the Yankees, the Yankees went 686-445


              he was on his way to a HOF career with the O's, but that has dropped significnatly with the Yankees.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Brooklyn View Post
                My reason for including some of these others was while their ERA+ may have been inferior,
                maybe
                Mussina is at 122, Martinez and Tanana finished at 106

                some did it over many more innings.

                Marrosi pitched 460 more innings than Mussina. Martinez 650 more. Tanana 800.

                If he continues to pitch to get the accumulation stats that I think he needs, how much further will his ERA+ fall?

                I agree he is ahead of most of the guys I named, with the possible exception of Brown. But where will he be when he retires.[?]
                Some readers may choose to downplay the differences among 3500, 4000, 4500 innings.

                In our adult lifetimes, I surmise, few pitchers will work the number of innings that many in Frank Tanana's generation worked.

                Yet, for sake of argument, accept Frank Tanana as a norm
                - Consider that drop in career ERA+ from 130 to 122, suffered by Mike Mussina during the last six seasons, age 33.4 to 38.10. Frank Tanana suffered the drop from 131 to 122 in two seasons, age 24.10 to 26.4 (age 24 and age 25 seasons at baseball-reference).
                - Consider those next 800 innings that will match Mussina and Tanana in career length. To be precise, that is 820.33 innings. If Mussina does work those innings at ERA+ 70 --which will not happen; he'll lose his job first-- then his career ERA+ will drop from current 122 to 106.5. If he can achieve ERA+ 90, which is about the minimum that will keep him in the majors, and only if he takes a pay cut I guess, he will drop only to career ERA+ 114.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
                  maybe
                  Mussina is at 122, Martinez and Tanana finished at 106



                  Some readers may choose to downplay the differences among 3500, 4000, 4500 innings.

                  In our adult lifetimes, I surmise, few pitchers will work the number of innings that many in Frank Tanana's generation worked.

                  Yet, for sake of argument, accept Frank Tanana as a norm
                  - Consider that drop in career ERA+ from 130 to 122, suffered by Mike Mussina during the last six seasons, age 33.4 to 38.10. Frank Tanana suffered the drop from 131 to 122 in two seasons, age 24.10 to 26.4 (age 24 and age 25 seasons at baseball-reference).
                  - Consider those next 800 innings that will match Mussina and Tanana in career length. To be precise, that is 820.33 innings. If Mussina does work those innings at ERA+ 70 --which will not happen; he'll lose his job first-- then his career ERA+ will drop from current 122 to 106.5. If he can achieve ERA+ 90, which is about the minimum that will keep him in the majors, and only if he takes a pay cut I guess, he will drop only to career ERA+ 114.
                  Some readers may choose to downplay the differences among 3500, 4000, 4500 innings. And some may downplay these differences in ERA+.

                  ERA+ is not an exact science, and highly flawed. It should be used directionally but not diffinitivley.

                  I'm not saying Tanana is as good as Mussina. But Mussina has work to do to distance himself from Tanana, which he needs to do to be a HOFer.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TheMadDog31 View Post
                    I understand that, I was merely asserting my opinion as well. All I wanted to do was to throw out some things on Mussina that I felt qualified him for the Hall. If I came off sounding like a jerk towards you, I sincerely apologize, as I was just speaking on what I felt was the things that qualified Mussina. Really, I was saving all of that for Brooklyn and the other guy, not for you, and if I seemed as if I was questioning your intelligence or something of that sort, then I do apologize. But, like you, I was just voicing my opinion.
                    No worries. I didn't take offense. I wouldn't have even if you straight up disagreed with me. I've been known to be wrong before.

                    The HOF voters are a strange bunch, at least in terms of their voting records. It's hard to say for sure what separates a guy like Mussina from a guy like Schilling to them (The postseason? Outspokeness? More 20 win seasons? A bloody sock?), but it's plain as day to me that they're more likely to put Schilling in the HOF.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Hudson's chances for the HOF are much better than they appear.

                      His ERA vs. league is impressive; 0.92 below league is in the range for a typical HOFer. He's won 20 once, and while this doesn't "wow" people, we're now in an era where, in a full season, the top win total in the NL was SIXTEEN (16) in 2006. If this trend holds, winning 20 only once is going to be perceived as pretty outstanding. His career winning percentage is .659 at this writing, which is also excellent.

                      Hudson lacks some of the "star accomplishments" for a potential HOFer. He hasn't won a Cy Young Award, and that hurts, but there are many HOF pitchers who have not done so, or would not have done so had the award been in existance when they pitched. He's only pitched in two (2) All-Star games, but that's something that could well improve.

                      How he stacks up against other current pitchers is questionable. I suspect that he is behing Roy Oswalt, and Oswalt is probably a better pitcher, but Oswalt only has one more 20 win season. He's ahead of Johan Santana, although Santana is, of course, the better pitcher. He is, IMO, ridiculously ahead of his former A's teammate Barry Zito. He's ahead of his comp Roy Halliday because he has been more durable, although there is evidence that Halliday, when healthy, is the better pitcher.

                      I don't see Hudson breaking away from the pack and being the best pitcher of his generation. But he might last the longest, and that will count for something. If he has 5 more seasons like last season, his chances go way up. If he blows out his arm, well . . .
                      "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


                      • #26
                        Huddy on Cooperstown

                        You know who else didnt win a Cy-Young? Nolan Ryan.

                        One of Huddys big things has been his durability. He has a good offense hitting behind him also, ...and as far as completely stating that Santana and Oswalt are better than him...I think that might be jumping to conclusions.

                        Tommy Glavine and Greg Maddux may have not made the hall had they played for an organization like Tampa or Kansas City...but Huddy, like all good HOF'rs, has the luxury of a good team behind him making him better.

                        I agree, that with the possible exceptions of the Unit or Mussina, ...the era of 300 game winners are over. Instead of looking at complete games ...today managers and baseball administrators are looking at quality starts. That allows less wear and tear on the starters arm but also puts more responsibility on the bullpens shoulders as to what the pitchers ultimate numbers are.

                        Thats why Maddux is great. He doesnt worry about things that he cannot control.

                        If Huddy can stay healthy, productive, and maintain his position with a competitive team then, I totally agree with Sutton. He will become an immortal in Cooperstown.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TheMadDog31 View Post
                          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.

                          .
                          I agree with your statements regarding Mussina being deserving and Hudson being well behind Oswald, but I am not sure about the above quote.

                          The reason Schilling's record improved when he went to Arizona should not be too suprising, since Arizona was a drasticaly better team than the Phillies team that Schilling left. Arizona's defense was very good, and helped Schilling to the tune of an est. 3-5 runs saved a year compared to 3-5 runs a year the Philies' defense cost him. Even though the Diamondbacks offense was not highly regarded, they always finished in the top third or so in the league. Schilling also had his healthiest stint as a Diamondback. Health + run support + defensive support = better record as a D-back than as a pitcher on MLB's worst running franchise over the past 100 years-the Fighting Phils.

                          Schilling won 20 in Boston because he stayed healthy, and recieved gazillions of runs in support. How is this any indication of sterois use?

                          Looking at ERA+, Schillings 1992 and 1997 seasons (factoring in defensive support) were just as good as his Arizona seasons, and far better that his Boston "steroid using" seasons.

                          As far as being "inconsistant" Schilling has always posted well above average ERA+ when healthy. In Phily, in Arizona, and in Boston. His health has always been his main problem.

                          As far as being lucky, Schilling, despite playing on very good Arizona and Boston teams, has pitched a majority of his innings with poor teams behind him. His career runs support is below league average, and the defenses behind him have evened out over the course of his career. If anything, more advanced stats seem to suggest that Schilling may actually be better than his traditional stats suggest.

                          Finally, I am in full agreement with one detail regarding Schilling - he definately is annoying.
                          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


                          • #28
                            I agree that Hudson will be given a long look if he lasts long enough to get around 250 wins. Nobody in baseball right now is on pace for 300, I believe. It could be 20-25 years before we see another one (yes I think it will happen).

                            We already know about the best starting pitchers from last generation: Maddux, Clemens*, Martinez, Johnson, Glavine... then Schilling, Smoltz, Brown*, Mussina... then the rest, maybe Cone or some such.

                            This generation's names right now are Santana, Oswalt, Halladay, Webb, Peavy, Sabathia, Zambrano... and Hudson. These names are going to shake themselves out based mainly on who has staying power.

                            So in short, of course Hudson has a shot at it, but like his contemporaries he has a lot of work left to do.
                            http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploa...-showalter.gif

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by jadarm1 View Post
                              You know who else didnt win a Cy-Young? Nolan Ryan.

                              One of Huddys big things has been his durability. He has a good offense hitting behind him also, ...and as far as completely stating that Santana and Oswalt are better than him...I think that might be jumping to conclusions.

                              Tommy Glavine and Greg Maddux may have not made the hall had they played for an organization like Tampa or Kansas City...but Huddy, like all good HOF'rs, has the luxury of a good team behind him making him better.

                              I agree, that with the possible exceptions of the Unit or Mussina, ...the era of 300 game winners are over. Instead of looking at complete games ...today managers and baseball administrators are looking at quality starts. That allows less wear and tear on the starters arm but also puts more responsibility on the bullpens shoulders as to what the pitchers ultimate numbers are.

                              Thats why Maddux is great. He doesnt worry about things that he cannot control.

                              If Huddy can stay healthy, productive, and maintain his position with a competitive team then, I totally agree with Sutton. He will become an immortal in Cooperstown.
                              Nolan Ryan won't do much for your argument around here.

                              Anyway, in your eyes what makes you think Hudson is better than Oswalt or Santana. The numbers certainly are in the favor of the former two. Why would a non-Braves fan, the great majority of poasters in general on this site, believe that?
                              Dave Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
                              Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
                              Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
                              Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
                              Robin Bill Ernie JEDI

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Captain Cold Nose

                                Ok Captain,

                                I actually thought that most people that posted on the "Braves" section of this site were actually Braves fans...I never figured that "all" of them would be...but I actually had no idea that "most" were not.

                                Anywhu, in regards to your question...I will try. :bowdown:

                                First, lets actually look at the numbers.

                                Roy Oswalt:

                                8th season in MLB - 112 wins / 57 losses
                                Around 8 so's per game
                                4 career shutouts
                                ERA 3.14
                                Career wp% - .663
                                Career HR's allowed - 117
                                HR's allowed per inning - 0.08
                                162 Game Avg - 17 Wins / 8 Losses / 222.7 IP / 18 HR's / 184 SO's / 0 Shutouts

                                Johan Santana:

                                9th season in MLB - 94 wins / 46 losses
                                Over a strikeout per inning for his career!! (wow!)
                                4 career shutouts
                                ERA 3.22
                                Career wp% - .671
                                Career HR's allowed - 148
                                HR's allowed per inning - 0.11
                                162 Game Avg - 14 wins / 7 losses / 209 IP / 23 HR's / 220 SO's / 0 Shutout.

                                Tim Hudson:

                                10th season in MLB - 137 wins / 70 losses
                                Around 7 SO's per game
                                10 career shutouts
                                ERA 3.49 (and he pitched the 1st 6 years in the AL w/ the DH)
                                Career wp% - .662 (Thats a push right now)
                                Career HR's allowed - 149 (in one more season than Santana)
                                HR's allowed per inning - 0.07
                                162 Game Avg - 16 wins / 8 losses / 227 IP / 17 HR's / 155 SO's / 1 Shutout.

                                *All stats courtesy of ...well, ...here.


                                Second, lets look at what I said. Huddy has slightly better numbers than Oswalt and Santana on some things, as does Oswalt to Santana and Huddy, as does Santana to Huddy and...well, you get the picture.

                                Mostly, its a push. All are fantastic pitchers. I did not say that Huddy was better than them...all I distinctly remember saying was that saying that they were better than he is was merely "jumping to conclusions."

                                Its presumptuous.

                                And yes, I am a Braves fan and have a tendency to be partial and more subjective than objective when it comes to evaluating my Braves players. Especially when the the player in question honestly deserves it.

                                The Big Unit will most likely pass 300 wins, ...Mussina has an outside shot. I dont think that either of the 3 pitchers that we have spoken about will get close...having said that, I believe that if all 3 remain healthy, they will be elligible for Cooperstown.

                                BTW, I read your post about your friend. I am new here and I didnt know him. But my best goes out to him, his family, and his friends.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X