Tim Hudson: Hall of Famer?

Tim Hudson is a hell of a pitcher, one of the best of his generation, but I'd say there's about a 30 percent chance he gets in the Hall.

He doesn't have a single "moment" that people are going to remember him by right now (OK, OK, there is that brief appearance of the back of his jersey in the "Moneyball" movie when he's getting shelled in the third inning during the winning streak. 8))

Mussina and Pettitte each have famous moments in the national spotlight that define their careers. Hudson has no real postseason resume to speak of, no no-hitters (and no spectacular near-misses), no Cy Youngs, no gaudy win totals or strikeouts or shutouts or anything else.

I daresay he is most known for that ludicrous and stupid statistic that comes up in every single TV broadcast for the last 12 years: "Hey, partner, did you know Tim Hudson has a 132-2 record (or whatever the hell it is now) when given a lead of four runs or more?"

Maybe if the Braves can get to the World Series and he throws seven shutout innings and hits a homer, he'll get some more recognition and that will help bolster his case. But as it stands right now, he'll go into the Braves Hall of Fame and possibly have his number retired by the team one day. That's about it.

 

When comparing between eras, it's usually better to use ERA+. If his ERA is average for the Hall of Fame when you account for dudes that pitched in the deadball era and the 60's, then that probably means he was even better, relative to his era.

His ERA+ is 125, good for 65th all time, whereas he is only 366th in raw ERA.

I don't think he's a slam dunk, but he's got one of the better cases among current pitchers. The biggest thing that probably hurts him is the lack of multiple elite seasons. He was basically always better than average and usually significantly so, but is really lacking in the all-time great seasons.

 

139 wins?

That's more than 25 less than Koufax. I would think he needs to get at least more than 150.

 

Santana should have been a lock. God, he was amazing in his prime. Maybe not Pedro or Koufax level, but not far off from that, either.

But I'd say he has a 1% chance right now.

 

Wait until Lincecum goes all Frank Tanana and ends up with 280 wins. Absolutely no doubt.

 

I dunno about Lincecum, but I could actually see Halladay pulling that off in the next few years. (And yes, Halladay is already a lock for the HOF even if he never pitches another game.)

 

Well, here's what I don't understand. No one even considers Pedro Martinez or Sandy Koufax a borderline Hall of Famer. They are both absolute all-time greats. Johan Santana is about a step behind each of them in terms of longevity and another step behind each of them in terms of dominance. Isn't two steps behind Koufax still Hall of Fame caliber?

 

Hudson will be a classic final three-year ballot selection. By the time that happens, he will look considerably better in hindsight because the lack of pitchers in the 200-250 win area will be defined.

No pitcher currently older than 35 has a chance at 200 wins, unless you want to consider Bartolo Colon with 174 wins at 40 as having a chance.

Here are the top 10 active pitchers 35 and under in wins:

CC Sabathia (32) 195
Mark Buehrle (34) 175
Barry Zito (35) 163
Johan Santana (34) 139
Jon Garland (33) 134
Josh Beckett (33) 132
John Lackey (34) 129
Cliff Lee (34) 127
Justin Verlander (30) 127
Jake Peavy (32) 123

How many do you think get to at least 200?

Sabathia is obviously a lock to do it this season. After that it almost has to be Verlander, but that's probably at least not until 2017. Bueherle's history says he will get there barring injury. Anyone else will need a lot of help to get there.

I'd put him in, but everyone already knows my "Big Hall" leanings.

 

I stand with 1980s Bill James on this sort of question. When was Tim Hudson ever regarded as the dominant pitcher of his era? Never? Thank you for playing.

 

So any player who wasn't the dominant pitcher of his era can't be in the Hall?

 

Johan Santana: in.
Tom Glavine: not.

 

Two Cy Youngs and four other top 3 finishes in the Cy Young voting isn't dominant? Is it elite?