PDA

View Full Version : Luke Hudson



Clemson
11-12-2004, 07:38 PM
Why have people been so down on Luke Hudson as a pitcher for us next season? I feel like almost every other thread about pithcing has us sucking next yeare bc we have Luke and Hancock throwing some innings.

Hudson I feel like had a greta year for us and cxould be a solid #3 starter in our rotation. He is just entering what is considered a pitchers prime (27) and is one of the least of our problems in 2005 I think.

Hancock I think is a very good swing man. He can give us the spot start and not kill us (ie van popple, etc) and i think he will be effective in middle relief. at ebst he is a 4-5 starter, at worst a decent reliever to eay innings.

Right now I see our rotation as below average but leaps and bounds above the villone, bere, parris days.

1) Try to sign a pavano/clement/millwood type
2) Harang
3) Hudson
4) Claussen
5) Mosely/Hancock/Mattox/etc

Bullpen
1) Wagner
2) Valentine
3) Acevedo
4) Hancock
5) LOOGY
6) Coffey

Red Heeler
11-12-2004, 07:41 PM
I didn't see him pitch last year, but when he was with the Reds previously, he had on of the straightest fastballs I've ever seen. It's odd because he gets nice movement on his curve. The other problem is that he still seems to have little or no idea where either pitch is going once it leaves his hand.

traderumor
11-12-2004, 07:57 PM
The other problem is that he still seems to have little or no idea where either pitch is going once it leaves his hand.
You sure that wasn't Joe Valentine you're describing :mhcky21:

Falls City Beer
11-12-2004, 08:01 PM
For Hudson to be successful he's got to consistently throw strikes; I'm not banking on him waking up at age 26 or 27 and finding a way to do something he's not been able to up till now.

SteelSD
11-12-2004, 08:05 PM
Luke?

Kaz Ishii is on the line. He says he wants his right arm back.

M2
11-12-2004, 08:10 PM
Clemson, if you've read other threads where folks have talked about why they're not sold on Hudson, then I've got to assume you've already read the reasons why people hold that position (too many walks, too many pitches per hitter, way too lucky with the at-em ball last season among others).

I disagree about this being a better setup than previous Grade F plans. The Reds quite possible might not have a single pitcher worth a bucket of spit among its 2004 returnees. As Reds fans we go through a version of this dance every season with some folks grasping at the latest batch of straws as others shake their heads in disgust. The naysayers are 5-0 for years beginning with a 2. At this point, given recent history, isn't a certain amount of skepticism warranted?

Larkin411
11-12-2004, 08:13 PM
Yeah considering he ended with the best ERA and WHIP of any of the starters, I'm not really sure why people are so down on him.

Edited to add that I realize having the best anything amongst Reds starters is no great honor

Aronchis
11-12-2004, 08:43 PM
The key is Hudson's strength. If it is good, he will be a find for the era. EdE,Pena and Hudson, will Bowden ever let it down?

RANDY IN INDY
11-12-2004, 10:08 PM
I like Hudson because he consistently throws hard with a nice curveball that is a pretty good change of pace from the fastball, velocity wise. None of the other starting staff have the hard fastball and sharp breaking curve. No doubt, he needs to control the fastball, but in other threads, I have noticed that many have commented that a lot of pitchers usually don't come into their own until their mid to late twenties. Hudson could fall into that category, particularly after losing so much time to surgery.

I think Hudson has a lot of "upside" at this point. Recent Reds starting staffs have seemed to have a sameness about them that is very easy for other teams to hone in on in a series. The "clones" have thrown high 80's to low 90's fastballs that have to be near perfect to succeed. When you see nearly the same velocity every night, it makes it a lot easier on opposing hitters. I think Hudson brings a little diversity to a staff of soft tossers, and while he is nowhere near a finished product, I like having a guy in the rotation that can get it up there a little quicker. Gives the opposition a totally different look. Personally, I like seeing a hitter swinging at a high fastball out of the strikezone or go fishing for a curveball because he has to respect the fastball. It makes a huge difference. When you throw hard, you don't have to always pinpoint every pitch. The hitters will help you some if you show them that you can get it over the plate most of the time. I think Hudson made a few strides last season, coming off a major surgery. His velocity might even increase a little this season. I think he is definitely worth some time and effort.

Best case scenario, the Reds front office would bring in a "stud" to anchor the rotation, but unless I am sadly mistaken, I don't think that's going to happen. They need some hard stuff in the rotation and right now, Hudson seems to be the best option. I'm really pulling for the guy to find himself.

PuffyPig
11-12-2004, 10:09 PM
Last year, Hudson walked 55 batters in 144 innings, or 3.4 per 9 innings. He had 146 K's, for a great 2.65 K/W ratio.

He seemed to find his control last year, and was very hard to hit.

He's as good as bet to break out next season as any of our young guys.

Actually better.

4256 Hits
11-12-2004, 10:52 PM
1) Try to sign a pavano/clement/millwood type
2) Harang
3) Hudson
4) Claussen
5) Mosely/Hancock/Mattox/etc

Bullpen
1) Wagner
2) Valentine
3) Acevedo
4) Hancock
5) LOOGY
6) Coffey

There is a pitching staff that will be lucky to win you 75 games. :help:

Also you projection a clearly wrong because the pitcher that is the biggest lock to make the team isn't even on it. That would be graves because the only way he is not the closer at the start of the season is if he is on the DL.

SteelSD
11-12-2004, 11:15 PM
Last year, Hudson walked 55 batters in 144 innings, or 3.4 per 9 innings. He had 146 K's, for a great 2.65 K/W ratio.

Pitching in the Show is just a sliiiiiiight bit different than putting up a 2.60 BB/9IP mark in AA.

At age 27.

PuffyPig
11-12-2004, 11:52 PM
Pitching in the Show is just a sliiiiiiight bit different than putting up a 2.60 BB/9IP mark in AA.

At age 27.

Hudson's ERA last year:

AA 3.32
AAA 2.84
Majors 2.42

As he got stronger as the year went on, he actually improved.

He pitched great in the majors, certainly better than any other pitcher we had.

He was finally healthy for the first time in a long time, and it showed with improved command and control. He's always had the stuff, but injuries took their toll over the years.

He certainly wouldn't be the first pitcher who got it together at age 27.

SteelSD
11-13-2004, 12:27 AM
He certainly wouldn't be the first pitcher who got it together at age 27.

Nor would he be the first pitcher whose ERA numbers are a mirage.

I've already posted this on another thread, but here's a synopsis:

While Hudson can throw pitches bats miss, he's not a true K pitcher. Without that, he'll have to be as lucky in 2005 as he was in 2004 for BA on Balls in Play. Hudson't OBP was over 100 points higher than his actual BA allowed. Basically, that OBP Against is going to end up somewhere near .350-.360 in 2005 unless Hudson can get signficantly lucky again.

Add all those additional baserunners to the 17.4 P/IP Hudson posted in 2004 and you get a Kaz Ishii clone who'll only be able to stay out of the high 4.00/low 5.00 ERA range if he can keep the ball in the park. Problem is, Hudson's a fly ball pitcher. So good luck to him there. But even if he does, the practice of throwing so many pitches means that he'll average even less than the 5.1 IP per start he put up this season.

And no, Hudson did not improve as the year went on. When he hit the Show (forget about the 19 IP in AAA- can't gain any knowledge from that), his BB rate nearly doubled. His H/IP rate was a BABIP mirage as his K rate dropped by almost 2.5 per 9 IP from AA (where he played against MUCH younger competition).

Earned Run Averages don't hide from those peripherals for long. For Hudson to "break out", he'll either have to K hitters at a higher rate and/or allow far fewer Walks while improving his GB/FB rate (a .64 that would shock even Todd Van Poppel).

In short, for Hudson to repeat that ERA, he'll have to be a different pitcher next year. I'm not holding my breath.

M2
11-13-2004, 01:13 AM
Man, do I wish the board search function didn't have a blind spot for all of last offseason. The surety that Hudson's a keeper based on a sliver of evidence is a reincarnation of the same stuff folks said about Jose Acevedo a year ago.

baseballPAP
11-13-2004, 03:29 AM
Seeing Harang listed #2 on that proposed rotation is about all I need to get worried about next year already. And thats BEHIND a guy that hasn't even been signed yet? Here we go again.....

SteelSD
11-13-2004, 03:47 AM
Man, do I wish the board search function didn't have a blind spot for all of last offseason. The surety that Hudson's a keeper based on a sliver of evidence is a reincarnation of the same stuff folks said about Jose Acevedo a year ago.

Well, keep in mind that folks were counting on Graves to be the ace of the staff after 2002. As Reds fans, we tend to do that. No reliable starting pitching is the cause to that effect.

Heck, there were folks on this board pimping Acevedo as "above average" into June of last season, not realizing that 10 HR in his first 60 IP was probably a pretty bad sign. The board coined the term "Ace" as a term of endearment That, of course, morphed into a moniker of derision when Acevedo showed his true colors.

Astoundingly, "Ace" gave up Home Runs in 13 of his first 15 games in 2004 after posting a 2.67 ERA in 2003.

Fast forward to 2004. Luke Hudson is handed a starting spot in the Cinci rotation. He's pitched against far younger competition until then. Despite that, he's given up 11 HR in 105.2 IP at the minor league level. He gets a call to the Show because, frankly...there are no other options. His HR rate plummets as does his K rate. And his ERA of 2.42 is lower than Acevedo's 2.67 in 2003 despite an OPS Against about 40 points higher than Acevedo's 2003 season.

Why is that ERA lower? Because Hudson's abyssmal GB/FB rate (especially considering his K rate) doesn't result in the HR rate we'd normally expect. That's a lot of luck working for Hudson there. Big time. Seriously, a .64 GB/FB rate and 3 HR in 48.1 IP. Triple that next year and one might have a reasonable projection.

Further confounding the solution is that Hudson was never allowed to go more than 6 Innings in a game- primarily because his pitch counts got to the point of ridiculous. Of the five times Hudson did go as many as 6.0 Innings (his longest outing), his pitch count registered less that 100 Pitches exactly twice- never lower than 88 (the only time under 90).

Man, if there ever was a guy who defined how badly the Reds need real pitching, it's Luke Hudson. And yeah, the same could be said (and was) of Danny Graves and Jose Acevedo.

Ravenlord
11-13-2004, 08:54 AM
if Hudson wants sustained success, he should go to the BP...especially to the closers role. i feel the same about Harang. if the Reds actually had two other starting pitchers that i actually had something resembling confidence in to go 170+ IP and keep their ERA under 5, i'd send them both to the BP in 05 (wow, my standards are really freaking low).

crossing threads a little bit, i think if you make a Kearns/Zito kind of deal, you need to take one of Hudson or Harang (preferably Harang) and put them in the pen this year.

traderumor
11-13-2004, 01:12 PM
if Hudson wants sustained success, he should go to the BP...especially to the closers role. i feel the same about Harang. if the Reds actually had two other starting pitchers that i actually had something resembling confidence in to go 170+ IP and keep their ERA under 5, i'd send them both to the BP in 05 (wow, my standards are really freaking low).

crossing threads a little bit, i think if you make a Kearns/Zito kind of deal, you need to take one of Hudson or Harang (preferably Harang) and put them in the pen this year.We can only have one "closer." Now you have Acevedo and Hudson out there, giving us three off the current staff :p:

Redmachine2003
11-13-2004, 01:34 PM
It is sad when people try to project off a small sample sizes. Hudson can improve on his stats. I watch alot of his games and he wasn't missing the strike zone that much and if he was on a good team or vet. most likely would have got the calls and his strike out would have been up and walks would have been down so would have been his pitch count. Next there would be stats that say he is a bad pitcher because when the winds blows from the west he misses on the out side of the plate and he gave up more hits to .200 hitters than .300 hitters and if he farts he throws harder and has less control. You know last year the best way to judge a pitcher everyone get saying was his WHIP and now that isn't good enough we have to make up something else. I would rather be lucky than good any day.

SteelSD
11-13-2004, 07:56 PM
I would rather be lucky than good any day.

So you'd prefer that chance dictate your fate rather than drive your own destiny by being skilled at something?

Skill perseveres.

Ravenlord
11-13-2004, 10:08 PM
We can only have one "closer." Now you have Acevedo and Hudson out there, giving us three off the current staff :p:
that should be the entire point...the Reds don't have a starter or much of anyone else that should be a legitimate starter. they have a bunch of good relievers posing as starters because their pitching situation really is that side.

Redmachine2003
11-13-2004, 10:25 PM
Fate and destiny are driven by chance and luck. You can put yourself on a certain path but you need breaks here and there to keep moving forward. In the Majors the Skills are very close together you need a little luck to show your skills off. Basesload and the batter hits the ball as hard as he can right at someone, luck. Make a bad pitch and the batter pops up or swings and misses, luck. The ump calls a ball outside a strike for strike 3, luck. You also have bad luck baseloaded 3-2 the count you paint the black but the ump calls ball 4, Basesloaded you make your pitch and it is a seeing eye base hit.

SteelSD
11-13-2004, 11:15 PM
Fate and destiny are driven by chance and luck. You can put yourself on a certain path but you need breaks here and there to keep moving forward. In the Majors the Skills are very close together you need a little luck to show your skills off. Basesload and the batter hits the ball as hard as he can right at someone, luck. Make a bad pitch and the batter pops up or swings and misses, luck. The ump calls a ball outside a strike for strike 3, luck. You also have bad luck baseloaded 3-2 the count you paint the black but the ump calls ball 4, Basesloaded you make your pitch and it is a seeing eye base hit.

Yeah. Ok. Greg Maddux has just been more lucky than Jimmy Haynes. Sure.

At the upper echelon of any profession, skill is the driver. It's luck mitigation of the highest order.

Players who are successful over the long haul are simply better than players who are not. Not sure why you'd even argue this point.

The issue with Hudson's 2004 wasn't that he was "unlucky". The issue is that he was too lucky. Being overly reliant on chance isn't a good thing.

Redmachine2003
11-14-2004, 11:50 AM
But base on the way knocking on Hudson, Maddux would have been in the bull pen after his first two years. Would Maddux been the stud he has been all of those years if he didn't get that extra 6 inches of the plate. If you would have taken that extra 6 inches Maddux got and gave those calls to Haynes it would have brought them closer in stats and records. Maddux would have still been a little better but not the huge difference you see know. If Hudson cuts down on his walks which is what most pitchers do after their first couple of years and gives up some more hits his WHIP will still be below 1.20. Is it really luck if a pitcher can reach back and make a big pitch when he needs too to get an out or is that skill? The biggest difference between Hudson and Ace is that when Ace gets in trouble he gives in to the Hitter and when Hudson gets in trouble doesn't give in if he walks them so be it. As Hudson learns the Umps in this league he will learn how to pitch to their strikezones and use that to his advantage to pick up some big outs.

Steve4192
11-14-2004, 12:00 PM
But base on the way knocking on Hudson, Maddux would have been in the bull pen after his first two years.
The difference is, Hudson is 27 years old. He's SUPPOSED to pitch well against 23 year old batters in the Southern League. Despite being older than most of his competition, he has not been overwhelming in his minor league career, posting a 4.03 ERA and a 1.30 WHIP.

Meanwhile, at the same age, Maddux already had 125 wins, two Cy Young's, and a PHAT free agent contract from the Braves.

Luke Hudson <> Greg Maddux

Ravenlord
11-14-2004, 12:32 PM
Luke Hudson <> Greg Maddux
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

SteelSD
11-14-2004, 12:33 PM
But base on the way knocking on Hudson, Maddux would have been in the bull pen after his first two years. Would Maddux been the stud he has been all of those years if he didn't get that extra 6 inches of the plate. If you would have taken that extra 6 inches Maddux got and gave those calls to Haynes it would have brought them closer in stats and records. Maddux would have still been a little better but not the huge difference you see know.

Greg Maddux was 20 and 21 years old in his first two MLB seasons. Contrary to what you seem to believe, MLB umpires didn't just get together and decide to give Maddux a bigger strike zone on his 23rd birthday.

It was neither luck nor the umpires that made Greg Maddux a HOF pitcher. It was skill.

Redmachine2003
11-14-2004, 12:37 PM
Maddux didn't go to college or other wise he would have been 23 or 24 before he made it to the bigs. Maddux didn't have surgery and miss a year. Hudson first couple of year in the minors he pitched lights out. In 2000 He started to have shoulder problems. I think Hudson has just as big of an upside as Classen both are getting stronger after their surgeries and both had to learn how to pitch with out their best stuff.

Redmachine2003
11-14-2004, 12:40 PM
Greg Maddux was 20 and 21 years old in his first two MLB seasons. Contrary to what you seem to believe, MLB umpires didn't just get together and decide to give Maddux a bigger strike zone on his 23rd birthday.

It was neither luck nor the umpires that made Greg Maddux a HOF pitcher. It was skill.
Then explain to me why the Braves was the only team getting this call of the plate and not every team in the league?

Steve4192
11-14-2004, 12:50 PM
Hudson first couple of year in the minors he pitched lights out.
Hudson's first couple of years (ages 21 & 22):
* 1998 Portland (low A): 15 GS, 3-6 record, 4.74 ERA, 1.49 WHIP
* 1999 Asheville (low A): 20 GS, 6-5 record, 4.30 ERA, 1.28 WHIP

Hudson didn't put up a sub-3.00 ERA until his SIXTH year of pro ball. If that is your definition of 'lights out', then I can see why you like Hudson.

Here is MY definition of 'lights out'.

Maddux's first couple of years (ages 18 & 19):
* 1984 Pikeville (Rookie): 12 GS, 6-2 record, 2.63 ERA, 1.22 WHIP
* 1985 Peoria (low A): 27 GS, 13-9 record, 3.19 ERA, 1.23 WHIP

Look at that, Maddux put up a sub-3.00 ERA in his FIRST year as a pro, fresh out of high school. Maddux must have been getting that big strike zone ever since he was an 18 year old in the Appalachian league.

SteelSD
11-14-2004, 12:59 PM
Then explain to me why the Braves was the only team getting this call of the plate and not every team in the league?

Greg Maddux: Ages 23-27

1988- 249 IP, 3.18 ERA, .634 OPS Against
1989- 238.1 IP, 2.95 ERA, .652 OPS Against
1990- 237 IP, 3.46 ERA, .667 OPS Against
1991- 263 IP, 3.35 ERA, .629 OPS Against
1992- 268 IP, 2.18 ERA, .548 OPS Againt

All with the Chicago Cubs (including his 3rd best seasonal ERA and OPS Against).

Have you stopped to think that the couple extra inches at the plate afforded to pitchers like Maddux and Glavine was due to the fact that their control was so consistently excellent that they earned those extra inches? Throw pitches with movement that hit Catchers mitts as frequently as Maddux' pitches did and you've earned those calls. Skill.

In any case, Maddux was a gem well before he ever donned a Braves uniform.

And you might want to take a look at what Maddux was doing to much older competition in the Minors before attempting to position Hudson's performances against much younger competition as any kind of comp. Not at all comparable.

Skill wins out.

Ravenlord
11-14-2004, 01:00 PM
Then explain to me why the Braves was the only team getting this call of the plate and not every team in the league?
no one was...just Greg Maddux. he esablished that zone with the Cubs from 90-92...Glavine had always had great control. when Maddux and Glavine starting pitching back to back (both well known control pitchers) they together started getting the wide zone (93, Maddux's walk rate falls under 2, and ironically enough, Glavine's climbs to just over 3 where its pretty much stayed for his career). in fact, it wasn't even Maddux/Glavine that started causing the Braves K Zone...it was Maddux/Avery as the two years prior to Maddux's arrival, Avery had a walk rate of not quite 2.2. you see the Braves K Zone really take effect in 1994 when you see Smoltz's walk rate drop from 3.4 (in previous years) to 3.21 to the next few years having a walk rate under 2.5.

Maddux has the best control of all the group in question. no doubt about it. it's his ability to pitch to the black of the plate and establishing it as a strike that's his key. once it's established, he can push a little further outside, and will keep going further and further outside until the umps stop calling it. and then once he finds that zone, he hammers it. that's why Maddux's BB/9 rate is the most consistant of the group. but it wasn't Maddux that got the Braves K Zone, it's a comlagimation of Maddux, Glavine, Avery and Smoltz (by far the biggest benafactor of the group) abilities. not one man alone.

Steve4192
11-14-2004, 01:04 PM
Maddux didn't go to college or other wise he would have been 23 or 24 before he made it to the bigs.
What makes you believe that?

Maddux dominated PROFESSIONAL hitters as an 18-20 year old with a 36-15 record and a 2.87 ERA in 488 IP. Imagine what he would have done to a bunch of college kids, most of whom would never play in a pro game. Had he gone to college Maddux would have been pitching in the majors within one year of being drafted, just like Mark Prior/Mike Mussina/Roger Clemens.

Maddux didn't have surgery and miss a year.
So you are penalizing Maddux for being freakishly durable? I have always considered durability a GOOD thing.

Tom Lawless Fan
11-14-2004, 05:35 PM
I can't believe all of this bad talk about Luke Hudson, he had a better season last year than Madox.

Ravenlord
11-15-2004, 08:24 AM
I can't believe all of this bad talk about Luke Hudson, he had a better season last year than Madox.
on some planet, i'm sure he did...however, this is Earth.

Tom Lawless Fan
11-15-2004, 12:22 PM
I think Luke's got a better fastball than Madoxx, and he's got a lower ERA from last yer, plus he's yonnger. We should keep him. :dflynn:

Ravenlord
11-15-2004, 01:26 PM
who said anything about trading Hudson?

by your logic, Luke Hudson is better than Matt Clement, Kerry Wood, Randy Johnson, AND Roger Clemens.

and it's Maddux.

REDREAD
11-15-2004, 02:09 PM
I can't believe all of this bad talk about Luke Hudson, he had a better season last year than Madox.

Yeah, Leyland Maddox didn't do squat last year ;)

Seriously Tom Lawless, Hudson is going to crash and burn next year. He was called up out of desparation. Some fans have hope for him, because right now hope is all we have.

Ravenlord
11-15-2004, 02:17 PM
in the end, i don't think anyone is saying that Hudson CAN'T be a good pitcher, it's just that it's about a 99% chance that he WON'T be a good pitcher.

Redmachine2003
11-15-2004, 02:39 PM
in the end, i don't think anyone is saying that Hudson CAN'T be a good pitcher, it's just that it's about a 99% chance that he WON'T be a good pitcher.
Wow, I am glad they play the game instead of just using stats or other peoples judgements.

Ravenlord
11-15-2004, 02:44 PM
Wow, I am glad they play the game instead of just using stats or other peoples judgements.
so am i...that's how you get a Marvin Freeman (1994) and Bob Hamelin (1994). that's part of what makes the game fun.

so what you're saying is only your judgment is valid? you keep saying the same thing over and over and then when what you said in rebuttle gets called into question, you say the same thing again. offer evidence of your position. baseball isnt a game of that can be entirely used with the absolutes 'yes' and 'no'.

Redmachine2003
11-15-2004, 03:43 PM
No, I am saying Results are what matter and to pick apart his results to say he won't be any good or improve on those results is not a fair way to judge Mr. Hudson. The results show that Hudson did not pitch badly at all some of his stats need improvement and some of his stats are very good. But to attack his area that needs improvement (Walks and pitch count) and ignore good stats (WHIP, Hits, and Batting avg against) is a wrong way to judge him on such a small sample size and Label him as a bad pitcher. Man what is wrong with this board anymore, People over value Freel, under value Kearns and says all of our pitchers are bums and losers.

TRF
11-15-2004, 04:14 PM
No, I am saying Results are what matter and to pick apart his results to say he won't be any good or improve on those results is not a fair way to judge Mr. Hudson. The results show that Hudson did not pitch badly at all some of his stats need improvement and some of his stats are very good. But to attack his area that needs improvement (Walks and pitch count) and ignore good stats (WHIP, Hits, and Batting avg against) is a wrong way to judge him on such a small sample size and Label him as a bad pitcher. Man what is wrong with this board anymore, People over value Freel, under value Kearns and says all of our pitchers are bums and losers.

Actually, those are the stats i'd use to pick him and every other pitcher alive apart. I like Hudson. I hope he flourishes, but he has yet to pitch an entire season in the majors, and he's 27.

Tell me how many guys achieved success with that on their resume.

M2
11-15-2004, 04:27 PM
No, I am saying Results are what matter and to pick apart his results to say he won't be any good or improve on those results is not a fair way to judge Mr. Hudson. The results show that Hudson did not pitch badly at all some of his stats need improvement and some of his stats are very good. But to attack his area that needs improvement (Walks and pitch count) and ignore good stats (WHIP, Hits, and Batting avg against) is a wrong way to judge him on such a small sample size and Label him as a bad pitcher. Man what is wrong with this board anymore, People over value Freel, under value Kearns and says all of our pitchers are bums and losers.

Once again, Hudson's "good" stats don't figure to be something repeatable. For reasons totally beyond his control Hudson's BA against should rise sharply next season. That will lead to more hits and a higher WHIP, feeding right into the very things he doesn't do well. That is the responsible way to look at his small sample size. It fits in with the larger sample size we have for the guy - career minor league ERA of 4.04 and not particularly hard to hit as a rule. That's what you get when you look at his results over the course of his career. You're suggesting people ignore 664 IP of mediocrity because you want to make a mountain out of 48.1 IP. Nonsense.

Tom Lawless Fan
11-15-2004, 04:56 PM
Hey I guess having a better than Maddix did doesn't mean anything but hey I can see he's got a better fastball too and you can't hit what you can't see.

Stop burying your heads in the sand he's cheaper than Mattix too. :dflynn: :angry: :help:

Falls City Beer
11-15-2004, 05:56 PM
Hey I guess having a better than Maddix did doesn't mean anything but hey I can see he's got a better fastball too and you can't hit what you can't see.

Stop burying your heads in the sand he's cheaper than Mattix too. :dflynn: :angry: :help:


Personally, I hope they try to acquire Mannix--he'd know how to handle the opposition. :devil:

Redmachine2003
11-15-2004, 07:55 PM
Once again, Hudson's "good" stats don't figure to be something repeatable. For reasons totally beyond his control Hudson's BA against should rise sharply next season. That will lead to more hits and a higher WHIP, feeding right into the very things he doesn't do well. That is the responsible way to look at his small sample size. It fits in with the larger sample size we have for the guy - career minor league ERA of 4.04 and not particularly hard to hit as a rule. That's what you get when you look at his results over the course of his career. You're suggesting people ignore 664 IP of mediocrity because you want to make a mountain out of 48.1 IP. Nonsense.
But you want to ignore the fact he had surgery and had to learn how to pitch all over again. He is not the same pitcher he was before the injury. Back then he was a thrower that tried to throw as hard as he could with that 97 mph fastball. Now he is a pitcher this is shown by the fact he throws his fastball anywhere from 89mph to 96mph in on game and his speed doesn't drop off after a few innings. The games I seen him pitch in he was hitting low 90's in the first couple of innings and hitting 95-96 around the 5th. Now I am not saying he will be a #1 starter but I disagree that he is a bad pitcher and has no upside. He is still getting his arm strength back for his surgery and should continue to learn how to pitch.

westofyou
11-15-2004, 07:57 PM
Personally, I hope they try to acquire Mannix--he'd know how to handle the opposition. :devil:
http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/averroes/colegiojabalquinto/mannix.jpg

M2
11-15-2004, 08:33 PM
But you want to ignore the fact he had surgery and had to learn how to pitch all over again. He is not the same pitcher he was before the injury. Back then he was a thrower that tried to throw as hard as he could with that 97 mph fastball. Now he is a pitcher this is shown by the fact he throws his fastball anywhere from 89mph to 96mph in on game and his speed doesn't drop off after a few innings. The games I seen him pitch in he was hitting low 90's in the first couple of innings and hitting 95-96 around the 5th. Now I am not saying he will be a #1 starter but I disagree that he is a bad pitcher and has no upside. He is still getting his arm strength back for his surgery and should continue to learn how to pitch.

Learning how to pitch, huh? He threw overhand, right? Stood on a mound? Tried to place it within a small zone 60 feet and six inches away?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Hudson hasn't picked up a new pitch since returning. So it's the same game with the same repertoire for him.

What you've got here is a rationalization, an anecdotal mess, a desperate attempt to ignore the stronger pile of evidence which would lead you down a different alley.

Is it possible that Luke Hudson could become a good pitcher year-in, year-out? Yes. Does he have some upside? Yes. But he's never been a good pitcher year-in, year-out and, here's the important part, he's going to have to improve quite a bit over the guy we saw on the mound last year to do it. If Hudson goes out and does the same thing again, pitches the same way, the overwhelming likelihood is that his numbers will go into radical decline. Your fervent wish to the contrary isn't going to change that. I should copyright that line, as I seem to say it every offseason to folks who are incredulous over my open distaste for the latest Great Red Hope.

CougarQuest
11-15-2004, 10:37 PM
Gotta say, I don't hold out a whole lotta hope that Hudson is going to be an above average starting pitcher either. I was kinda hoping they were shining him up to trade him for better options. I've always thought of him as a reliever. I will say, he did better than I suspected he would this time.