Luke Hudson

[baseballPAP]

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]

Originally Posted by M2

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Ravenlord

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 :

[Redmachine2003]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by traderumor

We can only have one "closer." Now you have Acevedo and Hudson out there, giving us three off the current staff :

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Redmachine2003

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Redmachine2003

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]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

Luke Hudson <> Greg Maddux

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <

[SteelSD]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

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?