Luke Hudson

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Red Heeler

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]

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]

Luke?

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

[M2]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Clemson

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

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]

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]

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.