PDA

View Full Version : Daniel Hudson outhitting Adam Dunn


A. Cavatica
08-29-2011, 11:33 PM
Remember when Hudson was traded for Jackson, who was going to be flipped for Dunn?

Not content with merely out-pitching Jackson, Hudson is out-hitting Dunn by a wide margin. Hudson's at .309/.333/.418 versus .163/.290/.289 for Dunn. Hudson is also driving runs at more than twice Dunn's pace (14 RBI in 55 AB, compared to 40 in 367).

(When I typed in Dunn's numbers there it felt like a typo. Nobody slugs .289 except pitchers, right?)

As for pitching, Hudson earned his 14th win (second on the D-Backs) tonight. Seven shutout innings, three hits, eight strikeouts. So at least he can fall back on that if the hitting tails off.

kittle42
08-29-2011, 11:37 PM
Remember when Hudson was traded for Jackson, who was going to be flipped for Dunn?

Not content with merely out-pitching Jackson, Hudson is out-hitting Dunn by a wide margin. Hudson's at .309/.333/.418 versus .163/.290/.289 for Dunn. Hudson is also driving runs at more than twice Dunn's pace (14 RBI in 55 AB, compared to 40 in 367).

(When I typed in Dunn's numbers there it felt like a typo. Nobody slugs .289 except pitchers, right?)

As for pitching, Hudson earned his 14th win (second on the D-Backs) tonight. Seven shutout innings, three hits, eight strikeouts. So at least he can fall back on that if the hitting tails off.

If he was in the AL, he would have an ERA over 5.00.

Dibbs
08-29-2011, 11:53 PM
Ranger Rongey is an expert and stands by the Hudson trade. Anyone who argues the fact that the White Sox made the right move is a moron.

I was hoping the Diamondbacks couldn't trust Hudson for their division run this year, and trade him back for the "trusty" Edwin Jackson. I guess they don't have the same philosophy as all of the experts in Chicago.

blandman
08-29-2011, 11:57 PM
If he was in the AL, he would have an ERA over 5.00.

Even with tonight's performance, he's give up a whopping 46 runs in 46 1/3 innings (yes, only 46 1/3 innings) across 11 starts (yes, only 11 of his 28 starts) against offenses in the top half of baseball. Most of the top offenses are in the AL due to the DH. I don't doubt his ERA would be over five. It might even be over 6. Dude can't pitch to talented lineups at all. Today marked his first time 11 attempts to get a quality start against one.

hi im skot
08-29-2011, 11:58 PM
Ranger Rongey is an expert and stands by the Hudson trade. Anyone who argues the fact that the White Sox made the right move is a moron.

Hyperbole much?

cards press box
08-30-2011, 12:03 AM
To paraphrase Professor Dorr from The Ladykillers, this whole line of discussion about Hudson, Dunn and Jackson flogs "a horse that if not dead is at this point in mortal danger of expiring."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/callingtheshots/images/tom_hanks.jpg

The Sox brass might have thought that Dan Hudson was not suited for U.S. Cellular or the AL but, in any event, the Hudson/Jackson deal hasn't worked out. And Dunn's performance has been disappointing, for sure. Some moves don't work. How do you think the Braves feel about dealing Tyler Flowers (and throwing Brent Lillibridge and two prospects) for the underwhelming Javier Vazquez?

Good deals and bad deals go with the game. KW has made more good deals than bad ones. And it doesn't seem right to never let go of the bad deals and, at the same time, never recognize the good deals -- you know, like getting a young, power hitting catcher, a versatile infielder/outfielder and two prospects for an unreliable starter.

Dibbs
08-30-2011, 12:21 AM
How do you think the Braves feel about dealing Tyler Flowers (and throwing Brent Lillibridge and two prospects) for the underwhelming Javier Vazquez?

Probably pretty good considering Vazquez was 4th in the Cy Young voting the year they had him. Not to mention they received a very good prospect from the Yankees when they traded him the next year. I would say they are much happier than the White Sox are with this trade.

cards press box
08-30-2011, 12:45 AM
Vazquez is 159-160 for his career with an ERA of 4.28. That is pretty underwhelming. The Sox have a power hitting catcher who might be here a long time, as well as Lillibridge and the prospects that they got from Atlanta. I realize that the Braves were able to get a prospect, Arodys Vizcaino, from the Yankees, as well as Melky Cabrera (who the Braves did not keep).

But you know, all these deals with Vazquez illustrate my point. Perhaps the Braves were able to salvage a good return for Vazquez. But if they did, the Yankees certainly didn't do well in the trade. And that is my point: no team gets the edge on every single deal. Annie Savoy from Bull Durham was right: "Bad deals are part of the game."

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID20002/images/susan_sarandon_bull_durham.jpg

And while KW has dealt some players that have done well with other clubs, he hasn't dealt a Hall of Famer in mid-career the way that the Cincinnati Reds dealt Frank Robinson in 1965.

doublem23
08-30-2011, 06:21 AM
Words cannot express how badly I want someone to hit a screaming line drive off Hudson's head and turn him into a vegetable just so I don't have to read these threads any more.

My birthday's coming up next week. Somebody do me a favor!

DonnieDarko
08-30-2011, 06:38 AM
Words cannot express how badly I want someone to hit a screaming line drive off Hudson's head and turn him into a vegetable just so I don't have to read these threads any more.

My birthday's coming up next week. Somebody do me a favor!

Okay, c'mon. That's just not cool, man.

doublem23
08-30-2011, 08:11 AM
Okay, c'mon. That's just not cool, man.

:shrug:

I'll sleep pretty easy tonight

kittle42
08-30-2011, 09:29 AM
Words cannot express how badly I want someone to hit a screaming line drive off Hudson's head and turn him into a vegetable just so I don't have to read these threads any more.

My birthday's coming up next week. Somebody do me a favor!

How dare you make an obviously joking post!?

TheOldRoman
08-30-2011, 09:37 AM
Clearly, this thread is relevant because Hudson would still hit over .300 if playing every day against arguably more talented pitchers who bothered to read scouting reports on him.

asindc
08-30-2011, 10:09 AM
Probably pretty good considering Vazquez was 4th in the Cy Young voting the year they had him. Not to mention they received a very good prospect from the Yankees when they traded him the next year. I would say they are much happier than the White Sox are with this trade.

Are you saying that the Sox were better off keeping Vazquez than Atlanta was? I'm happy that Vazquez pitched for the NYY in 2010 and not for us. I would think you would be happy about that as well. Atlanta certainly seemed happy about the fact that Vazquez pitched for the NYY in 2010 and not them.

TDog
08-30-2011, 11:00 AM
Words cannot express how badly I want someone to hit a screaming line drive off Hudson's head and turn him into a vegetable just so I don't have to read these threads any more.

My birthday's coming up next week. Somebody do me a favor!

If he had stayed with the White Sox and continued to pitch against the Royals and A's, who hit him like a rented mule, your birthday with may have been granted already.

This must be evidence that Don Cooper is a lousy pitching coach.

Dibbs
08-30-2011, 11:25 AM
Are you saying that the Sox were better off keeping Vazquez than Atlanta was? I'm happy that Vazquez pitched for the NYY in 2010 and not for us. I would think you would be happy about that as well. Atlanta certainly seemed happy about the fact that Vazquez pitched for the NYY in 2010 and not them.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything like that. What I said is that Atlanta is very happy how things turned out for them. A Cy Young type season out of Vazquez, and then turned him into a nice looking prospect in Arodys Vizcaino.

I understand not all trades work out, but the Hudson trade was obviously a terrible one from the start for many reasons. A couple being that he is a better pitcher than Jackson, and his salary was less than 1/10th of Jackson's.

tstrike2000
08-30-2011, 11:42 AM
I saw Hudson's name and thought it was going to be another thread about how we never should have traded him away.

DirtySox
08-30-2011, 12:06 PM
Keep on keepin' on Huddy.

A. Cavatica
08-30-2011, 07:20 PM
Words cannot express how badly I want someone to hit a screaming line drive off Hudson's head and turn him into a vegetable just so I don't have to read these threads any more.

My birthday's coming up next week. Somebody do me a favor!

If someone hit a screaming line drive off your head, your wish would be granted.

Guys, this post was to make fun of Dunn, not to revisit the Hudson deal. The jury's already in on that one.

doublem23
08-30-2011, 07:30 PM
If someone hit a screaming line drive off your head, your wish would be granted.

Really, at this point, that would also be acceptable.

TDog
08-31-2011, 03:54 PM
...

I understand not all trades work out, but the Hudson trade was obviously a terrible one from the start for many reasons. A couple being that he is a better pitcher than Jackson, and his salary was less than 1/10th of Jackson's.

Hudson last year had an ERA of 6.32 with the White Sox. Jackson replaced him in the starting rotation and had an ERA of 3.24. Hudson was hit very hard.

Maybe if Hudson had not been traded for Jackson, the Sox would have otherwise acquired Jackson and used Hudson as a DH instead of Manny Ramirez to win the AL West. But there is no way you could have seen Hudson pitch for the White Sox last year and believed he would have done better than Jackson did for the Sox last year.

You could argue that the Sox shouldn't have traded a good pitching prospect for a pitcher who wouldn't be on the team beyond 2011. But you can't argue that the Sox had a better chance of winning the division with Hudson in the rotation.

And by the way, I thought every WSI thread was supposed to revisit the Hudson trade.

Dibbs
08-31-2011, 04:38 PM
Hudson last year had an ERA of 6.32 with the White Sox. Jackson replaced him in the starting rotation and had an ERA of 3.24. Hudson was hit very hard.

But you can't argue that the Sox had a better chance of winning the division with Hudson in the rotation.

Lol, Hudson had three starts and 15 IP. Who cares what his ERA was? His sample size is way to small. Plus, he did have one great start out of those three.

And of course you can argue that he would have been better than Jackson. He had a 1.69 ERA with the Diamondbacks, which is about three times better than Jackson was doing for them. I think it is crazy to say you can't make the argument that he would have been better than Jackson. Regardless, it was a horrible trade now and then. An organization should never be so shortsighted. It could set a franchise back many years.

Whitesox029
08-31-2011, 05:00 PM
I saw Hudson's name and thought it was going to be another thread about how we never should have traded him away.
I saw the short version of the title of this thread (Daniel Hudson is outhitting...) on the forums homepage and immediately knew what the last two missing words were.

TDog
08-31-2011, 05:11 PM
Lol, Hudson had three starts and 15 IP. Who cares what his ERA was? His sample size is way to small. Plus, he did have one great start out of those three.

And of course you can argue that he would have been better than Jackson. He had a 1.69 ERA with the Diamondbacks, which is about three times better than Jackson was doing for them. I think it is crazy to say you can't make the argument that he would have been better than Jackson. Regardless, it was a horrible trade now and then. An organization should never be so shortsighted. It could set a franchise back many years.

Hudson looked like he was throwing batting practice to the A's in his last start with the Sox. Matt Carson, a career minor leaguer with a .200 major league average, hit him hard. There is no way anyone could have looked at Hudson and suggested he was ready to be starting for a contender. I know nothing about his mental makeup, I just know that he threw the ball, and it jumped off the bat of hitters like Matt Carson (a soft .200 batting average for his major league career, which is now probably over).

Jackson, on the other hand, came in and pitched very well, better than one would have expected Hudson to have pitched.

Hudson wasn't suddenly going to be a stud pitcher for the White Sox, in part because he apparently has added a pitch under the Diamondbacks pitching coach. That wasn't going to happen with the White Sox, at least, not in 2010.

More evidence that Don Cooper needs to be fired.

Daver
08-31-2011, 06:18 PM
Hudson looked like he was throwing batting practice to the A's in his last start with the Sox. Matt Carson, a career minor leaguer with a .200 major league average, hit him hard. There is no way anyone could have looked at Hudson and suggested he was ready to be starting for a contender. I know nothing about his mental makeup, I just know that he threw the ball, and it jumped off the bat of hitters like Matt Carson (a soft .200 batting average for his major league career, which is now probably over).

Jackson, on the other hand, came in and pitched very well, better than one would have expected Hudson to have pitched.

Hudson wasn't suddenly going to be a stud pitcher for the White Sox, in part because he apparently has added a pitch under the Diamondbacks pitching coach. That wasn't going to happen with the White Sox, at least, not in 2010.

More evidence that Don Cooper needs to be fired.


If you are going to lay blame based on the criteria above it would be Kirk Champion, not Don Cooper, at fault. The Sox really should just fire every single manager, coach, and instructor, at every level based on the results of this years team.

Now THAT, will send a message.

SI1020
09-03-2011, 10:40 AM
Hudson wasn't suddenly going to be a stud pitcher for the White Sox, in part because he apparently has added a pitch under the Diamondbacks pitching coach. That wasn't going to happen with the White Sox, at least, not in 2010.
I always wondered why Hudson had so much better success at Arizona than he did with the Sox. I try to follow the Sox minor league teams in the Carolinas as much as possible. To me, Hudson had good enough stuff, but tried to be too fine when he got into trouble. He was a 5-7 inning pitcher in the minors. What pitch did they teach him in Arizona and how did they also build his stamina I wonder? It seems like some organizations know how to develop talent and others do not.

Tragg
09-03-2011, 11:19 AM
Jackson, on the other hand, came in and pitched very well, better than one would have expected Hudson to have pitched.



But Jackson wasn't pitching well for Arizona when acquired, had a big contract for a dead team, yet we paid top dollar for him.

blandman
09-03-2011, 12:12 PM
Guys, this post was to make fun of Dunn, not to revisit the Hudson deal. The jury's already in on that one.

No it isn't, most people here think Hudson's better than a #5 starter, which is preposterous.

Even with tonight's performance, he's give up a whopping 46 runs in 46 1/3 innings (yes, only 46 1/3 innings) across 11 starts (yes, only 11 of his 28 starts) against offenses in the top half of baseball. Most of the top offenses are in the AL due to the DH. I don't doubt his ERA would be over five. It might even be over 6. Dude can't pitch to talented lineups at all. Today marked his first time 11 attempts to get a quality start against one.

SoxSpeed22
09-03-2011, 12:49 PM
If you are going to lay blame based on the criteria above it would be Kirk Champion, not Don Cooper, at fault. The Sox really should just fire every single manager, coach, and instructor, at every level based on the results of this years team.

Now THAT, will send a message.I think the instructors need to go regardless of this years team, but based on the overall bad results of our prospects. Is Buehrle the last good Sox pitcher raised by the Sox farm system?

Daver
09-03-2011, 01:11 PM
I think the instructors need to go regardless of this years team, but based on the overall bad results of our prospects. Is Buehrle the last good Sox pitcher raised by the Sox farm system?

I would call Philip Humber somewhat successful, Chris Sale can get MLB hitters out, as can Sergio Santos, what are your standards for good?

Where does the responsibility for the scouts that recommend these players get drafted end and the minor league coaches begin?

SoxSpeed22
09-03-2011, 01:31 PM
I would call Philip Humber somewhat successful, Chris Sale can get MLB hitters out, as can Sergio Santos, what are your standards for good?

Where does the responsibility for the scouts that recommend these players get drafted end and the minor league coaches begin?Sale, I would agree with, but he came up real quickly. You're right about Santos. I think Humber was more of a reclamation project for Cooper than anything.
As for the second question, I don't have the answer to that. The coaches can't solve everything if the player doesn't have the talent to succeed, but I still think both coaches and scouts can do better.

asindc
09-06-2011, 09:35 AM
I always wondered why Hudson had so much better success at Arizona than he did with the Sox. I try to follow the Sox minor league teams in the Carolinas as much as possible. To me, Hudson had good enough stuff, but tried to be too fine when he got into trouble. He was a 5-7 inning pitcher in the minors. What pitch did they teach him in Arizona and how did they also build his stamina I wonder? It seems like some organizations know how to develop talent and others do not.

Whatever Arizona is teaching Hudson, I'm wondering why they didn't want to teach it to Scherzer and Schlereth.

blandman
09-06-2011, 10:26 AM
Whatever Arizona is teaching Hudson, I'm wondering why they didn't want to teach it to Scherzer and Schlereth.

You can't teach a lollipop schedule.

It's like no one reads my posts. 2/3 of his starts are against the bottom feeders offensively. Yeah, he did his job against them (and got torched the other 1/3 of the time like clockwork). But he's not going to face bottom feeders 2/3 of the time in his career. The numbers will even out. His career ERA will be above 5.

DirtySox
09-06-2011, 10:32 AM
The numbers will even out. His career ERA will be above 5.

Your posts are always great for a laugh Bland. No matter the thread.

blandman
09-06-2011, 10:42 AM
Your posts are always great for a laugh Bland. No matter the thread.


You can ignore posts all you want, but there's no arguing with the information below, or what it means. It's extremely straightforward.

Even with tonight's performance, he's give up a whopping 46 runs in 46 1/3 innings (yes, only 46 1/3 innings) across 11 starts (yes, only 11 of his 28 starts) against offenses in the top half of baseball. Most of the top offenses are in the AL due to the DH. I don't doubt his ERA would be over five. It might even be over 6. Dude can't pitch to talented lineups at all. Today marked his first time 11 attempts to get a quality start against one.

SI1020
09-06-2011, 01:16 PM
Whatever Arizona is teaching Hudson, I'm wondering why they didn't want to teach it to Scherzer and Schlereth. Point taken. I'm sure they wanted to but for whatever reasons things didn't work out. In fact, most prospects don't make the grade. It's just that I'm a Sox fan and we produce few enough on the farm. It's bothersome to see one of them thrive on another team. Maybe Zack Stewart is going to ease the pain and make us forget all of this.

asindc
09-06-2011, 01:42 PM
Point taken. I'm sure they wanted to but for whatever reasons things didn't work out. In fact, most prospects don't make the grade. It's just that I'm a Sox fan and we produce few enough on the farm. It's bothersome to see one of them thrive on another team. Maybe Zack Stewart is going to ease the pain and make us forget all of this.

Even though I was lukewarm at best about the Hudson/Jackson trade, I understood and understand now the points made against it, mainly that Jackson made as much money as he did and was not worth it. The reason I'm not as upset as others have been is that I was confident that KW would flip him for someone else comparable to Hudson if it didn't work out (for some reason, teams just can't help being seduced by Jackson's talent). I just don't believe Hudson will eventually be so much better (if at all) than Stewart to make us regret it long term. And if we had made/were going to make the playoffs with Jackson last year or this year, then I think it would have been worth it anyway. More to the point, Arizona MIGHT have caught a small break. They essentially traded Scherzer and Schlereth for Hudson.

PatK
09-06-2011, 02:11 PM
Well Hudson wouldn't be hitting higher than Dunn if he were in the AL, that's for sure!

A. Cavatica
09-06-2011, 10:26 PM
You can't teach a lollipop schedule.

It's like no one reads my posts. 2/3 of his starts are against the bottom feeders offensively. Yeah, he did his job against them (and got torched the other 1/3 of the time like clockwork). But he's not going to face bottom feeders 2/3 of the time in his career. The numbers will even out. His career ERA will be above 5.

Yeah, he's really lucky to have faced so many bottom feeders that he was able to start out his major league career 24-12 with a 3.19 ERA and a 1.16 WHIP. That happens all the time in the NL.

blandman
09-07-2011, 12:45 PM
Yeah, he's really lucky to have faced so many bottom feeders that he was able to start out his major league career 24-12 with a 3.19 ERA and a 1.16 WHIP. That happens all the time in the NL.

The lollipop schedule is what doesn't happen all the time. And when it hasn't happed for Hudson, it's been disastrous. Against teams not in the bottom half of offenses in baseball, his ERA is over 9. That's a NINE. That he's had less than 1/3 of his starts against he better 1/2 of offenses should make it obvious to anyone why he had such a great start. And even more obvious why his ERA continues to climb. The competition's been evening out.

A. Cavatica
09-07-2011, 04:45 PM
The lollipop schedule is what doesn't happen all the time. And when it hasn't happed for Hudson, it's been disastrous. Against teams not in the bottom half of offenses in baseball, his ERA is over 9. That's a NINE. That he's had less than 1/3 of his starts against he better 1/2 of offenses should make it obvious to anyone why he had such a great start. And even more obvious why his ERA continues to climb. The competition's been evening out.

:rolleyes:

Show your work.

kittle42
09-07-2011, 05:17 PM
:rolleyes:

Show your work.

He's wrong, I believe.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=hudsoda01&year=2011&t=p

Solely by runs scored to rank offenses, he has an ERA of 4.69 against the top 15 offenses in 2011.

A. Cavatica
09-07-2011, 07:19 PM
He's wrong, I believe.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=hudsoda01&year=2011&t=p

Solely by runs scored to rank offenses, he has an ERA of 4.69 against the top 15 offenses in 2011.

Let's look at his entire career (including his White Sox tenure) to max out the sample size:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=hudsoda01&year=Career&t=p

Scroll down to Opponent and look at the splits for WP < .500 and WP >= .500. There are 28 games against losing teams, 21 against winning teams. So bland is right about Hudson getting to see more losers than winners.

On the other hand, Hudson's OPS-allowed is lower against the winning teams (.656 versus .675). bland's claim that Hudson can't pitch well against the good teams is, like his defenses of Ozzie, without basis in fact.

We need a control for this experiment. Here's one, let's call him pitcher X:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=jacksed01&year=Career&t=p

Hmmm, .755 OPS-allowed against losing teams, .788 against winning teams. So pitcher X pitches worse against the good teams than the bad teams. Furthermore, both of Hudson's splits are better than both of player X's splits.

blandman
09-07-2011, 07:50 PM
He's wrong, I believe.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=hudsoda01&year=2011&t=p

Solely by runs scored to rank offenses, he has an ERA of 4.69 against the top 15 offenses in 2011.

Where on that page do you see that?

I got that bit from a Keith Law chat, but it was a week or so ago. The top offenses could have switched a bit. But the point is valid.

blandman
09-07-2011, 07:51 PM
Let's look at his entire career (including his White Sox tenure) to max out the sample size:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=hudsoda01&year=Career&t=p

Scroll down to Opponent and look at the splits for WP < .500 and WP >= .500. There are 28 games against losing teams, 21 against winning teams. So bland is right about Hudson getting to see more losers than winners.

On the other hand, Hudson's OPS-allowed is lower against the winning teams (.656 versus .675). bland's claim that Hudson can't pitch well against the good teams is, like his defenses of Ozzie, without basis in fact.

We need a control for this experiment. Here's one, let's call him pitcher X:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=jacksed01&year=Career&t=p

Hmmm, .755 OPS-allowed against losing teams, .788 against winning teams. So pitcher X pitches worse against the good teams than the bad teams. Furthermore, both of Hudson's splits are better than both of player X's splits.

Winning teams? That's not what I said at all, I said good offenses. Plenty of winning teams, like the Giants, have horrible offenses.

A. Cavatica
09-07-2011, 08:48 PM
Winning teams? That's not what I said at all, I said good offenses. Plenty of winning teams, like the Giants, have horrible offenses.

Then show your work.

kittle42
09-08-2011, 08:37 AM
Where on that page do you see that?

I got that bit from a Keith Law chat, but it was a week or so ago. The top offenses could have switched a bit. But the point is valid.

It took me all of 5 minutes to look up the top 15 offenses by runs per game, then cross check with Hudson's 2011 splits and calculate his ERA against those teams in 2011, which comes out to 32 ER in 61 1/3 innings.

So your info was wrong.

blandman
09-08-2011, 08:40 AM
It took me all of 5 minutes to look up the top 15 offenses by runs per game, then cross check with Hudson's 2011 splits and calculate his ERA against those teams in 2011, which comes out to 32 ER in 61 1/3 innings.

So your info was wrong.

Or the top fifteen offenses shifted a bit to exclude someone. In your cross-referencing were any of the starts quality starts? According to law, like two weeks ago he had none. His last start versus Colorado would have been his first.

kittle42
09-08-2011, 08:48 AM
Or the top fifteen offenses shifted a bit to exclude someone. In your cross-referencing were any of the starts quality starts? According to law, like two weeks ago he had none. His last start versus Colorado would have been his first.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/year/2011/seasontype/2

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=hudsoda01&year=2011&t=p#oppon_extra

He's only been beat up bad by the Braves (bottom half), Reds (top half), Astros (!!!) (bottom half), and Brewers (top half).

Anyway, I find it hard to believe the best offenses shifted that much unless this chat was like a month ago.

Bottom line is that the splits are not nearly as bad as stated.

blandman
09-08-2011, 09:07 AM
http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/year/2011/seasontype/2

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=hudsoda01&year=2011&t=p#oppon_extra

He's only been beat up bad by the Braves (bottom half), Reds (top half), Astros (!!!) (bottom half), and Brewers (top half).

Anyway, I find it hard to believe the best offenses shifted that much unless this chat was like a month ago.

Bottom line is that the splits are not nearly as bad as stated.

Actually, there's about 50 runs scored difference between 15th and 26th place. Lots of teams in between there. And that 26th team (the Astros) have had a pretty rough month, it's possible they were up there at the time. Not saying they were, but it's not unlikely.

But looking at that list, I see the teams like Philly and St. Louis, Kansas City and Cleveland (who's 16 now but there offense has faltered due to injury) that he failed against. If you look at those starts, Phillies, Braves, Reds and Colorado...the quality start thing makes sense. He's still only got the one.

A. Cavatica
09-08-2011, 06:15 PM
If you're looking only at 2011, the sample size is still small. How about the 29 innings Hudson threw in 2010 against the top 10 offenses (ranked by OPS)? The results: 29 IP, 24 H, 4 BB, 36 SO and a 1.55 ERA.

Add those in and the sample size is 90 innings. His ERA against the top 10 offenses is then a very respectable 3.67.

Edit: I see you used the top 15 teams by runs, not the top 10 by OPS, but it's probably not going to change the numbers much. The point is made.

blandman
09-08-2011, 07:18 PM
If you're looking only at 2011, the sample size is still small. How about the 29 innings Hudson threw in 2010 against the top 10 offenses (ranked by OPS)? The results: 29 IP, 24 H, 4 BB, 36 SO and a 1.55 ERA.

Add those in and the sample size is 90 innings. His ERA against the top 10 offenses is then a very respectable 3.67.

Edit: I see you used the top 15 teams by runs, not the top 10 by OPS, but it's probably not going to change the numbers much. The point is made.

Haha...yeah. If a sox pitcher had a stellar ERA in his first five starts and a terrible one in his next ten, I'm sure we'd all be "his ERA is a very respectable 3.67". :rolleyes:

A. Cavatica
09-08-2011, 07:52 PM
Haha...yeah. If a sox pitcher had a stellar ERA in his first five starts and a terrible one in his next ten, I'm sure we'd all be "his ERA is a very respectable 3.67". :rolleyes:

Except that his ERA hasn't been terrible in his last 10 starts, it's been mediocre in his last 10 starts against the teams that have the best offenses. If a Sox pitcher had a run like that, we'd call it routine.

blandman
09-08-2011, 09:28 PM
Except that his ERA hasn't been terrible in his last 10 starts, it's been mediocre in his last 10 starts against the teams that have the best offenses. If a Sox pitcher had a run like that, we'd call it routine.

Zing!

Anyway, that's the reason I don't get all the Hudson love. He's obviously not a top tier guy. He probably wouldn't have made our rotation at any point this season.

cws05champ
09-08-2011, 09:35 PM
Zing!

Anyway, that's the reason I don't get all the Hudson love. He's obviously not a top tier guy. He probably wouldn't have made our rotation at any point this season.
He was traded for Jackson who was in our rotation this year....and he was put in the rotation last year before he got traded. It is just patently false and inflammatory to say this. He wouldn't have made it over Stewart? Right!! :rolleyes:

Daver
09-08-2011, 09:38 PM
Zing!

Anyway, that's the reason I don't get all the Hudson love. He's obviously not a top tier guy. He probably wouldn't have made our rotation at any point this season.

Thanks Munch, you're always good for a chuckle.

blandman
09-08-2011, 09:46 PM
He was traded for Jackson who was in our rotation this year....and he was put in the rotation last year before he got traded. It is just patently false and inflammatory to say this. He wouldn't have made it over Stewart? Right!! :rolleyes:

And people think I'm over the top.

It is not patently false and inflammatory to question whether one fifth starter would make your rotation over another. Jesus.

mbwhitesox
09-16-2011, 04:50 PM
And people think I'm over the top.

It is not patently false and inflammatory to question whether one fifth starter would make your rotation over another. Jesus.

You have to be joking. 5th starter? For who the 90's Braves? I owned Hudson in my big money fantasy baseball league and thus have followed him closely all year, watching many of his games. It hurts as a Sox fan, but the guy is a very solid pitcher and since he's only 24 will likely continue to improve the next couple years.

You can argue about his competition level all you want, but the fact is since we traded him he's gone 23-11, with a 2.92 ERA, 1.09 WHIP and has 230Ks to 62 BBs. Even if you want to add an earned run to his ERA going from the NL to the AL, he still has very solid numbers and would be a middle of the rotation guy, at worst, for most teams.

blandman
09-16-2011, 05:05 PM
You have to be joking. 5th starter? For who the 90's Braves? I owned Hudson in my big money fantasy baseball league and thus have followed him closely all year, watching many of his games. It hurts as a Sox fan, but the guy is a very solid pitcher and since he's only 24 will likely continue to improve the next couple years.

You can argue about his competition level all you want, but the fact is since we traded him he's gone 23-11, with a 2.92 ERA, 1.09 WHIP and has 230Ks to 62 BBs. Even if you want to add an earned run to his ERA going from the NL to the AL, he still has very solid numbers and would be a middle of the rotation guy, at worst, for most teams.

If he were in the AL, he would face top half offense significantly more often. If he continues the pace of 1 quality start in 13 against them, I would assume his ERA would be a LOT higher than 1 more run per game.

He has back-end rotation stuff. That was always the scouts take on him, and it hasn't changed.

cws05champ
09-16-2011, 07:59 PM
You have to be joking. 5th starter? For who the 90's Braves? I owned Hudson in my big money fantasy baseball league and thus have followed him closely all year, watching many of his games. It hurts as a Sox fan, but the guy is a very solid pitcher and since he's only 24 will likely continue to improve the next couple years.

You can argue about his competition level all you want, but the fact is since we traded him he's gone 23-11, with a 2.92 ERA, 1.09 WHIP and has 230Ks to 62 BBs. Even if you want to add an earned run to his ERA going from the NL to the AL, he still has very solid numbers and would be a middle of the rotation guy, at worst, for most teams.

Forget it....bland man (err Munchman) is always right, everyone else is always wrong, and he has to get the last word in on every thread. You'll see..:rolleyes:

voodoochile
09-16-2011, 08:14 PM
Forget it....bland man (err Munchman) is always right, everyone else is always wrong, and he has to get the last word in on every thread. You'll see..:rolleyes:

Let's keep it on topic and not let this devolve into a fight. Attack the ideas, not the posters please.

Edit: you are free to walk away from any discussion at any time.

SI1020
09-16-2011, 08:42 PM
Forget it....bland man (err Munchman) is always right, everyone else is always wrong, and he has to get the last word in on every thread. You'll see..:rolleyes: The problem is easily remedied.

soxinem1
09-16-2011, 10:07 PM
If we would have kept Hudson, not only would he have led the team in wins, he could DH on his off days!!

Then again, Ozzie would have had him banished to the bullpen after his 0-4, near 6.00 ERA start, then sent him to AAA saying 'Dis kid is not ready to play at this level yet.... If at all'.

DumpJerry
09-16-2011, 10:35 PM
Let's keep it on topic and not let this devolve into a fight. Attack the ideas, not the posters please.

Edit: you are free to walk away from any discussion at any time.

The problem is easily remedied.
SI:did you read the post just before yours (included in this post for your reading pleasure)? Care to explain your comment?

SI1020
09-17-2011, 09:18 AM
SI:did you read the post just before yours (included in this post for your reading pleasure)? Care to explain your comment? Am I in trouble? Sorry for being repetitive.