Giants righty Tim Hudson says he’s hanging up his cleats after the season, as John Shea of the San Francisco Chronicle reports on Twitter. Previously, the 40-year-old had indicated that he was likely to retire, but it now appears he has made up his mind.
“This is definitely my last year, for sure,” said the veteran. “It’s the right thing to do. It’s the right time for me and my family.”
This season hasn’t been quite the send-off that Hudson might have hoped for (though he had quite a memorable outing last night). He has missed time due to injury and is carrying an ERA over four per nine for just the third time in 17 seasons.
But Hudson is still remarkably useful given his age. He has continued to generate a groundball rate of over 50% and would undoubtedly draw plenty of interest as a free agent were he to consider signing.
Still, it’s not terribly surprising to hear that Hudson has decided to call it quits. He has made clear throughout the year that things were likely headed in that direction. And as he and his wife discussed in the above-linked piece, via Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports, a variety of considerations beyond pitching capability have driven the decision.
We’ll have to wait until the end of the year to make a final tally of Hudson’s overall body of work, but needless to say, it will be impressive. Hudson broke into the league with the Athletics back in 1999, spent nine years with the Braves, and capped it off in San Francisco. All told, he has racked up over 3,000 innings with a lifetime earned run average of less than 3.50 runs per nine innings.
Those results came mostly via a sterling 58.0% career groundball rate rather than dominant strikeout tallies. In fact, Hudson has averaged only 6.0 K/9 against 2.6 BB/9 in his career. He nevertheless managed to compile over fifty wins above replacement over his career as a consistent, quality, and durable rotation piece.
That body of work is probably not enough to get him into Cooperstown, but Hudson undoubtedly rates as one of the best pitchers of his era.
Not surprising. The guy probably has something left in the tank to still be a reliable back end starter for a contender next year. But this ensures he’ll leave more or less on his own terms. Congrats on the career Hudson, you were always fun to watch.
Speaking of borderline HoF pitchers, the post about Mark Buehrle had me thinking about him yesterday. I know he’s always talking about retiring, but if he goes another 2-4 years, I think that would go a long way to strengthening his case. He’s got 50-60 WAR, and for old school voters, he’s got 5 All-Stars, 4 Gold Gloves, a WS ring, a no-hitter, and a perfect game. No Cy Young love or anything, but 2-4 more years would put him near 250 wins and 60-70 WAR.
I still think he’d fall short, but his (and Hudson’s) WAR totals are impressive.
For Hall of Fame I believe at least one question that has to be asked is were they ever considered one of the best pitchers of their generation. For both Buhrele and Hudson the answer is no. In their careers I wouldn’t consistently call them top 10 pitchers in the game.
Well if you’re going by that then half the pitchers in the hall shouldn’t be in there. Huddy should get the nod for the Win tally alone. For me to get 200 plus wins w/ .626 win % in the middle of the steroid era is a default nod.
Someone has gotta get the win each day, regardless of the era. Having juicers both sides of the dugout doesn’t make it any more special getting the “W” – it’s a guaranteed stat for someone. They aren’t more exclusive because of the time period.
If I were a voter – which I’m clearly not – I’d be more interested in his rate stats during that time.
While I agree that having juicers in both dugouts doesn’t make a win more special, time period does matter. The proliferation of relievers means that more relievers are picking up wins (in other words, starters are picking up less of them) and also that relievers can blow or maintain a lead. Anyone in this era that can pile up wins over a long period of time (which would diminish the luck involved with relievers) is impressive. I don’t place much stock in wins in determining value over specific seasons, but for guys like Hudson, it means a little something.
There’s also five- and six-man rotations and the fact that virtually no one makes more than 33-35 starts a season anymore.
The HoF voters aren’t constrained to electing only the “ten best” in a player’s generation. The actual criteria: “Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
A strong comparison. Buehrle’s durability “could” work in his favor. I agree that where they stand now, they’ll fall short.
They both remind of me of Jack Morris. I guess much of it depends on timing too. With most of the juggernauts from the early 2000s already in, the HoF’s view on pitchers could change.
Tim Hudson (and Buehrle) have had better quality percentage/rate stats than Jack Morris. This is most evident in ERA+ and WAA.
Morris 105 ERA+, 9.6 WAA
Hudson 120 ERA+, 30.4 WAA
Buehrle 117 ERA+, 29.7 WAA
Jack Morris seems more like an abbreviated Don Sutton, durable and slightly above league average for a long time. His glaringly low WAA is particularly a strong indicator that he was more compiler than genuine ace. Tim Hudson has pitched on a noticeably higher level.
All the staples of my childhood…STOP RETIRING!
I always loved watching Hudson pitch when he was with the Braves… as a Giants fan, I’ve loved watching him pitch for the Giants, and even being a part of a WS championship for them.
Hope he has a wonderful retirement with his family. Maybe someday we’ll see him in Cooperstown and in dugouts coaching future young pitchers.
Got a chance to see him pitch live a lot, as a marlins fan. Always one of my favorites. Very professional. Was a bulldog. Great athlete. He could hit too. Just short of Cooperstown. If he hadn’t lost some time to injury, maybe those numbers would be slightly better. Congrats on a great career, and I was glad to see him win a ring last year