Intellectual Exercise: Tim Hudson and the Hall of Fame

A few days ago, Tim Hudson earned the 200th win of his career. That may not sound like a big deal, but these days, 200 wins means a lot more than it used to. Only two other active pitchers have 200 wins: Andy Pettitte (248) and Roy Halladay (201). The only pitcher who's going to join that group anytime soon is C.C. Sabathia (195) and probably Mark Buehrle (175). 200 wins is becoming a more exclusive club than it used to be. Given that Hudson's now a member, and that he's still chugging along at age 37, is he on a Hall of Fame trajectory?

The best comparable for Hudson is probably Halladay, because of their similar ages and win totals. That might seem odd at first, because Halladay is perceived as a generational ace and a lock for the Hall while Hudson is considered good, not great. But based on these numbers, can you even tell them apart?

	Pitcher A	Pitcher B
Earned Run Average	3.42	3.35
Innings Pitched	2,717.1	2,719.1
Winning Percentage	.656	.661

They're basically identical (A is Hudson, B is Halladay). Using the traditional Holy Trinity of pitching statistics, Roy Halladay and Tim Hudson have had virtually the same career. If Halladay is a lock for the Hall of Fame, then shouldn't Hudson be in the same boat?

Of course, things are never really that simple:

	Tim Hudson	Roy Halladay
Strikeouts	1,825	2,097
Strikeout-to-Walk Ratio	2.22	3.69
Walks + Hits Per Inning	1.23	1.17
Complete Games	25	67
Cy Youngs	0	2
Adjusted-ERA+	125	132
Wins Above Replacement	54.7	66.1

Dig a little deeper and Halladay emerges as the clearly superior player. This case right here, coincidentally, is why wins and ERA by themselves aren't enough to evaluate entire pitching careers.

There are other problems for Hudson. He never led the league in any pitching statistic except for wins in 2000. He's been good in the postseason, but he's never gotten a chance to pitch beyond the first round (standard side-effect of playing for the A's and the Braves). He really only had three Cy Young-caliber seasons, so his peak wasn't anything to write home about. Instead, his case is built almost entirely on longevity. That fact is reflected in his middling career WAR total of 54.7, which puts him only 76th all-time, right around the likes of David Wells and Mark Buehrle.

Also problematic: in the last twenty years, only one pitcher with fewer than 300 wins has been elected to the Hall of Fame (Bert Blyleven with 283, and it took him 14 years on the ballot). This will change soon, because Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, John Smoltz, Roy Halladay, and Mike Mussina all have fewer than 300 wins. But each of those pitchers can boast something extra that Hudson just doesn't have. Pedro has the elite dominance; Schilling has postseason glory; Smoltz has 3,000 strikeouts; Halladay won Cy Youngs.

That leaves Mussina as Hudson's closest comparable out of that Fewer-Than-300 group. But Mussina has 70 more wins, 800 more innings, 1,000 more strikeouts, and he put up some of his best seasons in Camden Yards during the steroid-crazed '90s. Hudson doesn't stack up here, either.

If his career ended today, Tim Hudson would not make the Hall of Fame. He was a really good pitcher for 15 years. Guys like that typically need impressive career milestones -- either 3,000 strikeouts or 300 wins -- for a real shot at induction. The good news for Hudson? His career won't end today. He's still pitching, and pitching effectively. Since 2010, he's added 52 wins, 423 strikeouts, and over 600 innings to his career totals, all with an excellent ERA of 3.23. The bad news? He's already 37 years old, and he's still short 1,000 strikeouts and 100 wins. In all likelihood, he'll be remembered along with the likes of Roy Oswalt and Johan Santana as one of the best pitchers from the 2000s who didn't make the Hall of Fame. But even if he never ends up in Cooperston, he did win 15 games with a 2.98 ERA for the 2002 "Moneyball" Oakland Athletics, and that has to count for something.