656E666A6F6E753036417860696E6E2F626E010 wrote: The most disappointing player of the season for me is Marte and it's not even close.
Good point. Maybe Kang too.
I wasn't really including Kang and Marte, sorry. I just meant based on the play on the field. In actual play on the field, Hudson is that guy for me. I expected a lot more from him. Very bad signing by Huntington and very bad use of his skills by Hurdle.
Just curious Dog, but what made you expect so much more from Hudson?
Bucs at Washington. Final series.
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Bucs at Washington. Final series.
0D202D3C3B2A3D7D7E4F0 wrote: The most disappointing player of the season for me is Marte and it's not even close.
Good point. Maybe Kang too.
I wasn't really including Kang and Marte, sorry. I just meant based on the play on the field. In actual play on the field, Hudson is that guy for me. I expected a lot more from him. Very bad signing by Huntington and very bad use of his skills by Hurdle.
Just curious Dog, but what made you expect so much more from Hudson?
I don't really look at ERA that much when analyzing relief pitchers. One bad outing can really fluctuate an ERA. Based on his 2016 season, I felt he only had like six or seven really bad outings out of like 60 games. I liked how he threw hard and got strike outs.
I expected a better season. He probably did the same exact thing as in 2016, but seeing it first hand opened my eyes more. I thought he could be part of a "big three" to close out the games.
Good point. Maybe Kang too.
I wasn't really including Kang and Marte, sorry. I just meant based on the play on the field. In actual play on the field, Hudson is that guy for me. I expected a lot more from him. Very bad signing by Huntington and very bad use of his skills by Hurdle.
Just curious Dog, but what made you expect so much more from Hudson?
I don't really look at ERA that much when analyzing relief pitchers. One bad outing can really fluctuate an ERA. Based on his 2016 season, I felt he only had like six or seven really bad outings out of like 60 games. I liked how he threw hard and got strike outs.
I expected a better season. He probably did the same exact thing as in 2016, but seeing it first hand opened my eyes more. I thought he could be part of a "big three" to close out the games.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Bucs at Washington. Final series.
5358505C5958430600774E565F5858195458370 wrote: The most disappointing player of the season for me is Marte and it's not even close.
Good point. Maybe Kang too.
I wasn't really including Kang and Marte, sorry. I just meant based on the play on the field. In actual play on the field, Hudson is that guy for me. I expected a lot more from him. Very bad signing by Huntington and very bad use of his skills by Hurdle.
Good post above too, Bobster.
Well yeah, like I said I thought he was going to be pretty good.
Good point. Maybe Kang too.
I wasn't really including Kang and Marte, sorry. I just meant based on the play on the field. In actual play on the field, Hudson is that guy for me. I expected a lot more from him. Very bad signing by Huntington and very bad use of his skills by Hurdle.
Good post above too, Bobster.
Well yeah, like I said I thought he was going to be pretty good.
-
Bobster21
Bucs at Washington. Final series.
3B30383431302B6E681F263E373030713C305F0 wrote: The most disappointing player of the season for me is Marte and it's not even close.
Good point. Maybe Kang too.
I wasn't really including Kang and Marte, sorry. I just meant based on the play on the field. In actual play on the field, Hudson is that guy for me. I expected a lot more from him. Very bad signing by Huntington and very bad use of his skills by Hurdle.
Just curious Dog, but what made you expect so much more from Hudson?
I don't really look at ERA that much when analyzing relief pitchers. One bad outing can really fluctuate an ERA. Based on his 2016 season, I felt he only had like six or seven really bad outings out of like 60 games. I liked how he threw hard and got strike outs.
I expected a better season. He probably did the same exact thing as in 2016, but seeing it first hand opened my eyes more. I thought he could be part of a "big three" to close out the games.
Assessing relievers is always difficult because they exist in a world of small sample sizes. A couple bad outings can skyrocket an ERA. On the other hand, a series of scoreless 1-inning stints makes them look good even if they were putting men on base and/or getting lucky on hard-hit outs. Many relievers find it difficult to be consistent from 1 year to the next.
When Hudson was signed I was hopeful but not optimistic that he would be valuable. The risk was that were signing a 30-year old reliever who hadn't been better than average or worse since he was a 24-year old starter and hoping he would pitch better than his recent history suggested he was capable. It was the classic reclamation project. Some have worked. Others, like this one, haven't.
Good point. Maybe Kang too.
I wasn't really including Kang and Marte, sorry. I just meant based on the play on the field. In actual play on the field, Hudson is that guy for me. I expected a lot more from him. Very bad signing by Huntington and very bad use of his skills by Hurdle.
Just curious Dog, but what made you expect so much more from Hudson?
I don't really look at ERA that much when analyzing relief pitchers. One bad outing can really fluctuate an ERA. Based on his 2016 season, I felt he only had like six or seven really bad outings out of like 60 games. I liked how he threw hard and got strike outs.
I expected a better season. He probably did the same exact thing as in 2016, but seeing it first hand opened my eyes more. I thought he could be part of a "big three" to close out the games.
Assessing relievers is always difficult because they exist in a world of small sample sizes. A couple bad outings can skyrocket an ERA. On the other hand, a series of scoreless 1-inning stints makes them look good even if they were putting men on base and/or getting lucky on hard-hit outs. Many relievers find it difficult to be consistent from 1 year to the next.
When Hudson was signed I was hopeful but not optimistic that he would be valuable. The risk was that were signing a 30-year old reliever who hadn't been better than average or worse since he was a 24-year old starter and hoping he would pitch better than his recent history suggested he was capable. It was the classic reclamation project. Some have worked. Others, like this one, haven't.
Bucs at Washington. Final series.
082528393E2F38787B4A0 wrote:
When Hudson was signed I was hopeful but not optimistic that he would be valuable. The risk was that were signing a 30-year old reliever who hadn't been better than average or worse since he was a 24-year old starter and hoping he would pitch better than his recent history suggested he was capable. It was the classic reclamation project.
Hudson was missing the one element that is common among all other, "NH reclamation projects."
The price/contract.
I agree with you that Hudson should have been seen as a reclamation project. The problem is that NH didn't see him as that. He gave him a multi-year deal at market rate.
If NH really saw him as a reclamation project, he'd only have been willing to give him a one year deal at a much lower price.
He totally missed on this one.
When Hudson was signed I was hopeful but not optimistic that he would be valuable. The risk was that were signing a 30-year old reliever who hadn't been better than average or worse since he was a 24-year old starter and hoping he would pitch better than his recent history suggested he was capable. It was the classic reclamation project.
Hudson was missing the one element that is common among all other, "NH reclamation projects."
The price/contract.
I agree with you that Hudson should have been seen as a reclamation project. The problem is that NH didn't see him as that. He gave him a multi-year deal at market rate.
If NH really saw him as a reclamation project, he'd only have been willing to give him a one year deal at a much lower price.
He totally missed on this one.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Bucs at Washington. Final series.
577A77666170672724150 wrote: The most disappointing player of the season for me is Marte and it's not even close.
Good point. Maybe Kang too.
I wasn't really including Kang and Marte, sorry. I just meant based on the play on the field. In actual play on the field, Hudson is that guy for me. I expected a lot more from him. Very bad signing by Huntington and very bad use of his skills by Hurdle.
Just curious Dog, but what made you expect so much more from Hudson?
I don't really look at ERA that much when analyzing relief pitchers. One bad outing can really fluctuate an ERA. Based on his 2016 season, I felt he only had like six or seven really bad outings out of like 60 games. I liked how he threw hard and got strike outs.
I expected a better season. He probably did the same exact thing as in 2016, but seeing it first hand opened my eyes more. I thought he could be part of a "big three" to close out the games.
Assessing relievers is always difficult because they exist in a world of small sample sizes. A couple bad outings can skyrocket an ERA. On the other hand, a series of scoreless 1-inning stints makes them look good even if they were putting men on base and/or getting lucky on hard-hit outs. Many relievers find it difficult to be consistent from 1 year to the next.
When Hudson was signed I was hopeful but not optimistic that he would be valuable. The risk was that were signing a 30-year old reliever who hadn't been better than average or worse since he was a 24-year old starter and hoping he would pitch better than his recent history suggested he was capable. It was the classic reclamation project. Some have worked. Others, like this one, haven't.
Stat wise, Hudson probably had a better season in 2017 than 2016. Still wasn't good enough for me. The Bullpen needs help next year.
Good point. Maybe Kang too.
I wasn't really including Kang and Marte, sorry. I just meant based on the play on the field. In actual play on the field, Hudson is that guy for me. I expected a lot more from him. Very bad signing by Huntington and very bad use of his skills by Hurdle.
Just curious Dog, but what made you expect so much more from Hudson?
I don't really look at ERA that much when analyzing relief pitchers. One bad outing can really fluctuate an ERA. Based on his 2016 season, I felt he only had like six or seven really bad outings out of like 60 games. I liked how he threw hard and got strike outs.
I expected a better season. He probably did the same exact thing as in 2016, but seeing it first hand opened my eyes more. I thought he could be part of a "big three" to close out the games.
Assessing relievers is always difficult because they exist in a world of small sample sizes. A couple bad outings can skyrocket an ERA. On the other hand, a series of scoreless 1-inning stints makes them look good even if they were putting men on base and/or getting lucky on hard-hit outs. Many relievers find it difficult to be consistent from 1 year to the next.
When Hudson was signed I was hopeful but not optimistic that he would be valuable. The risk was that were signing a 30-year old reliever who hadn't been better than average or worse since he was a 24-year old starter and hoping he would pitch better than his recent history suggested he was capable. It was the classic reclamation project. Some have worked. Others, like this one, haven't.
Stat wise, Hudson probably had a better season in 2017 than 2016. Still wasn't good enough for me. The Bullpen needs help next year.
-
DemDog
Bucs at Washington. Final series.
272C24282D2C377274033A222B2C2C6D202C430 wrote: The most disappointing player of the season for me is Marte and it's not even close.
Good point. Maybe Kang too.
I wasn't really including Kang and Marte, sorry. I just meant based on the play on the field. In actual play on the field, Hudson is that guy for me. I expected a lot more from him. Very bad signing by Huntington and very bad use of his skills by Hurdle.
Just curious Dog, but what made you expect so much more from Hudson?
[highlight]I don't really look at ERA that much when analyzing relief pitchers[/highlight]. One bad outing can really fluctuate an ERA. Based on his 2016 season, I felt he only had like six or seven really bad outings out of like 60 games. I liked how he threw hard and got strike outs.
I expected a better season. He probably did the same exact thing as in 2016, but seeing it first hand opened my eyes more. I thought he could be part of a "big three" to close out the games.
A mistake not looking at ERA for relief pitchers. See if you used critical thinking about Hudson your thoughts about him going into the season might have been different. Naughty Dog, get with the program or you will continue to make a laughing stock out of your self.
Good point. Maybe Kang too.
I wasn't really including Kang and Marte, sorry. I just meant based on the play on the field. In actual play on the field, Hudson is that guy for me. I expected a lot more from him. Very bad signing by Huntington and very bad use of his skills by Hurdle.
Just curious Dog, but what made you expect so much more from Hudson?
[highlight]I don't really look at ERA that much when analyzing relief pitchers[/highlight]. One bad outing can really fluctuate an ERA. Based on his 2016 season, I felt he only had like six or seven really bad outings out of like 60 games. I liked how he threw hard and got strike outs.
I expected a better season. He probably did the same exact thing as in 2016, but seeing it first hand opened my eyes more. I thought he could be part of a "big three" to close out the games.
A mistake not looking at ERA for relief pitchers. See if you used critical thinking about Hudson your thoughts about him going into the season might have been different. Naughty Dog, get with the program or you will continue to make a laughing stock out of your self.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Bucs at Washington. Final series.
Possum, will you please stop. I don't know why you are attacking every single one of my posts lately.
I said why I don't look just at ERA in accessing Relief Pitchers. Another poster (a well respected poster too) even agreed with me due to small sample sizes. I even said what else I look at in my "critical thinking". Looking at just ERA is a bad way to access a relief pitcher in my opinion.
I said why I don't look just at ERA in accessing Relief Pitchers. Another poster (a well respected poster too) even agreed with me due to small sample sizes. I even said what else I look at in my "critical thinking". Looking at just ERA is a bad way to access a relief pitcher in my opinion.
-
Bobster21
Bucs at Washington. Final series.
48687B6667090 wrote:
When Hudson was signed I was hopeful but not optimistic that he would be valuable. The risk was that were signing a 30-year old reliever who hadn't been better than average or worse since he was a 24-year old starter and hoping he would pitch better than his recent history suggested he was capable. It was the classic reclamation project.
Hudson was missing the one element that is common among all other, "NH reclamation projects."
The price/contract.
I agree with you that Hudson should have been seen as a reclamation project. The problem is that NH didn't see him as that. He gave him a multi-year deal at market rate.
If NH really saw him as a reclamation project, he'd only have been willing to give him a one year deal at a much lower price.
He totally missed on this one.
I also thought they overpaid. But at the time, I read an analysis of the signing (don't recall where) and it said the Pirates were taking a risk but at a reasonable price. I guess when compared to bigger spending teams, it wasn't a big contract but it was a lot for the Pirates. 5.5 million this year and next. I hope they don't go into 2018 expecting him to be a late inning guy.
When Hudson was signed I was hopeful but not optimistic that he would be valuable. The risk was that were signing a 30-year old reliever who hadn't been better than average or worse since he was a 24-year old starter and hoping he would pitch better than his recent history suggested he was capable. It was the classic reclamation project.
Hudson was missing the one element that is common among all other, "NH reclamation projects."
The price/contract.
I agree with you that Hudson should have been seen as a reclamation project. The problem is that NH didn't see him as that. He gave him a multi-year deal at market rate.
If NH really saw him as a reclamation project, he'd only have been willing to give him a one year deal at a much lower price.
He totally missed on this one.
I also thought they overpaid. But at the time, I read an analysis of the signing (don't recall where) and it said the Pirates were taking a risk but at a reasonable price. I guess when compared to bigger spending teams, it wasn't a big contract but it was a lot for the Pirates. 5.5 million this year and next. I hope they don't go into 2018 expecting him to be a late inning guy.
Bucs at Washington. Final series.
486568797E6F78383B0A0 wrote:
When Hudson was signed I was hopeful but not optimistic that he would be valuable. The risk was that were signing a 30-year old reliever who hadn't been better than average or worse since he was a 24-year old starter and hoping he would pitch better than his recent history suggested he was capable. It was the classic reclamation project.
Hudson was missing the one element that is common among all other, "NH reclamation projects."
The price/contract.
I agree with you that Hudson should have been seen as a reclamation project. The problem is that NH didn't see him as that. He gave him a multi-year deal at market rate.
If NH really saw him as a reclamation project, he'd only have been willing to give him a one year deal at a much lower price.
He totally missed on this one.
I also thought they overpaid. But at the time, I read an analysis of the signing (don't recall where) and it said the Pirates were taking a risk but at a reasonable price. I guess when compared to bigger spending teams, it wasn't a big contract but it was a lot for the Pirates. 5.5 million this year and next. I hope they don't go into 2018 expecting him to be a late inning guy.
I think the term, "reasonable," was used in reference to the amount of money in total. At $11 mil, it's nowhere near the type of contract that will crush an organization.
But a guy who's had the type of career Hudson has had (disappointing) and is a relief pitcher (not even a closer or an established, successful, setup guy), the deal he got was not reasonable.
When Hudson was signed I was hopeful but not optimistic that he would be valuable. The risk was that were signing a 30-year old reliever who hadn't been better than average or worse since he was a 24-year old starter and hoping he would pitch better than his recent history suggested he was capable. It was the classic reclamation project.
Hudson was missing the one element that is common among all other, "NH reclamation projects."
The price/contract.
I agree with you that Hudson should have been seen as a reclamation project. The problem is that NH didn't see him as that. He gave him a multi-year deal at market rate.
If NH really saw him as a reclamation project, he'd only have been willing to give him a one year deal at a much lower price.
He totally missed on this one.
I also thought they overpaid. But at the time, I read an analysis of the signing (don't recall where) and it said the Pirates were taking a risk but at a reasonable price. I guess when compared to bigger spending teams, it wasn't a big contract but it was a lot for the Pirates. 5.5 million this year and next. I hope they don't go into 2018 expecting him to be a late inning guy.
I think the term, "reasonable," was used in reference to the amount of money in total. At $11 mil, it's nowhere near the type of contract that will crush an organization.
But a guy who's had the type of career Hudson has had (disappointing) and is a relief pitcher (not even a closer or an established, successful, setup guy), the deal he got was not reasonable.