Tim Hudson in the second half

[d18Mike]

"key stats". if k/9 and bb/9 are more "key" than era or W v. L than I think you are misguided. his era in comparison to the league average has been pretty consistent - this year aside. a slight drop -but by no means significant.

you are referrig to key fantasy stats. while some of them translate to era - that is the much more telling statistic, along with wins.

take a guy like glavine this year for example. his "key stats" k/9 and bb/9 suck - but he is 11-2 witha solid era. I think the mets would have rathered had him for the first half of the year than peavy who's "key stats" are much more impressive.

I understand peavy is a stud and glavin is an aging veteran - but who would you have rathered had in the first half of the year??

Point taken. If you think that W-L are a key performance indicator for pitchers then I'll leave you in peace and you can consider yourself correct. I don't want to get into it. Good luck!

[bjc3345]

I hear what you are saying - most of the great pitchers do have solid "key stats" k/9 , bb/9 - but my point is despite hudson lacking in certain of those areas - his winning % has always been solid. taking that over a 7-8 year career tells me the guy has been one of the best and is not and has not been overhyped. It all started with the big 3 discussion and how overrated they were. when on the same staff - they were deadly. two lefties with differeing styles and then a solid workhouse in the middle. play a 3 game series against them and good luck.

and era to me is important. w-l - I agree to a point. BUT - there are guys like david wells who may not have the stats to back it up - but ultimately can pitch into his 40's and simply win games. when his team gets him 8 - he may be sloppy and let up 5, when his team gets him 2 - he lets up 1.

good disucssion - and I appreciate the info. I just like to defend the big 3 b/c I truly think that was an amazing staff and would have enjoyed to see them together along time. could have worked if they were the ny a's or boston a's.

[The Loveable Losers]

I hear what you are saying - most of the great pitchers do have solid "key stats" k/9 , bb/9 - but my point is despite hudson lacking in certain of those areas - his winning % has always been solid. taking that over a 7-8 year career tells me the guy has been one of the best and is not and has not been overhyped. It all started with the big 3 discussion and how overrated they were. when on the same staff - they were deadly. two lefties with differeing styles and then a solid workhouse in the middle. play a 3 game series against them and good luck.

and era to me is important. w-l - I agree to a point. BUT - there are guys like david wells who may not have the stats to back it up - but ultimately can pitch into his 40's and simply win games. when his team gets him 8 - he may be sloppy and let up 5, when his team gets him 2 - he lets up 1.

good disucssion - and I appreciate the info. I just like to defend the big 3 b/c I truly think that was an amazing staff and would have enjoyed to see them together along time. could have worked if they were the ny a's or boston a's.

Zito had a good year or two but really fell off...same for the other guys. They really fell off after their first few years but continued to be rated high by people based on their past history. They were overrated because people had seen what they *could* do. Unfortunately not a one of them could still live up to those lofty expectations anymore. Got to hand it to Billy Beane too...he didn't overpay to keep them...he let someone else overpay for their declining skill sets.

[bjc3345]

they are much more valuable as the big 3 then they are individually. I think they complemented each other with differing styles night after night and I think they would all have been better if they could have stuck together. just my opininon.

take care - thanks for the discussion.