The Case for Daniel Hudson to be in the All-Star Game

by cardinalswsbound on Jul 5, 2011 2:02 PM EDT

A popular phrase goes that only two things in life are guaranteed, death and taxes. I nominate, however, that we add All-Star snubs into that, as every year there is at least one or two players who deserved to be in the All-Star game but weren't. This year, the biggest and most notorious snub is Andrew McCutchen, whose WAR among Outfielders is second only to Joey Bats. Among Pitchers, CC Sabathia seems to be the popular choice, however, he wouldn't even have been able to pitch in it because he starts the Sunday before, so I nominate Daniel Hudson as a contender. David Schoenfield talked of Ian Kennedy from the D-Backs as a possible final vote candidate, but one of his Arizona rotation-mates is much better qualified to appear. Comparing the two, Kennedy has a better K/9 rate and has more IP, but Hudson has more W (yeah that doesn't mean anything but I just decided to include it for kicks), a better BB/9, HR/9, GB%, FIP, and has a nearly one-win better WAR. Comparing him to the rest of the National League, his 3.2 WAR ranks 5th, his FIP 9th, and his BB/9 10th. On top of all that, his BABIP is above .300 and he pitches in one of the most-hitter friendly parks in the league, which also happens to be where the All-Star Game is this year. I'm not saying he should be an All-Star, just that he deserves just as much talk as any other snub.

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Interesting stuff

He has been pretty darn good and I have heard almost nothing about him. Another cool comparison: Hudson’s 3.2 WAR puts him equal to Tim Lincecum so far.

The very symbol, the outward and visible expression of the drive, and push, and rush and struggle of the raging, tearing, booming nineteenth century! -- Mark Twain

by mattybobo on Jul 6, 2011 10:02 AM EDT reply actions

I think the rise of the relief pitcher All-Star is primarily to blame for this.

I don’t think that there should be that many relievers who make the All-Star Game. Dozens of starting pitchers would lights-out relievers. Starting is harder than relieving. So, why don’t we reward starters?

"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."

--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS

by bgh on Jul 6, 2011 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions

Yeah

And the relievers they do put in usually aren’t very good, i.e. Jose Valverde, Brandon League, and Brian Wilson.

by cardinalswsbound on Jul 6, 2011 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't think the All Star Game

has ever had a fair voting system, not even when the fans did all the voting.
Realistically, I don’t think it’s possible. Somebody will get snubbed no matter what.
The whole thing has become such a mess that it wouldn’t hurt my feelings if they did away with it totally.

Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983

by Dave Pendleton on Jul 6, 2011 11:23 AM EDT reply actions

The fans used to vote for pitchers?

Of first glance, other than picking relievers, whoever picks the pitchers actually does a pretty good job with it and at least this year, the relievers are all elite (Although why Craig Kimbrel didn’t make it is beyond me).

Fan vote is literally shit so I don’t understand the comment “not even when the fans did all the voting” – I’d have to imagine it was worse when the fans did all the voting since they regularly vote in at least two joke players (Jeter for instance)

"And a boring game for boring people. Did you ever watch golf on television? It's like watching flies FUCK. Think of the intellect it must take to draw pleasure from this activity: hitting a ball with a crooked stick and then WALKING AFTER IT" -George Carlin
President of the Tyler Greene fan club - In need of Secretary and Public Speaker

TWITTER

by stlcardsfan4 on Jul 8, 2011 3:28 AM EDT up reply actions

yea, thanx for pointing that out.

I totally screwed up what I meant.
“not even before the fans did all the voting” was what I meant.
My bad!!!
I really wish the voting would be given back to the players. There was probably some bias going on then too but a better team would take the field. It more resembled “All Stars”.
Today’s game should be called “The Fan’s Choice” game or “The Popularity Game”.
There’s just something wrong about fans being able to vote multiple times and thinking that it’s a fair system, especially when some teams have a huge fan base advantage. It’s more like American Idol. The best talent doesn’t always make the finals.
And, why should every team be represented? Some teams may not have an All Star caliber player.
Please excuse the rant, but over the years I’ve watched baseball make some really detrimental moves, (IMO) that are obviously not “in the best interest of the game” but are more in the best interest of generating revenue. I’m sure that some will say that generating revenue is in the best interest of the game, but I can’t afford to go anymore, so I have a different slant on it.
Old timers like me probably feel the impact more than younger fans because we remember a better system, a more fair system. All Stars were really All Stars, for the most part, and the two best teams in baseball were the teams that played in the World Series instead of possibly some “also ran’s” who got hot in a playoff.
Again, pardon me, please. The All Star Game and Playoffs do this to me every year. It’s nice to have a place to vent, even if nobody agrees with me.

To put it simply….this isn’t the girl I married, the one I use to know. I still love her but I wish she hadn’t changed. She looked better before all the make-up. But I guess the best girl is the one you have….just like beer.

So I’ll make a case for Daniel Hudson to be in the All-Star Game…..sure, why not?

Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983

by Dave Pendleton on Jul 10, 2011 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions