Not really. The role of Effie is a plum role. Hell, that's half the battle to winning any acting award-- playing the part of a compelling character who is well-drawn by the playwright and who has great dramatic lines to say and (for musicals) a show-stopping song to sing. Hudson had nothing to do with any of that-- neither did Jennifer Holliday. Both were given this role and just asked to not screw it up, basically, to be known as being good in the role.
As far as winning top-of-the-food-chain awards, like Hudson and Holliday both did, you have to just act your heart out and milk those advantages given to you for all they are worth. It's similar to Forrest Gump. Some say that playing a retarded man is easy as pie-- well, that's not Tom Hanks' problem. He was given a role that was ready-made for accolades, as long as he didn't screw it up. And, bingo! Hanks wins the Oscar. That's just how things shake out.
Same thing here as with the Hicks-Daughtry observation I made. To observe what, to me, seems an oddity in no way reflects on whether or not JH deserved her Oscar. I like her and am happy for her. But I don't watch the Oscars and haven't seen the film, so can't form my own opinion as to her performance.
You are so right. The same thing happened five decades ago when Shirley Jones, an 18-year-old from Pennsylvania, took Broadway by storm.
http://www.nndb.com/people/795/000023726/
Some talents are just too great to be overlooked.