When a player makes the Hall of Fame, they fall into one of two categories. The first is “All-Time Great.” Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, Randy Johnson, Mariano Rivera. Players in the conversation about being the best ever at their position. These are the guys about whom it is most often said, “If he isn’t a Hall of Famer, I don’t know who is.” There are rarely any questions about whether or not they should be in the Hall of Fame. If they don’t receive some votes when they first appear on the ballot, the writers who omitted them are criticized for not seeing what the rest of us can see.
I was listening to Doc Gooden on the radio this morning and it struck me that his HOF case seems pretty underrated, all things considered. Since his career arc is viewed tragically, few rarely argue, "no actually, Doc IS a Hall of Famer." Gooden finished at 53 bWAR, which is low by HOF standards but exceeds guys like Jack Morris and Catfish Hunter. Morris was such a cause for so many years and Gooden never was. Why? It seems to be all about narratives and perceptions. The funny thing about Gooden v. Morris is that Gooden both had a ridiculously higher peak - his 1985 was, perhaps, the greatest season ever, and he carries that Koufax-level mystique for certain fans - and he managed to accumulate more value. He won multiple WS rings, so you can't call him a loser. Neither Morris nor Hunter hit big round numbers like Sutton (my father *hated* the idea of Don Sutton as a Hall of Famer) so their cases get even worse, the more you think about it.
I've become more sympathetic to the HOF as a place where great stories can be told. I get why Hunter and Morris are there - game 7 shutout, a great nickname and a lot of rings etc. But what of Gooden's story?
Jack Morris was the Burleigh Grimes of the 1980s.
I was listening to Doc Gooden on the radio this morning and it struck me that his HOF case seems pretty underrated, all things considered. Since his career arc is viewed tragically, few rarely argue, "no actually, Doc IS a Hall of Famer." Gooden finished at 53 bWAR, which is low by HOF standards but exceeds guys like Jack Morris and Catfish Hunter. Morris was such a cause for so many years and Gooden never was. Why? It seems to be all about narratives and perceptions. The funny thing about Gooden v. Morris is that Gooden both had a ridiculously higher peak - his 1985 was, perhaps, the greatest season ever, and he carries that Koufax-level mystique for certain fans - and he managed to accumulate more value. He won multiple WS rings, so you can't call him a loser. Neither Morris nor Hunter hit big round numbers like Sutton (my father *hated* the idea of Don Sutton as a Hall of Famer) so their cases get even worse, the more you think about it.
I've become more sympathetic to the HOF as a place where great stories can be told. I get why Hunter and Morris are there - game 7 shutout, a great nickname and a lot of rings etc. But what of Gooden's story?
Great read. I think you meant Phil Niekro, not Joe.
Hockey fans and writers in discussing this often talk about a (metaphorical) Hall of Very Good, to which we collectively slot players like Morris.