Your Hall of Fame Vote, Post-Mitchell

16 Yr WL% .634 194 112 430 410 68 24 4 3 2800.7 2564 1198 1091 210 954 2293 78 76 11705 42 33 3.51

Yeah, well, there's a pretty good case to be made for Doc too, Doc. Everybody who so quickly writes Koufax in ... Gooden was just as dominant for a relatively short time.

 

Sorry, shotty. Gooden's dominance doesn't approach what Koufax did.

 

We should just agree to vote in Dawson and Gossage this year and go about our day...

 

even bob gibson didn't put together koufax-like numbers. you have to go back a long way.

 

In his first 8 seasons (ages 19-26) Gooden was 132-53.
Not quite Koufax, but damn near as dominant.

Koufax is the best pitcher I ever saw --no matter how brief his great years . Gooden at his best was not far behind.

 

i hate to speak for doc, but i think he was speaking of koufax's final four or five years.

and if so, gooden isn't even in the same ballpark. not even close.

 

Well, I was, but spnited was comparing periods of dominance. For Gooden, it was his first seven years. For Koufax, it was his last six.

I'm looking at the numbers, and Gooden's only advantage is wins. Koufax owns every other category. He also won three World Series.

 

I think we may be likening Gooden's dominance to, say, Kerry Wood, whose dominance simply was not long enough (through no fault of his own).

Gooden was a Game 1 pitcher for a good number of years.

 

if you look at four, koufax kills gooden in wins.

 

I agree Doc. As I said, Koufax in his late 20s is the best, most dominant, overpowering pitcher I ever saw.

 

I would pay an ungodly sum of money to see Walter Johnson during his prime.

 

i'd pay more to time machine back to 1955 new york, but watching johnson wouldn't be far behind.