When the discussion of best players not in the Hall of Fame turns to Don Mattingly and Dwight Gooden, as it invariably does, a distinction has to be made about why a player's performance declined. In some cases, allowances should be made. In others, they most certainly should not.
Don Mattingly was the best player in baseball--bar none (imo)--for a four year span. In my humble opinion based on statistical analysis, and from watching him play as I was growing up, there was nobody on that same level with Mattingly. You had Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs, extraordinary hitters who put up similar batting averages, yes, but they did not have the power that Mattingly had. Gwynn was an outstanding fielder early in his career, and Boggs became a decorated fielder, later in his career. Gwynn also possessed speed that neither Mattingly or Boggs had. But if you are looking at the total package, Mattingly was clearly the most rounded player of the three.
You also had players with equal or greater power, and similar run production. Names like Dale Murphy, Mike Schmidt, Darryl Strawberry, Jose Canseco, Eric Davis, and Jim Rice come to mind in the mid to late 80s. But while some could match his power and run production, and may have even excelled in the field as Schmidt did, nobody could touch him from a pure hitting standpoint. To be a .330 + hitter, with 30 + home runs, 100 + RBI, and spectacular defensive ability-that has always been a rare thing indeed. Mattingly could change the outcome of a game with his glove or his bat. And when injuries robbed him of his elite abilities, he was still a very good player. Look at his career numbers. He had two All Star caliber seasons after his peak. Then his average and power numbers dipped. But then from 1991-1995 he regained his hitting abilities. Certainly his power was gone, but he was hitting in the .290s to .300 again, and still playing spectacular defense. So when I look at his career in the aggregate, I see a man that was a hitter without peer in his prime, and one of the best defensive first basemen to ever play the game throughout his career. He was the one offensive player everybody in the 80s wished they could be. That to me says Hall of Famer.
The Baseball Writers put Sandy Koufax in for five great years. Well, look at Don Mattingly's production 1984-1988:
152 games, 100 runs, 206 hits, 44 doubles, 27 home runs, 114 RBI, .332 AVG
In 3,412 plate appearances between 1984 and 1988, Mattingly struck out 176 times. That's an average of 35 strikeouts per season.
Get rid of 1988, and look at 1984-1987, and his four year averages are mind boggling for the era:
154 games, 102 runs, 210 hits, 46 doubles, 30 home runs, 121 RBI, .337 AVG, .941 OPS.
In that four year span, he had 4 All Star selections, an MVP, an MVP runner up (again, I felt he should have won the MVP in 1986 when he had 117 runs scored, 238 hits, 53 doubles, 31 home runs, 113 RBI, and hit .352, but it went to Roger Clemens instead, who won the Cy Young), 3 Gold Gloves, 3 Silver Slugger Awards.
He dominated the game. He was the most feared hitter in the game during hi prime. If his back hadn't robbed him of his power, there's no telling where he would have ended up.
At 28 years old, Mattingly already had 1,300 hits, 164 home runs and 717 RBI. From 1984 to 1989 (I eliminated 1982 when he had only 12 at bats, and 1983 when had only 279 at bats), he was averaging 203 hits per year, or 216 hits per 162 games played. Now, certainly, he wouldn't have kept that torrid pace up, but say he has about a 10% drop in production, and averages 183 hits per season. In a little over 9 years, or at age 37, he's crossing 3,000 hits. His back robbed him of that.
Now, when you look at Dwight Gooden, the circumstances are completely different. Dwight Gooden robbed himself of a chance at true greatness.
Just how good was Gooden?
His first three years in the Major Leagues were the best first three years any pitcher has had since 1950. I used Baseball Reference to try and quantify this based on WAR.
13 shutouts in his first three seasons, tying him with Jerry Koosman, of all people, for the most ever.
Most strikeouts? Gooden again leads the pack with Hideo Nomo's 703 ending up second, and Tim Lincecum third at 676.
Certainly this comparison is no guarantee of greatness. We all remember Steve Blass, who went from being 19-8 with a 2.49 ERA in 1972 at age 30 to completely losing his ability to pitch the next year. Obviously, this is an extreme, but it just shows that anything is possible in baseball.
Gooden, even though he wasn't the same dominant pitcher he was in his first three seasons, when he won 58 games before he was 22, was still a pretty good pitcher at age 25. He'd won 100 games, had a career 2.64 ERA, and had struck out 1,168 batters in 1,291 innings. But somewhere along the way, early in his career, Gooden started taking drugs. Cocaine. He would end his career with 194 wins against 112 losses. A .634 winning percentage. Still pretty darned good. 2,293 strikeouts. A 3.51 career ERA. 24 shutouts and one no hitter.
But he could have been so much more. Gooden had the stuff to win 300 games. No, he could have won a lot more games than 300. He could have approached 200 wins by age 30. This is a guy who had the kind of stuff pitching coaches drool over. His fastball, which consistently touched 98 mph, wasn't even his best pitch. His curveball was so devastating it was given the nickname "Lord Charles".
But he threw it all away. Many people lament Mickey Mantle and what could have been if he had only taken care of himself. He was famous for staying out all night, for drinking with Whitey, Billy, Yogi and the rest of the Yankees. He was a frequent guest at Toots Shor's restaurant. He thought he was going to die young, so he burned the candle at both ends. And he played through one injury after another. Even though he didn't take care of himself, he's still one of the all-time greats. But he still could have done more.
Well, I feel that way when I look at one of my old Dwight Gooden baseball cards. He could have been the best ever if only he'd stayed clean.