Bob Gibson/Juan Marichal

[64Cards]

Tossup, if you only factor in the regular season. Gibson may have been the greatest WS pitcher ever, that makes his career resume more impressive. From 63-69, with the exception of 67, when Marichal only went 14-10, pitching around 200 innings instead of his usual 300, [injury?] Juan had Cy Young type numbers every season, but Koufax, Gibson or Seaver would put up an even better season. Ironically in 67, with Koufax retired, Gibson only winning 13 because of a broken leg, the NL CYA was won by Marichal's teammate on SF, Mike McCormick, kind of a journeyman lefthander who had a carrer season.

[StanTheMan]

Gibson, but I'm biased.... when my Dad took me to Bob Gibson day in 1975 (I was 4....) can I say that I saw him play?

I'll take Gibson's SEVEN Consecutive COMPLETE GAME victories in the World Series as a record MORE unbreakable than his 1.12.

Regardless of how good his teams were, who had more wins, etc.... when a big game was on the line, Gibson was a good as anyone ever, except for maybe Walter Johnson.

[85cards]

I imagine John Roseboro would have picked Gibson.

[Myankee4life]

I'd say Marichal....Gibson's overrated imo because of his '68 season...and Marichal never had a season of that magnitude. The job of a pitcher is to win ballgames..and Marichal did it better.

[538280]

I don't understand how ANYONE can choose Gibson here. It always seems that half his reputation is base on his INCREDIBLY OVERRATED 1968 season.

ERA is NOT the only thing in the world. Gibson played for champion teams for most of his career, and you can say what you like about run support, but if he was that good- he would have won more games. Or else, maybe the Cards were just not trying on the mound.

He was good, and his won-lost record doesn't reflect how good he was, becasue his run support was consistently awful in his career, and is seemed to be particularly bad when Gibby was at his best. In 1968 his run support was 9% below league average. Here's his run support for all his 7 best years by ERA+:

Year-IP-ERA+-RS
1968-314-258-91
1969-294-164-89
1962-233-150-84
1965-299-147-81
1972-278-138-100
1961-211-136-81
1970-294-132-108

One good year of run support, 1970. And guess what he did in that one year? He led his league in wins. Other than that in his best years his run support was consistently awful. The not so great won-lost records are not his fault, but rather the fault of the Cardinal offense.

Marichal didn't have the best support in his two best years, 1965 and 1969 (not surprisingly, his W-L records are like Gibson's those years). But, those were the only years he didn't get tremendous support. Outside of those years, his run support was usually about 20% better than league. The year he won 26 games (1968) his run support was 44% better than league. Now, is it really Gibson's fault that he had four less wins that year, when Marichal had run support 53% better?

The other year he led the leauge in wins, 1963, he had a 116 run support index, and the next year he was at 132.

Over his career, Marichal had a 116 run support index, 16% better than league. Gibson was at 97, so that's 19% better support for Marichal.

Over at Baseball Prospectus, they adjust won-lost records, trying to account for a number of factors and place everyone on an equal playing field. They have Gibson with a won-lost record 28 points higher than Marichal. This is a more fair representation.

Gibson's teams were better than Marichal's- why is it on these forums that other pitchers who pitched for top teams and dynasties like Ford, Caruthers, Mathewson, Gomez, god knows who else- get penalized of have their won lost records taken with a grain of salt when they win a boatload of games, but when Gibson fails to win said boatload with his league's best team, he gets accolades and explanations for why it's actually the numbers that are at fault.

The Cardinals didn't seem to be helping Gibson too much. That team won more because of pitching (because of Gibson!) than with offense anyway.

Tell me, how do you guys think Gibby would've done with, say, the Cubs or the Mets? Would he have put together seasons like Fergie or Tom?

Just as good or even better. Seaver and Jenkins got about the same support as Gibson. Better question-How do you think Marichal would have done with those teams, and 19% worse run support?

Overall, Buzz, your whole argument is pretty much based on won-lost records, which are completely unfair to Gibson and biased towards Marichal. Gibson beats him in pretty much every other measure.

[Tigerfan1974]

Gibson, hands down.

[Buzzaldrin]

I don't understand how ANYONE can choose Gibson here. It always seems that half his reputation is base on his INCREDIBLY OVERRATED 1968 season.

ERA is NOT the only thing in the world. Gibson played for champion teams for most of his career, and you can say what you like about run support, but if he was that good- he would have won more games. Or else, maybe the Cards were just not trying on the mound.

Until Marichal got sick and hurt in 1970 (and yes, after that Gibson was much better- it destroyed Marichal's career), there was not ONE SINGLE SEASON OF THEIR CAREERS that Gibson won as many games as Marichal.

Gibson's teams were better than Marichal's- why is it on these forums that other pitchers who pitched for top teams and dynasties like Ford, Caruthers, Mathewson, Gomez, god knows who else- get penalized of have their won lost records taken with a grain of salt when they win a boatload of games, but when Gibson fails to win said boatload with his league's best team, he gets accolades and explanations for why it's actually the numbers that are at fault.

Tell me, how do you guys think Gibby would've done with, say, the Cubs or the Mets? Would he have put together seasons like Fergie or Tom?

And, whatever you say lies behind the numbers- there are only five pitchers in the past 85 years who have had three 25 win seasons, and one of them is named Marichal.

The other four are named Grove, Newhouser, Feller, and Koufax- not Gibson. He never had one season like that- managed 23 once and 22 once- with fabulous teams.

Heck, I saw him play- saw both of them play- Gibson didn't even make it look as good. I just don' understand the Gibby worship. Heck, it was only ONE world class season in the best pitchers' year since the teens- it doesn't put him on a pedestal.

[Rome Colonel]

Marichal had the better lifetime ERA (2.89 to 2.91) but they're really about even, though very different pitchers. Gibson was the more initimidating and had over 800 more strikeouts. On the other hand, he walked almost twice as many batters as Marichal.

Of course no one had a year like Gibson did in 1968, but even with the best support I doubt he could have won 30 since he only started 34 games (22-9). McLain won 31 that year but he had 41 starts.

Much of Gibson's reputation is based on his WS performance (1.89 ERA). Marichal only pitched 12 innings in the post season (4 in the WS), but did very well (1.50 ERA, 10 SO, 2 W). Had he played in three WS he may have done as well as Gibson.

The one area where Gibson was clearly superior was as a hitter, with a .206 lifetime and 24 HR to Marichal's .165 and 4. He even hit over .300 one year.

Marichal is always remembered for the 1965 bat swinging incident, but Gibson had a rep for throwing at people. He did hit more batters than Marichal
(102 to 40).

[KCGHOST]

With a heavy heart I voted for Gibson. As a Dodger fan of the 60's I have nothing but the highest regard for Marichal.

[538280]

Not very close in my mind. Gibson. Gibson of course has better ERAs, better DIPS elements, better everything except for the won-lost record. That's always the case for Marichal, the won-lost. But what people don't realize is that Marichal received some of the best run support of any pitcher, ever, while Gibson received pretty bad support, especially in his best seasons. Gibson pitched well enough to win 30+ games in 1968, but didn't because his run support was about is gay

[Bill Burgess]

Anyone want to tackle an old-fashioned face-off?

Bill