No. Not Close.Quote:
Originally Posted by herbertstemple
Bob GibsonQuote:
Originally Posted by badbilly32
Gibson had one monster year in 68, but otherwise does not compare.
Printable View
No. Not Close.Quote:
Originally Posted by herbertstempleBob GibsonQuote:
Originally Posted by badbilly32
Gibson had one monster year in 68, but otherwise does not compare.
one thing for sure you guys know your baseball.great minds working apart is your downfall. put plop willie druff china and one more together. put a game thats 2 days away or one one of you like state why put feed back of pros and cons in a business way then vote to see if you bet.by working together you guys should cash 90 percent of the bets you place by the vote. it takes 3 out of 5 to make the bet. if all 5 say bet then you bet double the standered bet is say 500.by useing all 5 mines you should have thousands to spli by end of season.
you got any more old watches? i need to pay rentQuote:
Originally Posted by delaware
i got PLOPed
no that 1895 is the oldest by over 60 years. i have a 24 year old grandson myself but he not and never will be worth a shit. thats why druff is getting the watch for benjamin. i thinks it will be in the in the witteles family for another 120 years.
in wrist watches theres not many older in pocket yes.like i said it might be the only thing the whittles family may never sell until a very rich man comes along. but a thousand years from now this watch will still be running and looking great.
Really, does not compare?Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOvenNo. Not Close.Quote:
Originally Posted by herbertstemple
Gibson had one monster year in 68, but otherwise does not compare.
Here are some lifetime stats to compare
ERA
Gibson 2.91
Maddux 3.16
Complete Games
Gibson 255
Maddux 109
Shut Outs
Gibson 56
Maddux 35
Batting Average against
Gibson .228
Maddux .250
OPS against
Gibson .622
Maddux .649
Maybe Maddux does not compare so well to Gibson.
Do some research next time pal.
Gibson played in an extreme pitcher's era. Martinez and Maddux played in an extreme hitter's era. When you normalize the stats, the picture becomes clear. Obviously, Gibson is a hall of fame pitcher, but does not compare to the elite.
Do some research next time is lol. Wade back into the shallow end, dupey.
In 1968 teams averaged 3.43 runs a game. In 2000, it was 5.30. So making an apples to apples comparison is something a 5th grader would do. And he'd be as proud of his conclusions as you are.
mound was higher and a distinct advantage for the pitchers in gibsons era..compare the batting avg /hr /rbi etc. etc .from the two eras plus maddux was up against the juicers and he def was not on roids..I bet u maddux's era is lower than gibsons compared to the batting avg of both times..and no I didn't do any research but I think im right madduxs era and whip would be better when doing the comparison..plus madux only threw the ball 42 mph lolQuote:
Originally Posted by herbertstempleReally, does not compare?Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOven
Here are some lifetime stats to compare
ERA
Gibson 2.91
Maddux 3.16
Complete Games
Gibson 255
Maddux 109
Shut Outs
Gibson 56
Maddux 35
Batting Average against
Gibson .228
Maddux .250
OPS against
Gibson .622
Maddux .649
Maybe Maddux does not compare so well to Gibson.
Do some research next time pal.
Why punish Gibson because he pitched in an era when pitchers were better?Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOven
As far as the hard work you put into you research, lets look at it a little more in depth and realize that you aren't comparing apples to apples and that you are actually trying to deceive everyone. Gibson pitched from 1959 to 1975. In that time NL teams averaged 4.098 runs per game. Maddux pitched from 1986 to 2008, NL teams averaged 4.486 runs per game or a
difference of .388 runs a game, a noticeable difference, but nothing like the almost 2 runs a game difference you are trying to trick everyone into believing.
In 3 World Series Maddux was 2 - 3 in 5 starts. In 3 World Series Gibson was 7 - 2 in 9 starts with 2 World Series MVP awards. 8 of the 9 games were CG. Maddux was also a choker.
As far as the mound being lowered(sometimes known as the Gibson rule), it should have had a profound affect on Gibson because that height mound was what he had always pitched off. By the time Maddux came along, the 10 inch mound was what he had learned to pitch off and he never had to deal with any changes.
Here is Gibson"s Per Year ERA after the mound was lowered in 1969
1969 2.18
1970 3.12
1971 3.04
1972 2.46
1973 2.77
1974 3.83
1975 5.04
Both LaRussa and Gibson have well deserved reps as being world class assholes so anything is possible. To my knowledge Trammell's a nice guy but he may be tied at the hip to Gibson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbertstempleWhy punish Gibson because he pitched in an era when pitchers were better?Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOven
As far as the hard work you put into you research, lets look at it a little more in depth and realize that you aren't comparing apples to apples and that you are actually trying to deceive everyone. Gibson pitched from 1959 to 1975. In that time NL teams averaged 4.098 runs per game. Maddux pitched from 1986 to 2008, NL teams averaged 4.486 runs per game or a
difference of .388 runs a game, a noticeable difference, but nothing like the almost 2 runs a game difference you are trying to trick everyone into believing.
In 3 World Series Maddux was 2 - 3 in 5 starts. In 3 World Series Gibson was 7 - 2 in 9 starts with 2 World Series MVP awards. 8 of the 9 games were CG. Maddux was also a choker.
As far as the mound being lowered(sometimes known as the Gibson rule), it should have had a profound affect on Gibson because that height mound was what he had always pitched off. By the time Maddux came along, the 10 inch mound was what he had learned to pitch off and he never had to deal with any changes.
Here is Gibson"s Per Year ERA after the mound was lowered in 1969
1969 2.18
1970 3.12
1971 3.04
1972 2.46
1973 2.77
1974 3.83
1975 5.04
It's not about punishing Gibson. It's simply evaluating how much above average a guy was for his era. Don't use ERA and OPS against, use ERA+ and OPS+ against and you'll see a clearer picture. Times change, using complete games is worthless because of the style of the game. Also, why throw Gibson out as the best ever when he wasn't even the best of his time (Koufax)?
Even on a poker site you want to look at a sample size of 5 games? C'mon.
I unrest and that Willie lies. I mean those wsop stories lol. Omg! But who was it that actually died?
Don't you get anything? These aren't 5 games in April, thiis is the World Series. Don't you realize the difference? When Maddux was needed the most by his team, he was an average pitcher, Gibson remained a star.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOvenQuote:
Originally Posted by herbertstemple
It's not about punishing Gibson. It's simply evaluating how much above average a guy was for his era. Don't use ERA and OPS against, use ERA+ and OPS+ against and you'll see a clearer picture. Times change, using complete games is worthless because of the style of the game. Also, why throw Gibson out as the best ever when he wasn't even the best of his time (Koufax)?
Even on a poker site you want to look at a sample size of 5 games? C'mon.
You also miss the point about the complete games. In Maddux's time if he got in trouble, he would be pulled for the bullpen to come in and bail him out. During Gibson's time, when he got in trouble, he was left out there to deal with it. Does your ERA+ take that into account?
Through most of Gibsons career there were no divisions, just 2 leagues. So every team played every team the equal amount of games, 22 until 1961, then 18 until 1968. This means that his opponents saw him more than Maddux's opponents saw Maddux. The more a batter sees a pitcher the more of an advantage it is for the batter. Does your ERA+ take this into account?
During Cardinal broadcasts the announcers(Caray and Buck) couldn't tell the difference between Gibsons curve and slider because the slider broke so much. Tim McCarver claimed it broke a foot. Don't know about his fastball speed, mid to high 90's at least but with a lot of action, He also threw a sharp 12/6 curveball. Gibson had the best slider ever. So that was Bob Gibson, overpowering fastball, sharp curveball and that slider. He as so good he rarely threw any type of changeup. Gibson had some control problems early in his career, but when Gibson was on the mound in his prime, nobody had the "stuff" he had, nobody.
If you think Kofax was better, prove it.
Roberto Clemente
AB 125
AVG .208
SO 32
HR 4
vs Gibson
Willie Mays
AB 92
AVG .196
SO 30
HR 3
vs Gibson
Hank Aaron
AB 163
AVG .215
SO 32
HR 8
vs Gibson
Mickey Mantle 10 .100 5 1
AB 10
AVG .100
SO 5
HR 1
vs Gibson
Dealware, I really like this idea, but there's one major problem. Together, we are some of the greatest minds in the industry. But, do we really want to use that power to break some bookie? I propose an alternate idea. We get a list of some of the most deserving charities and then vote on which one we think is best. Whichever charity gets the most votes, we then dedicate 100% of our energy on helping that cause, and end up changing the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by delaware
http://giphy.com/gifs/rpjQiKYTjt9a8/html5Quote:
Originally Posted by PLOLDealware, I really like this idea, but there's one major problem. Together, we are some of the greatest minds in the industry. But, do we really want to use that power to break some bookie? I propose an alternate idea. We get a list of some of the most deserving charities and then vote on which one we think is best. Whichever charity gets the most votes, we then dedicate 100% of our energy on helping that cause, and end up changing the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by delaware
The GOAT is not between Gibson & Maddux so just STFU. It's an argument nobody can win considering in no particular order:
Maddux
Clemens
Gibson
Koufax
Feller
Pedro Martinez
Seaver
Carlton
Paige
Grove
Cy Young
Walter Johnson
Randy Johnson
Mathewson
Nolan Ryan
are all in the conversation. A case could be made for any of them & a few more I haven't even listed.
Trying to change somebody else's mind to your side is like banging your head against a a brick wall. What's the sense?
Dave Stieb
Jimmy Key
The Cubs have an amazing streak going:
https://soundcloud.com/dnainfo-radio...reak-continues
7,825 games since they've been no-hit. The last time somebody threw a no-hitter vs. the Cubs was in 1965 by Sandy Koufax
They also have another amazing streak put together. The last time they had a hit that matteredQuote:
Originally Posted by PLOL
(*closet Cubs fan here)
is that satchel paige? hes the only one id throw off that list,,,thats a really good listQuote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Guy
id think about throwing warren spahn on that list as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by badbilly32is that satchel paige? hes the only one id throw off that list,,,thats a really good listQuote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Guy
Do you guys know that they collect stats on baseball? Nolan Ryan, for real? A 112 career ERA+?
Yeah, so he walked a few too many guys & that hurts some of his stats & therefore any really good argument for him. Does this mean I can't even list him? He had many, many qualities that a person would want to discuss when talking about the GOAT pitcher. That's why he'd be at least mentioned in the conversation IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOven
Can you name a more overpowering pitcher? Or one that did it for 26+ years? I guarantee you can't.
Stats don't tell you everything although Ryan has plenty of great stats too. Did it really hurt your feelings that badly that I listed him? It's just a list I made off the top of my head & I didn't look up any stats.
Opinions cannot be right, they can only be debated & discussed.
Robin Ventura advises that you should not offend Nolan RyanQuote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOven
https://www.yaktab.com/en/87-XIGPbhj...%20Ventura.gif
No payout from Druff yet, and he's dodging my PMs. DRUFFSTOLE.COM coming soon
Druff stole my roll and all I got was this hat
green rep for druff
I would send you the money, but Willie already talked me into refunding his half because of that deal you made but supposedly didn't make.
:siren
funds are also on hold until the end of delaware's trial
we must find out if plol PLOP'd something into the cards pre-game meal in chicago
delaware assures me the trial should begin by the end of november
Is this really true?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff