| Team | League | Year | W | L | G | GS | SV | IP | H | HR | BB | SO | ERA | Ratio | WHIP | Rating | K/W | $ |
| SLN | NL | 1959 | 3 | 5 | 13 | 9 | 0 | 75.2 | 77 | 4 | 39 | 48 | 3.33 | 13.80 | 1.53 | 1.35 | 1.2 | |
| SLN | NL | 1960 | 3 | 6 | 27 | 12 | 0 | 86.2 | 97 | 7 | 48 | 69 | 5.61 | 15.06 | 1.67 | 1.52 | 1.4 | |
| SLN | NL | 1961 | 13 | 12 | 35 | 27 | 1 | 211.1 | 186 | 13 | 119 | 166 | 3.24 | 12.99 | 1.44 | 1.25 | 1.4 | |
| SLN | NL | 1962 | 15 | 13 | 32 | 30 | 1 | 233.2 | 174 | 15 | 95 | 208 | 2.85 | 10.36 | 1.15 | 1.04 | 2.2 | |
| SLN | NL | 1963 | 18 | 9 | 36 | 33 | 0 | 254.2 | 224 | 19 | 96 | 204 | 3.39 | 11.31 | 1.26 | 1.18 | 2.1 | |
| SLN | NL | 1964 | 19 | 12 | 40 | 36 | 1 | 287.1 | 250 | 25 | 86 | 245 | 3.01 | 10.52 | 1.17 | 1.15 | 2.8 | |
| SLN | NL | 1965 | 20 | 12 | 38 | 36 | 1 | 299.0 | 243 | 34 | 103 | 270 | 3.07 | 10.41 | 1.16 | 1.16 | 2.6 | |
| SLN | NL | 1966 | 21 | 12 | 35 | 35 | 0 | 280.1 | 210 | 20 | 78 | 225 | 2.44 | 9.25 | 1.03 | 1.00 | 2.9 | |
| SLN | NL | 1967 | 13 | 7 | 24 | 24 | 0 | 175.1 | 151 | 10 | 40 | 147 | 2.98 | 9.80 | 1.09 | 1.06 | 3.7 | |
| SLN | NL | 1968 | 22 | 9 | 34 | 34 | 0 | 304.2 | 198 | 11 | 62 | 268 | 1.12 | 7.68 | 0.85 | 0.81 | 4.3 | |
| SLN | NL | 1969 | 20 | 13 | 35 | 35 | 0 | 314.0 | 251 | 12 | 95 | 269 | 2.18 | 9.92 | 1.10 | 1.01 | 2.8 | |
| SLN | NL | 1970 | 23 | 7 | 34 | 34 | 0 | 294.0 | 262 | 13 | 88 | 274 | 3.12 | 10.71 | 1.19 | 1.11 | 3.1 | |
| SLN | NL | 1971 | 16 | 13 | 31 | 31 | 0 | 245.2 | 215 | 14 | 76 | 185 | 3.04 | 10.66 | 1.18 | 1.12 | 2.4 | |
| SLN | NL | 1972 | 19 | 11 | 34 | 34 | 0 | 278.0 | 226 | 14 | 88 | 208 | 2.46 | 10.17 | 1.13 | 1.05 | 2.4 | |
| SLN | NL | 1973 | 12 | 10 | 25 | 25 | 0 | 195.0 | 159 | 12 | 57 | 142 | 2.77 | 9.97 | 1.11 | 1.05 | 2.5 | |
| SLN | NL | 1974 | 11 | 13 | 33 | 33 | 0 | 240.0 | 236 | 24 | 104 | 129 | 3.83 | 12.75 | 1.42 | 1.35 | 1.2 | |
| SLN | NL | 1975 | 3 | 10 | 22 | 14 | 2 | 109.0 | 120 | 10 | 62 | 60 | 5.04 | 15.03 | 1.67 | 1.52 | 1.0 | |
| Career | 17yrs | 251 | 174 | 528 | 482 | 6 | 3884.1 | 3279 | 257 | 1336 | 3117 | 2.91 | 10.69 | 1.19 | 1.12 | 2.3 | ||
| 13 comments | |
|
ROTOMAVIN 4 months ago
|
In response to both Rotoman and SandCrab, while I respect and appreciate your points, please do not tell me its a different era, and I do not mean Earned Run Average! Gibson pitched well before the large expansion list of teams with AAA hitters taking part in a Big League game. This also holds true for pitchers. I will not dispute any thing said or written about Maddux or Pedro, both future Hall of Famers (take that Dodgers and Delino Deshields), but we have to be honest when we write about the true GREATS of sports. In football, Jimmy Brown would have been a star now just a bright as in the 60's. Wilt Chamberlain would dominate basketball today even more so than in his era. Gibson, Koufax, Drysdale, Spahan, Feller, McClain, Ford, Hunter, Ryan, and the list goes on, would be just as dominate today as in their day. In fact, I would think Koufax would be even better (modern chemistry, Tommy John surgery). The great players from an generation would be great today. In reverse, do you think some of the juiced up players (including pitchers) would be as good in the 60's with out their juice? Finally, no one would ever consider Gibson made of glass...not sure of that point. Yes Pedro was a dominant pitcher in what you call the "live ball era" but keep in mind, he was great while the rest of the class was average. Take that into consideration when you compare league stats. One last point: Barry Bonds would have been a Hall of Fame player no matter what era he played in. Because of the "juice" he has lost respect and his job, but you can not take away his stats any more than you can Gibson's. |
|
SandCrab 4 months ago
|
Certainly context of an era is the key...he may be made of glass now and that probably colors some current opinions of him but look again at the run that Pedro had and marvel. Maddux as well, but Pedro's dominance during the Live Ball/PED era will written about 50 years from now. |
|
Rotoman 4 months ago
|
I would never impugn Gibson, who was a giant of his time, but I'm not sure your logic holds up, ROTOMAVIN. Baseball is a game of contexts. There are those who say that somehow Abner Doubleday got the size of the field right 150 years ago, when clearly the beauty of it is that the game has adjusted within the framework of the rules. And when they get too far out of balance, as they had in 1968 and 1922 and 1927 and a multitude of times, the powers that be change them. The game used to be different. Hitters weren't as strong. Nor were they as multitalented. Most lineups had not only a bad-hitting pitcher to toss to, but a weak-hitting shortstop and as slow-footed catcher and at least one other guy who wasn't very good. All modern hitters (almost) can hit a ball out of the park, and will if the pitcher lets down. I know it's hard to say that pitching talent is better today given the onslaught of hitting the last 15 years, but I can't see any reason why pitchers athleticism wouldn't have improved during that time the way athletes have in all sports. In any given era complete games and shutouts are a measure of the pitcher, but that has to be taken within the context of his peers. The game is constantly changing for a lot of reasons, and to ignore that is to overlook the amazing balance that otherwise prevails. We can't compare raw numbers across eras, but the balance that is intrinsic to the game lets us triangulate. Which is a good reason to spend time in bars. |
|
ROTOMAVIN 4 months ago
|
Gibson averaged over 228 innings per year over the course of his career!! His career WHIP was 1.19!! Yes, he was one of the best of his era. The real point is that after the 1968 season, due most in part to Gibson's year, they lowered the pitching mound to give the hitters more of an advantage. This was the start of MLB trying to change the playing field to gain more fans by having offense back in the picture. If you recall, that was the season Denny McClain won 31 games! But what strikes me is that Gibson had 13 shutouts that season...13!!! B. Webb had the most shutouts in 2007 with 3! If you look at all sports, the athlete has become bigger, faster, and in most cases, a better player than in the previous generations. However, in baseball it is very clear that pitching has not been dramatically changed due to generational improvement. A fast ball is still a fastball and a curve is still a curve. What has changed is the investment of owners on pitchers, and to protect that investment, they pitch them less. The proof is in the stats...check them out. Complete games are way down, wins are down. It would seem baseball is now contemplating a six man rotation in some cases. In Gibson's era, it was a four man rotation. No one can tell me the pitching talent is better today than in 1968! The only difference is in the care of the pitchers (Tommy John surgery), weights, "juice", and personal trainers. Gibson, Koufax, McClain, all would have been just as dominant today as then. Several last points about Gibson, he was not only a great pitcher, but he was an outstanding hitter as well. He was a great fielder who could have played other positions if he had wanted to go that route. Finally, he was one tough S.O.B. who took no crap from any player. Much like Nolan Ryan, he would kick your butt if you gave him cause. |
|
TJRohr 4 months ago
|
OK, Eugene. Let's take a look at this page: http://home.istar.ca/~mbein/baseball.html You can click on "ML Walks Per Game" (http://home.istar.ca/~mbein/Baseball/MLBB.JPG) and see that rates were lower than today from 1900-1920 for the AL and 1900-1940 for the NL. Rates were actually HIGHER than today in the 1950s. They dropped a bit in the mid-'60s, then spiked BIG TIME right around 1968 (Gibson's huge year) to about the levels they are today. The late '70s and early '80s rates are virtually indistinguishable from today. |
| more... show all |