PDA

View Full Version : Who was greater: Clemens or Gibson?


ranger_bob
01-06-2007, 01:32 PM
I've had this discussion on another board and the results were a bit surprising. I've decided to bring it to a few other forums. Which of these was the greater pitcher: Roger Clemens or Bob Gibson?

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 01:38 PM
Tough to compare pitchers from different eras but Clemens wins this hands down.

Gregory Pratt
01-06-2007, 01:38 PM
Pedro Martinez.

But of those two, it's Gibson. And he did it without The Juice.
Ooooooh, controversy!

Oblong
01-06-2007, 01:40 PM
I don't see it being that close to be honest. Clemens.

Rockabilly
01-06-2007, 01:40 PM
I would go with Nolan Ryan being the best pitcher ever

but out of these two pitchers my vote would be Gibson

Oblong
01-06-2007, 01:40 PM
Pedro Martinez.

But of those two, it's Gibson. And he did it without The Juice.
Ooooooh, controversy!


and maybe Clemens did it without the speed. Amphetimene use in the 60s and 70s was widespread.

Just sayin'

Grzegorz
01-06-2007, 01:46 PM
Bob Gibson

* 3,117 strikeouts
* National League MVP (1968)
* World Series MVP Award (1964, 1967)
* 8-time All-Star (1962, 1965-70, 1972)
* Gold Glove Award (1965-1973)
* Cy Young Awards (1968, 1970)
* ERA of 1.12 in 1968 is major league best in the Live Ball Era, 2nd best all-time ERA.
* Eight World Series Wins
* Record for most strikeouts during a World Series (35 Ks in 1968)

Gregory Pratt
01-06-2007, 01:47 PM
amphetamines were widespread in the 1990s, too.

But seriously.
How anybody can think that the argument for Best Pitcher Alive involves Clemens is beyond me.

Maddux and Martinez are both above him and that's just in his generation!

tick53
01-06-2007, 01:52 PM
Gibson was an intimidator. He even made Willie Mays think twice.:D:

Gregory Pratt
01-06-2007, 01:54 PM
Gibson was an intimidator. He even made Willie Mays think twice.:D:

Ha!


"'Don't dig in against Bob Gibson, he'll knock you down. Don't stare at him. He doesn't like it. If you happen to hit a home run, don't run too slow, don't run too fast. If you happen to want to celebrate, get in the tunnel first. And if he hits you, don't charge the mound, because he's a Gold Glove boxer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gloves).' I'm like, 'Damn, what about my 17-game hitting streak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitting_streak)?' That was the night it ended."

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 02:12 PM
Bob Gibson

* 3,117 strikeouts
* National League MVP (1968)
* World Series MVP Award (1964, 1967)
* 8-time All-Star (1962, 1965-70, 1972)
* Gold Glove Award (1965-1973)
* Cy Young Awards (1968, 1970)
* ERA of 1.12 in 1968 is major league best in the Live Ball Era, 2nd best all-time ERA.
* Eight World Series Wins
* Record for most strikeouts during a World Series (35 Ks in 1968)

Clemens has been an All-Star 11 times and a Cy Young winner SEVEN times. In terms of 162 game averages, Clemens has started more games, given up fewer hits, fewer runs and fewer walks. He has less wild pitches, less hit batters and a better WHIP.

But these comparisons are somewhat pointless. Gibson pitched in the NL and got to face pitchers while Clemens did most of his pitching in the AL and had to face designated hitters. Gibson has hit more guys but that was a larger part of the game back then. Gibson has more complete games but that was the norm before bullpens came into greater favor. Again, it is tough to compare the two.

Also, Gibson won seven WS games, not eight. And I assume that the second best all-time ERA applies to the lively ball era as three pitchers have better single-season ERAs, two of which are in the modern era.

FedEx227
01-06-2007, 02:23 PM
amphetamines were widespread in the 1990s, too.

But seriously.
How anybody can think that the argument for Best Pitcher Alive involves Clemens is beyond me.

Maddux and Martinez are both above him and that's just in his generation!

Cy Young Awards
Clemens - 7
Maddux - 4
Martinez - 3

All-Star Games
Clemens - 11
Maddux - 8
Martinez - 8

Career ERA
Clemens - 3.10
Maddux - 3.07
Martinez - 2.81

Career WHIP
Clemens - 1.170
Maddux - 1.136
Martinez - 1.026

Strikeouts
Clemens - 4604
Maddux - 3169
Martinez - 2998

Win-Loss Percentage
Clemens - .662
Maddux - .621
Martinez - .691

Total Wins
Clemens - 348
Maddux - 333
Martinez - 206

Make your own judgments.

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 02:26 PM
Make your own judgments.

My judgment is that these three guys are all amazing pitchers. I would say these three rank as three of the top five pitchers in the last 20 years. I would say Randy Johnson and Johan Santana are the other two.

Fenway
01-06-2007, 02:30 PM
Very tough call but I would get a slight edge to Gibson. Gibson was perhaps the best money pitcher of all time with the exception of one bad inning in Game 7 of the 68 WS

TIGERS 7TH: Stanley was called out on strikes; Kaline grounded
out (third to first); Cash singled to right; Horton singled to
left [Cash to second]; Northrup tripled to center [Cash scored,
Horton scored]; Freehan doubled [Northrup scored]; Wert was
walked intentionally; Lolich was called out on strikes; 3 R, 4
H, 0 E, 2 LOB. Tigers 3, Cardinals 0.

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B10100SLN1968.htm

Gregory Pratt
01-06-2007, 02:50 PM
Cy Young Awards
Clemens - 7
Maddux - 4
Martinez - 3


Pedro Martinez pitched on teams that should've won more games for him. Take 2002. He led in Strikeouts, ERA and WHIP yet lost to Zito because Zito had, what, three more wins? Cy Youngs are shams.

I have no problem with any of the other evidence, though.

--

Pedro Martinez is the greatest pitcher to ever live, IMO.

thomas35forever
01-06-2007, 03:26 PM
I have to go with Clemens. How long did Gibson pitch in the Majors?

Oblong
01-06-2007, 03:38 PM
amphetamines were widespread in the 1990s, too.

But seriously.
How anybody can think that the argument for Best Pitcher Alive involves Clemens is beyond me.

Maddux and Martinez are both above him and that's just in his generation!

What wasn't the question posed. It was Gibson vs. Clemens. Are you giving credit to Gibson because Clemens also pitched at the same time as Maddux and Pedro?

Gibson's 1968 looks spectacular viewed against history. Viewed against the 1968 Year of the Pitcher it's simply the best that year. There's a best every year.

I have no love for Clemens but he was greater than Gibson. Others were greater than both of them.

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 03:55 PM
Pedro Martinez pitched on teams that should've won more games for him. Take 2002. He led in Strikeouts, ERA and WHIP yet lost to Zito because Zito had, what, three more wins? Cy Youngs are shams.

I have no problem with any of the other evidence, though.

--

Pedro Martinez is the greatest pitcher to ever live, IMO.

So the only reason Zito won was because he had more wins, huh? C'mon. It isn't like Jose Lima beat out Martinez. Zito was more than deserving of the award. Martinez not reaching 200 IP hurt his chances, IMO.

Like it or not, wins are still a significant stat when looking at the effectiveness of a pitcher. Yeah, yeah, the offense plays a part in the pitchers wins but it isn't like crappy pitchers are getting significant win totals because of the team they are on.

Zito's 23 wins in 2003 was the most in a season since 1999, when Martinez also got 23 wins...and the Cy Young. Zito and Martinez are the only 23 game winners in the AL in the last 15 years.

South Side Irish
01-06-2007, 03:55 PM
Pedro Martinez is the greatest pitcher to ever live, IMO.

Wow, Peter Gammons! Welcome to WSI!

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 03:59 PM
What wasn't the question posed. It was Gibson vs. Clemens. Are you giving credit to Gibson because Clemens also pitched at the same time as Maddux and Pedro?

There was some guy named Sandy Koufax that pitched at the time Gibson did. I heard he was pretty good.

fquaye149
01-06-2007, 04:02 PM
Wow, Peter Gammons! Welcome to WSI!

Well considering that his #'s stack up almost perfectly with Koufax's prime AND he was doing it in the juiced ball and juiced players era, while Koufax was doing it in the high mounds, wide strike zone era, AND considering that most consider Koufax the greatest pitcher ever, I think you can make a pretty good case for Pedro as best pitcher ever.

Clemens v. Gibson? Same deal. Yeah there weren't any quotes from Willie Mays about Clemens, but he put up similar #'s to Gibson in an era when the mounds weren't high and the zones weren't wide.

Did Clemens juice? I don't know. What we DO know is a lot of hitters juiced while he was playing, and comparing Clemens ERA to the league ERA shows a lot about how much better Clemens was than the competition....

South Side Irish
01-06-2007, 04:08 PM
These arguements are fun, but so silly! I think most baseball people have come to understand that there is much better evidence to determine a pitcher's value than Wins, Losses, and ERA. While they're good, WHIP, BAA, and ERA+ are more accurate indicators of a pitcher's individual work. The rest come largely as a result of various factors (below), that makes this agruement so silly.

There is so much to factor into these arguements. What team did these guys pitch on? What parks? What kind of hitters did they have to face? What political themese dominated the game (strikezone size, use of drugs, etc.)? What was the height of the mound? Where there green seats installed yet? How was expected of the pitcher in terms of IP?

These are the arguements I see for Gibson:
1 - He was feared, absolutely terrifying opposing hitters. Despite Clemens' penchant for throwing broken bats, I don't think he was ever in the category.
2 - 1.12. I don't think any starting pitcher in the modern era has had a better ERA.
3 - The number of complete games pitched.

The arguements for Clemens:
1 - Durablity and longevity of career. The stretch of 19 wins in 2000-2001 (is that right?) is proof of that, too. However, if he had to pitch CG's like Gibby was expected to, would he have held up?
2 - Number of Cy Youngs. Again, this is based on a lot of factors that shouldn't be (Wins, team, etc.), but you still have to be real good to win 'em!
3 - Stikeout Proficiency. Whether his 20 K games or his career total, dude could throw.

Personally, I would pick Gibson because of the way he changed a game, and because of how great those Cards teams in the 60's were. He was a major part of that. Clemens was always a great pitcher, but never carried a team. He was on some stacked NYY teams in the early 2000's to get a ring, but he never did it himself, and was never "the guy."

fquaye149
01-06-2007, 04:10 PM
These arguements are fun, but so silly! I think most baseball people have come to understand that there is much better evidence to determine a pitcher's value than Wins, Losses, and ERA. While they're good, WHIP, BAA, and ERA+ are more accurate indicators of a pitcher's individual work. The rest come largely as a result of various factors (below), that makes this agruement so silly.

There is so much to factor into these arguements. What team did these guys pitch on? What parks? What kind of hitters did they have to face? What political themese dominated the game (strikezone size, use of drugs, etc.)? What was the height of the mound? Where there green seats installed yet? How was expected of the pitcher in terms of IP?

These are the arguements I see for Gibson:
1 - He was feared, absolutely terrifying opposing hitters. Despite Clemens' penchant for throwing broken bats, I don't think he was ever in the category.
2 - 1.12. I don't think any starting pitcher in the modern era has had a better ERA.
3 - The number of complete games pitched.

The arguements for Clemens:
1 - Durablity and longevity of career. The stretch of 19 wins in 2000-2001 (is that right?) is proof of that, too. However, if he had to pitch CG's like Gibby was expected to, would he have held up?
2 - Number of Cy Youngs. Again, this is based on a lot of factors that shouldn't be (Wins, team, etc.), but you still have to be real good to win 'em!
3 - Stikeout Proficiency. Whether his 20 K games or his career total, dude could throw.

Personally, I would pick Gibson because of the way he changed a game, and because of how great those Cards teams in the 60's were. He was a major part of that. Clemens was always a great pitcher, but never carried a team. He was on some stacked NYY teams in the early 2000's to get a ring, but he never did it himself, and was never "the guy."


Anecdotal evidence suggests that Gibson was a more feared and dominant pitcher than Clemens. Statistical evidence suggests the exact opposite.

Who should we believe? Neither---comparing eras by anecdotes and statistics is a completely horse**** thing to try to do with any degree of certainty. Suffice to say they were both extremely talented pitchers---among the best of all time:D:


ps: those St Louis world series winners had some decent outfielders---Curt Flood, Roger Maris, Lou Brock---of course nowhere near the powerhouses of the Clemens era Yankees, but still! :)

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 04:13 PM
Who should we believe? Neither---comparing eras by anecdotes and statistics is a completely horse**** thing to try to do with any degree of certainty. Suffice to say they were both extremely talented pitchers---among the best of all time:D:

Perhaps the most sane statement in this entire thread. Both pitchers should be included in a list of 10 greatest pitchers ever.

South Side Irish
01-06-2007, 04:15 PM
Well considering that his #'s stack up almost perfectly with Koufax's prime AND he was doing it in the juiced ball and juiced players era

Both pitchers and hitters are juiced. More pitchers have been caught since 2003, which could be proof that more pitchers cheated, even. Cheating was widespread, and shouldn't be reserved to hitters so we can make our favorite pitchers look better.


comparing Clemens ERA to the league ERA shows a lot about how much better Clemens was than the competition....

The superiority of Clemens when compared to the league "average" is shallow. The reasons the league average ERA is so high is due to expansion, and the number of average pitchers that are around. Smaller ballparks, too? Regardless, if you want to make a case for Clemens' greatness (or Pedros), compare them to their peers, not a shallow statistic that only represents how watered down the talent in MLB is. Gibby's would be much better than average if there were an additional 125 average/below average pitchers helping that league average balloon.

South Side Irish
01-06-2007, 04:19 PM
Anecdotal evidence suggests that Gibson was a more feared and dominant pitcher than Clemens. Statistical evidence suggests the exact opposite.

Who should we believe? Neither---comparing eras by anecdotes and statistics is a completely horse**** thing to try to do with any degree of certainty. Suffice to say they were both extremely talented pitchers---among the best of all time:D:


ps: those St Louis world series winners had some decent outfielders---Curt Flood, Roger Maris, Lou Brock---of course nowhere near the powerhouses of the Clemens era Yankees, but still! :)

I completly agree with everything you posted. I tried to express some of those thoughts, but perhaps it wasn't received correctly. I don't really like these arguements, but they are fun, too. The "what ifs" of anything historical (wars, politics, sports) are always interesting and fun, to me. I don't mind giving my 2 cents, but any comparison is flawed by the nature of what you're using to compare. That's why I think comparing players to their peers shows - usually - how great they are.

eastchicagosoxfan
01-06-2007, 04:19 PM
Clemens might be the best pitcher of all time, right there with Walter Johnson and Lefty Grove. Clemens has .662 winning percentage, wheras Gibson checks in at .591. Clemens has averaged 17-8 over his career while Gibson was 16-11. Gibson, gave up an average of 84 earned runs a season, while Clemens, playing in the AL, has averaged 81 earned runs a season. Gibson is a Hall of Famer, but Clemens is the better pitcher.

South Side Irish
01-06-2007, 04:20 PM
Perhaps the most sane statement in this entire thread. Both pitchers should be included in a list of 10 greatest pitchers ever.

But then who would you leave off that list of 10 greatest pitchers? :D:

See, at some point, you have to make an arguement about who is better than who. I don't think the arguement is all that fair, as I've stated before, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun!

South Side Irish
01-06-2007, 04:31 PM
Clemens might be the best pitcher of all time, right there with Walter Johnson and Lefty Grove. Clemens has .662 winning percentage, wheras Gibson checks in at .591. Clemens has averaged 17-8 over his career while Gibson was 16-11.

Comparing wins is flawed. Clemens can be pulled in a late inning to avoid losing a game, while Gibson pitched to the end. Plus, the run support and bullpen backing of Clemens could have given him far more wins that deserved. Would Roger have lost more if he had to pitch through the 9th every game? Probably.


Gibson, gave up an average of 84 earned runs a season, while Clemens, playing in the AL, has averaged 81 earned runs a season. Gibson is a Hall of Famer, but Clemens is the better pitcher.

Is the NL far worse than the AL in 2007? Yes. But that wasn't so in the 60's. The main reason the AL has the DH is because of sagging popularity and attendance in the 60's. That lack of popularity was a result of the great Pirate, Dodger, Giant and Cardinal Teams. The NL had good hitters in the 60's, so saying Gibby giving up more runs isn't an awful thing. Still makes Roger better in that regard, but the NL was no joke in the 60's. Comparing based on earned runs is also very flawed.

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 04:38 PM
See, at some point, you have to make an arguement about who is better than who. I don't think the arguement is all that fair, as I've stated before, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun!

Swap the pitchers in the timeframe they pitched. Imagine Clemens pitching in larger ballparks off a higher mound with a wider strikezone and deader ball and in the NL, which means facing a pitcher. Compare that to Gibson pitching in the AL in smaller ballparks with a livelier ball, shorter mound, smaller strikezone, etc.

jamokes
01-06-2007, 04:39 PM
Gibson by far..........he pitched before expansion. How many major leaguers in the 90's and 2000's would be in the majors in the 60's with fewer teams. Roger is good but Gibson was from a different era.

batmanZoSo
01-06-2007, 04:40 PM
Bob Gibson

* 3,117 strikeouts
* National League MVP (1968)
* World Series MVP Award (1964, 1967)
* 8-time All-Star (1962, 1965-70, 1972)
* Gold Glove Award (1965-1973)
* Cy Young Awards (1968, 1970)
* ERA of 1.12 in 1968 is major league best in the Live Ball Era, 2nd best all-time ERA.
* Eight World Series Wins
* Record for most strikeouts during a World Series (35 Ks in 1968)

There's no way the late 60s are part of the "live ball era."

I have to go with Clemens. He's utterly dominated an era that's been utterly dominated by hitting.

eastchicagosoxfan
01-06-2007, 04:45 PM
Comparing wins is flawed. Clemens can be pulled in a late inning to avoid losing a game, while Gibson pitched to the end. Plus, the run support and bullpen backing of Clemens could have given him far more wins that deserved. Would Roger have lost more if he had to pitch through the 9th every game? Probably.



Is the NL far worse than the AL in 2007? Yes. But that wasn't so in the 60's. The main reason the AL has the DH is because of sagging popularity and attendance in the 60's. That lack of popularity was a result of the great Pirate, Dodger, Giant and Cardinal Teams. The NL had good hitters in the 60's, so saying Gibby giving up more runs isn't an awful thing. Still makes Roger better in that regard, but the NL was no joke in the 60's. Comparing based on earned runs is also very flawed.
Ultimately, all comparisons can be flawed. I chose two very basic premises that successful pitchers need to excel in to be great. Wins and earned runs. Would Clemens have the same career if he pitched in a different era? We just don't know. He probably would not have pitched as long. How good could Clemens be if he pitched on a higher mound, with a larger strike zone, and the rules favored aggressive pitching on the inside? We just don't know.

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 04:48 PM
Gibson by far..........he pitched before expansion. How many major leaguers in the 90's and 2000's would be in the majors in the 60's with fewer teams. Roger is good but Gibson was from a different era.

But the argument could also be made that hitters today are far better conditioned, trained, etc. than hitters in the 60s. Year-round training programs, winter ball, video analysis, dietitians, etc, wasn't part of the game back then. Clemens is known for his infamous "workout routines" so there is no reason to believe he wouldn't have the same mentality had he pitched in the 60s.

But your last statement is key. There are simply far too many variables to compare players from different eras.

Oblong
01-06-2007, 05:25 PM
There was some guy named Sandy Koufax that pitched at the time Gibson did. I heard he was pretty good.

What does taht have to do with Gibson vs. Clemens? It looks to me like the answer was attempted that Gibson was better because Clemens wasn't as good as Pedro or Maddux.

jabrch
01-06-2007, 05:53 PM
I don't think you can pick one or the other and conclude beyond a doubt that they are better. I'd take either. There are way too many variables that can't be evened out with any sort of statistical adjustments vs their leagues to make that call.

If it were me, I'd take Clemens only because I never saw Gibson. But everyting I have read/saw leads me to believe that he was equally as dominant as Roger.

Oblong
01-06-2007, 06:21 PM
Gibson by far..........he pitched before expansion. How many major leaguers in the 90's and 2000's would be in the majors in the 60's with fewer teams. Roger is good but Gibson was from a different era.


The makeup of the players was also a lot different. There were not as many latin, asian, or even black players in hte league at that time. The talent pool Gibson faced was much smaller than the one Clemens faced. I think there's more good players today (even going back to the 80s) than there were in the 60s so with the extra teams it evens out.

The talent pool of MLB quality players is a much bigger pie to divvy up today than it was in the 60s.

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 06:46 PM
What does taht have to do with Gibson vs. Clemens? It looks to me like the answer was attempted that Gibson was better because Clemens wasn't as good as Pedro or Maddux.

It has nothing to do with it. It was a response to the other poster who brought up Maddux and Martinez when discussing Gibson vs. Clemens. There isn't a need to talk about any other pitchers.

Gregory Pratt
01-06-2007, 08:59 PM
Wow, Peter Gammons! Welcome to WSI!

Uh, I'm not sure if Gammons believes Pedro to be the greatest of all time or not. However, I was always under the impression that he had Clemens' **** in his mouth, not Pedro's.

Gregory Pratt
01-06-2007, 09:00 PM
The makeup of the players was also a lot different. There were not as many latin, asian, or even black players in hte league at that time. The talent pool Gibson faced was much smaller than the one Clemens faced. I think there's more good players today (even going back to the 80s) than there were in the 60s so with the extra teams it evens out.

The talent pool of MLB quality players is a much bigger pie to divvy up today than it was in the 60s.

Well, except for Gibson himself. :P

Oblong
01-06-2007, 09:46 PM
I know, I thought about that. And Juan Marichal from the DR. But in today's environment there'd be a lot more of them.

Lots of people assume today's talent pool is thinner but I think it's the opposite. I would be willing to bet that there's 3 or 4 guys from eachteam from the 50s to the 70s that wouldn't make the squads today due to increased competition.

munchman33
01-06-2007, 09:58 PM
Uh, I'm not sure if Gammons believes Pedro to be the greatest of all time or not. However, I was always under the impression that he had Clemens' **** in his mouth, not Pedro's.

:cower:

Grzegorz
01-06-2007, 11:22 PM
There's no way the late 60s are part of the "live ball era."

Following the dead-ball era (pre-1920) was the live-ball era or lively ball era.

Save McCuddy's
01-07-2007, 12:03 AM
Anecdotal evidence suggests that Gibson was a more feared and dominant pitcher than Clemens.

A favorite Gibson anecdote of mine goes like this:

In '61 when Tim McCarver and Gibson were first becoming full-time players, McCarver decides to run out for a mound visit during an inning in which Gibson is laboring. He arrives at the rubber to hear Gibson tell him, "get your ass back behind that plate. The only thing you know about pitching is that you can't hit it".

itsnotrequired
01-07-2007, 12:05 AM
Following the dead-ball era (pre-1920) was the live-ball era or lively ball era.

So its been the live ball era ever since 1920? Not quite.

1901-10 AL somewhat livelier than NL
1910-13 Cork-center ball makes both livelier
1913-19 Deadended to 1910, AL still somewhat livelier
1920-28 Lively ball, AL more than NL
1929-30 AL consistent, NL super-lively
1931-33 AL consistent, NL deadened to 1928 level
1934-37 Both agree to uniform ball, a little deader than old AL
1938-41 NL reverts to deader ball
1942-45 Ball deader with wartime materials
1947-49 AL and NL more nearly alike, livelier
1950 AL, NL and minors adopt uniform ball
1951-76 Very slow, gradual deadening
1977 New manufacturer, ball much livelier
1978-92 Deadened to 1976 standard
1993-97 Dramatically livelierSource: Koppett's Concise History of Major League Baseball (http://www.amazon.com/Koppetts-Concise-History-League-Baseball/dp/0786712864/sr=8-2/qid=1168146308/ref=sr_1_2/002-7705339-5194425?ie=UTF8&s=books)

DumpJerry
01-07-2007, 12:05 AM
:bkoch: :jaime
You guys are leaving us out of this conversation???????

Actually, Koufax was pretty scary.

fquaye149
01-07-2007, 03:27 AM
Following the dead-ball era (pre-1920) was the live-ball era or lively ball era.

yup...until they raised the mounds and widened the strike zone in the 1960's.

that was no longer the "live-ball era"

fquaye149
01-07-2007, 03:28 AM
A favorite Gibson anecdote of mine goes like this:

In '61 when Tim McCarver and Gibson were first becoming full-time players, McCarver decides to run out for a mound visit during an inning in which Gibson is laboring. He arrives at the rubber to hear Gibson tell him, "get your ass back behind that plate. The only thing you know about pitching is that you can't hit it".

Lol...luckily for McCarver between then and now he learned, "the best way to throw strikes is to just get the ball over the plate"

"A Mark Wohlberg fastball: Catch me if you can!!":tongue:

itsnotrequired
01-07-2007, 10:10 AM
yup...until they raised the mounds and widened the strike zone in the 1960's.

that was no longer the "live-ball era"

The info I posted above was about the ball only and didn't even account for mound and strike zone changes. In 1950, the mound height was limited to 15 inches. In 1970, it was lowered to 10. The strike zone was dramatically expanded after Maris' '61 season.

The Racehorse
01-07-2007, 11:18 AM
Gibson dominating hitters in the late '60s was one reason why the mound was lowered. On the other hand, Clemens is part of the steroid era, and I consider his longevity questionable.

Gibson all the way.

Oblong
01-07-2007, 03:09 PM
I think the "steroid era" term is just an excuse to state why someone doesn't like a player. Yes, maybe Clemens was part of it. But so was everybody else so doesn't it all even out? Gibson was part of the greenie era.

Patrick134
01-07-2007, 05:45 PM
I would go with Nolan Ryan being the best pitcher ever

but out of these two pitchers my vote would be Gibson


Best strikeout pitcher perhaps, best pitcher ever, nowhere near.

FarWestChicago
01-07-2007, 06:55 PM
I think the "steroid era" term is just an excuse to state why someone doesn't like a player. Yes, maybe Clemens was part of it. But so was everybody else so doesn't it all even out? Gibson was part of the greenie era.You keep pretending aphemtamines and steroids are equivalent. That's a ridiculous assertion. Chronic amphetamine use would break your body down, shorten your career. If Clemens hit the juice when his career suddenly took off again, he got years of productivity he would have gotten no other way, definitely not from amphetamines. So no, it doesn't even out even if some of the hitters were juiced. He wouldn't have been playing, generating career statistics. It might be interesting to take his career numbers from before he perhaps hit the juice and compare those to Gibson. Then it's a no brainer for Gibson. :smile:

Oblong
01-07-2007, 08:46 PM
You keep pretending aphemtamines and steroids are equivalent. That's a ridiculous assertion. Chronic amphetamine use would break your body down, shorten your career. If Clemens hit the juice when his career suddenly took off again, he got years of productivity he would have gotten no other way, definitely not from amphetamines. So no, it doesn't even out even if some of the hitters were juiced. He wouldn't have been playing, generating career statistics. It might be interesting to take his career numbers from before he perhaps hit the juice and compare those to Gibson. Then it's a no brainer for Gibson. :smile:

Isn't there as much evidence that Gibson took steroids as Clemens?

The steroid excuse just seems too convenient. It gets applied to hitters and pitchers in a selective way. YOu are guilty until proven innocent.

FarWestChicago
01-07-2007, 08:58 PM
Isn't there as much evidence that Gibson took steroids as Clemens?

The steroid excuse just seems too convenient. It gets applied to hitters and pitchers in a selective way. YOu are guilty until proven innocent.Steroids weren't available when Gibson played.

itsnotrequired
01-07-2007, 09:02 PM
Steroids weren't available when Gibson played.

Anabolic steroids have been around since the 1930s.

FarWestChicago
01-07-2007, 09:18 PM
Anabolic steroids have been around since the 1930s.They weren't available to baseball players. Even the body builders didn't get into them until about the time Gibson retired. Of course, they made their big break with the Soviet and East German Olympic teams in the 70's. Nice try at being a smart ass though.

itsnotrequired
01-07-2007, 09:23 PM
They weren't available to baseball players. Even the body builders didn't get into them until about the time Gibson retired. Of course, they made their big break with the Soviet and East German Olympic teams in the 70's. Nice try at being a smart ass though.

I was thinking of the statements made by Tom House back in 2005.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-05-03-steroids-house_x.htm?csp=34

I'm not saying Gibson took steroids or Tom House is some type of credible source but it wouldn't surprise me at all that players were experimenting with steroids back then.

Oblong
01-07-2007, 10:05 PM
The link between the two for me is the idea that athletes were taking something that required a prescription, and probably not having one, in order to gain a competitive edge or to otherwise combat physical limitations. At the time I don't think either was specifically called out as being illegal in baseball. Whether it's to add muscle mass or to help keep you alert. I imagine come August and September the players get fatigued and popping a greenie can help you. Maybe Gibson was popping them all day long. Whether it's self destructive to the body shouldn't be the deciding factor in dismissing one over the other.

I'll need an argument beyond the belief that Clemens could have taken steroids so his numbers don't mean as much.

I will say this in support of Gibson: If you wanted a guy for a game 7? Gibson all the way.

oeo
01-08-2007, 07:41 AM
I think the "steroid era" term is just an excuse to state why someone doesn't like a player. Yes, maybe Clemens was part of it. But so was everybody else so doesn't it all even out? Gibson was part of the greenie era.

I'm finding it really hard to believe that he can keep that sustained success at the age of 44, without using something. Usually by this time, a guy is not as successful as he was in his prime...yet Clemens continues to do it. Maybe it's his workout regimen, like the media keeps leading us to believe, but I think that's bull**** (a nice regimen with some drugs sounds about right).

And just because everyone is cheating, does not make cheating right.

batmanZoSo
01-08-2007, 10:57 AM
Following the dead-ball era (pre-1920) was the live-ball era or lively ball era.

Yes, I know that, but when the mound is raised as it was in the 60s it kind of detracts from the hitters advantage just a tad.

itsnotrequired
01-08-2007, 11:05 AM
Yes, I know that, but when the mound is raised as it was in the 60s it kind of detracts from the hitters advantage just a tad.

It wasn't that the mound was raised in the 1960s. It was the expanded pitching zone.

fquaye149
01-08-2007, 11:28 AM
It wasn't that the mound was raised in the 1960s. It was the expanded pitching zone.

Both led to the dominance of pitching in the 60's. True, the mound was already high, but certain teams (the Dodgers for instance) had remarkably high mounds.

The confluence of the mounds and the wide zones in the 60's gave the hitters such a huge disadvantage that you'll notice that in the 70's, along with narrowing the zones, the mounds were lowered

johnr1note
01-08-2007, 02:52 PM
The limits on the height of the pitchers' mound was established in 1904. 15 inches. It was that way until 1969, when it was lowered to 10 inches. The strike zone rule was not offically changed until 1969, when it was lowered from shoulder to knee down to armpit to knee. They OFFICIALLY changed the rules because of the pitchers in Gibson's era. That says a lot.

itsnotrequired
01-08-2007, 03:16 PM
The limits on the height of the pitchers' mound was established in 1904. 15 inches. It was that way until 1969, when it was lowered to 10 inches. The strike zone rule was not offically changed until 1969, when it was lowered from shoulder to knee down to armpit to knee. They OFFICIALLY changed the rules because of the pitchers in Gibson's era. That says a lot.

The strike zone was expanded in 1963.

PKalltheway
01-08-2007, 04:55 PM
Gibson. Baseball lowered the mound because of him. His 1968 season was so good that Juan Marichal, who won 26 games that year, was denied a Cy Young because of Gibson's season.

1.12 ERA in 304.2 innings pitched in 1968 is INSANE.:o:

itsnotrequired
01-08-2007, 05:01 PM
Gibson. Baseball lowered the mound because of him. His 1968 season was so good that Juan Marichal, who won 26 games that year, was denied a Cy Young because of Gibson's season.

1.12 ERA in 304.2 innings pitched in 1968 is INSANE.:o:

Gibson certainly played a large part in the decision to lower the mound but damn near every pitcher put up amazing numbers 1963-1968. It truly was the Golden Age of pitchers and had a lot to do with the strike zone. Hell, the top of the strike zone was the TOP of a batter's SHOULDERS! In 1969 it was lowered to the batters armpits, as it was before.

Expanded strike zone or not, a 1.12 ERA in 304.2 innings is indeed insane.

Oblong
01-08-2007, 05:32 PM
I'm finding it really hard to believe that he can keep that sustained success at the age of 44, without using something. Usually by this time, a guy is not as successful as he was in his prime...yet Clemens continues to do it. Maybe it's his workout regimen, like the media keeps leading us to believe, but I think that's bull**** (a nice regimen with some drugs sounds about right).

And just because everyone is cheating, does not make cheating right.

We're not discussing cheating. You are assuming he is and disregarding any cheating by Gibson when there's just as much proof in both cases. It's a strange argument that something can't be valid because nobody else has done it so therefore something must be fishy. People don't normally put up 1.12 ERAs either but you just accept that it's pure talent and nothing extracurricular?

johnr1note
01-08-2007, 06:15 PM
The strike zone was expanded in 1963.

i stand corrected, thank you. The strike zone was armpit to top of knee as proulgated by rule in 1950 (I don't recall ever reading about any strike zone controversies in the late 1940s). The 1963 change expanded it up to the shoulder. The change I cited in my original post, in 1969, brought it back down to the 1959 level. In 1988, the rule was change BACK to the 1950s standard, and then, in 1996, the strike zone was expanded further to the bottom of the knees.

Perhaps that makes a case for Clemens' abilities in an era of an ever expanding strike zone with steroid enhanced hitters and smaller ball parks and the designated hitter. I still think Gibson was a tougher pitcher, seeing his performance (and as pointed out, many of his contemporaries) forced wholesale rules changes favoring hitters. But then again, I'm old. I remember watching Gibson pitch. The few times I have seen the Rocket in person (including Game 1 of the 2005 WS) he hasn't looked good.

hose
01-08-2007, 06:46 PM
To hear how Gibson was feared was more the era he played in. Gibson would get tossed and suspended if they played that style of game today. He would have to tone it down a notch if he played now.

Koufax put up some awesome years from '62-66.
I think Randy Johnson's '98 1/2 -'02 were just as incredible.

TheKittle
01-08-2007, 06:56 PM
The first question that should be asked, if anybody who voted actually saw Gibson pitch? I'm guessing more people have seen Rocket pitch more than those who saw Gibson pitch.

Also don't forget Gibson had great ERA's while pitching 300 innings a year. Rocket? At most 250. Huge difference.

itsnotrequired
01-08-2007, 07:16 PM
Also don't forget Gibson had great ERA's while pitching 300 innings a year. Rocket? At most 250. Huge difference.

Ah, but Gibson pitched in an era where bullpens weren't really in vogue yet. Would he have been pulled sooner in some of his starts if he played in today's game? Did all these extra innings shorten his career? Would Clemens have gone longer back in the day with less of a bullpen? Who knows...

On the other hand, Gibson pitched in the NL where a starting pitcher has a greater chance of being pulled for a pinch hitter late in the game. The fact that hepitched so many innings also speaks volumes about his pitching abilities. The manager had more faith in him taking swings and pitching the next inning rather than hope a pinch hitter could make something happen.

itsnotrequired
01-08-2007, 07:25 PM
i stand corrected, thank you. The strike zone was armpit to top of knee as proulgated by rule in 1950 (I don't recall ever reading about any strike zone controversies in the late 1940s). The 1963 change expanded it up to the shoulder. The change I cited in my original post, in 1969, brought it back down to the 1959 level. In 1988, the rule was change BACK to the 1950s standard, and then, in 1996, the strike zone was expanded further to the bottom of the knees.

Perhaps that makes a case for Clemens' abilities in an era of an ever expanding strike zone with steroid enhanced hitters and smaller ball parks and the designated hitter. I still think Gibson was a tougher pitcher, seeing his performance (and as pointed out, many of his contemporaries) forced wholesale rules changes favoring hitters. But then again, I'm old. I remember watching Gibson pitch. The few times I have seen the Rocket in person (including Game 1 of the 2005 WS) he hasn't looked good.

The impact the expanded pitching zone had on the game practically destroyed a natural equilibrium that had been reached between offense and defense over the previous decades. In 1963, there were 1400 fewer walks and 1200 more strikeouts when compared to 1962. Batting averages dropped .012 points practically overnight. By 1968, runs per game were down to 6.84, the lowest total since 1908. Batting averages were down to .237, the lowest ever. Yastrzemski won the AL batting title at .301 and was the only player in the whole league to even get to .300. The NL was somewhat higher with five batters hitting over .300; twenty-three NL batters reached that milestone in 1962.

hose
01-08-2007, 07:46 PM
The first question that should be asked, if anybody who voted actually saw Gibson pitch? I'm guessing more people have seen Rocket pitch more than those who saw Gibson pitch.

Also don't forget Gibson had great ERA's while pitching 300 innings a year. Rocket? At most 250. Huge difference.

I've seen Gibson pitch and he was awesome.

I've seen the Rocket pitch and he was awesome.

If you want to know who is better than flip a coin and whoever comes up you can't lose.

One thing I'll add into the mix is that with today's smaller parks it's not unusual to see opposite field homeruns. Back in the day you had to be a pull hitter to knock one out. Big advantage for the pitcher.

PaulDrake
01-09-2007, 03:44 PM
I've had this discussion on another board and the results were a bit surprising. I've decided to bring it to a few other forums. Which of these was the greater pitcher: Roger Clemens or Bob Gibson?


I'm responding here without reading any of the replies. I've no idea how the discussion has gone. That being said, when I think of Barry Bonds, I also think of Roger Clemens the same way. Bob Gibson was a better pitcher, a better teammate, much more clutch, and he could probably still kick the very angry Rogers Clemens' ass.

itsnotrequired
01-09-2007, 03:59 PM
I'm responding here without reading any of the replies. I've no idea how the discussion has gone. That being said, when I think of Barry Bonds, I also think of Roger Clemens the same way. Bob Gibson was a better pitcher, a better teammate, much more clutch, and he could probably still kick the very angry Rogers Clemens' ass.

Why is this?

Trav
01-09-2007, 04:19 PM
quick question for the folks who have been following along.... has Gibson's ability to hit been mentioned? Since Ruth's pitching always comes into play when talking about the best player ever I think Gibson's hitting ability should come into play when talking about how great he was.

JChisox
01-09-2007, 07:44 PM
Ah, but Gibson pitched in an era where bullpens weren't really in vogue yet. Would he have been pulled sooner in some of his starts if he played in today's game? Did all these extra innings shorten his career? Would Clemens have gone longer back in the day with less of a bullpen? Who knows...

On the other hand, Gibson pitched in the NL where a starting pitcher has a greater chance of being pulled for a pinch hitter late in the game. The fact that hepitched so many innings also speaks volumes about his pitching abilities. The manager had more faith in him taking swings and pitching the next inning rather than hope a pinch hitter could make something happen.

I saw Gibson pitch many times back in the 60s. Games started at 8:00pm in those days and we'd be out before 10. I can also tell you that Gibby was a great hitting pitcher, in fact he would also pinchhit on off days, so he wasn't getting pulled from games for a bat. He was vulnerable in the first inning but got better throughout the game. He liked to finish what he started. I've seen Clemens pitch as well though not nearly as often. Both are great but I'd take Hoot over Rocket.

The Racehorse
01-09-2007, 08:12 PM
quick question for the folks who have been following along.... has Gibson's ability to hit been mentioned? Since Ruth's pitching always comes into play when talking about the best player ever I think Gibson's hitting ability should come into play when talking about how great he was.

Gibson's sheer competitiveness probably drove him to handle better than any run of the mill pitcher. Bob Uecker, who was his teammate and catcher [behind Tim McCarver] told a story in his book about both of them being in a celebrity golf tournament, and Gibson being pissed because he finished behind so many other participants. Uke's response? "It was his [Gibby's] own fault for counting each and every one of his shots."

MLB players are some of the most competitive people on earth. And then they're some who don't want to lose at anything, and what I've read & heard about Bob Gibson, that was him.

santo=dorf
01-09-2007, 08:48 PM
Gibson dominating hitters in the late '60s was one reason why the mound was lowered. On the other hand, Clemens is part of the steroid era, and I consider his longevity questionable.

Gibson all the way.

How would Clemens do if he pitched at the same height as Gibson?

FarWestChicago
01-09-2007, 08:54 PM
How would Clemens do if he pitched at the same height as Gibson?With or without the 'roids?

The Racehorse
01-09-2007, 08:57 PM
How would Clemens do if he pitched at the same height as Gibson?

Clemens would have had a great career until his arm tired... just as Gibson would have had a great career with the lower mound [until his arm tired].

fquaye149
01-09-2007, 08:59 PM
With or without the 'roids?

I've heard only one report (and it was a sketchy one at that) that even so much as hinted Clemens was on roids.

What am I missing here?

FarWestChicago
01-09-2007, 09:11 PM
I've heard only one report (and it was a sketchy one at that) that even so much as hinted Clemens was on roids.

What am I missing here?Obviously a lot. :smile:

fquaye149
01-09-2007, 09:21 PM
Obviously a lot. :smile:

Well, he has longevity and a temper, but he's always been a pretty big guy....

Honestly, have you actually heard claims he roided? He didn't get sent to the hearings, Canseco's book didn't mention him...etc

soxinem1
01-09-2007, 09:34 PM
In a lot of ways this is comparing apples to oranges. Sure Gibson was one of the last guys to have 300+ innings in a season, but he was of a totally different era. Offensive production during Gibson's time was nowhere near todays levels, most of the big, cavernous parks of his day are history, and for most of his career, Roger faced an extra hitter in the line up.

The talk of him using steroids is unfounded, unproven, and quite frankly, silly. He's too much of a Drama King, but you cannot argue with the on-field results. Until proven otherwise, the steroid crap shouldn't even be mentioned.

Clemens has pitched better at 40+ than most MLB pitchers in their primes. Plus he's actually LOWERED his career ERA the past three seasons, something 30+ year old pitchers usually do not achieve.

Gibson was quite effective and consistent until his mid-late 30's. In his last full season he had nine CG's, more than most starters today may have in a career. And he pitched for many more inferior teams than Roger has, so he could have won closer to 300 if he had the talent around him.

And the difference in career ERA is .19, not much when you consider the better all around line ups Clemens has faced in his career.

So I have to put my pick with the Rocket. But either way, you come up 'Aces'.

The Racehorse
01-09-2007, 09:50 PM
Well, he has longevity and a temper, but he's always been a pretty big guy....

Honestly, have you actually heard claims he roided? He didn't get sent to the hearings, Canseco's book didn't mention him...etc

That's the thing... in this day & age of MLB, he's the only big guy with a temper who's pitched effectively into his 40s that wasn't 'juiced', only because he didn't get subpoenaed [by Congress] & didn't have the dime dropped on him by Canseco? No way.

For me, I don't know for sure if he 'roided. However, realistically, pitchers other than Charlie Hough's knuckler & Nolan Ryan very fast but straight fastball don't pitch that effectively this late into their careers without doing something.

fquaye149
01-09-2007, 09:59 PM
That's the thing... in this day & age of MLB, he's the only big guy with a temper who's pitched effectively into his 40s that wasn't 'juiced', only because he didn't get subpoenaed [by Congress] & didn't have the dime dropped on him by Canseco? No way.

For me, I don't know for sure if he 'roided. However, realistically, pitchers other than Charlie Hough's knuckler & Nolan Ryan very fast but straight fastball don't pitch that effectively this late into their careers without doing something.

I guess what I'm saying is, he was around in the mid 80's when steroid use wasn't a huge thing and was big and angry then...

The guy works out like a madman. Does that have to do with steroids? Sure...

but now we're just throwing names around, it feels like

Oblong
01-09-2007, 10:10 PM
Here's (http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/thomafr04.shtml) a guy who had a great year at age 40, after 2 sub par seasons. The arguments I've seen that are supposed to make me think Clemens roided up can apply to him too.

chaerulez
01-09-2007, 10:10 PM
Well, he has longevity and a temper, but he's always been a pretty big guy....

Honestly, have you actually heard claims he roided? He didn't get sent to the hearings, Canseco's book didn't mention him...etc

The hearings were a joke.

santo=dorf
01-09-2007, 10:12 PM
Here's (http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/thomafr04.shtml) a guy who had a great year at age 40, after 2 sub par seasons. The arguments I've seen that are supposed to make me think Clemens roided up can apply to him too.
Duck.

Actually I thought you were going to cite Kenny Rogers, but who knows how that guy will pitch next year when everybody will look at him for pine tar.

PKalltheway
01-09-2007, 10:13 PM
Koufax put up some awesome years from '62-66.
I think Randy Johnson's '98 1/2 -'02 were just as incredible.
Yes it sure was. People kinda forget Randy's crazy years with Arizona, but those years are really going to stand out once a few more years go by.

One example is in 2002 when Johnson went 24-5, threw 260 innings, struck out 334 batters, and had a 2.32 ERA!!!:o:

Oblong
01-09-2007, 10:26 PM
Duck.

Actually I thought you were going to cite Kenny Rogers, but who knows how that guy will pitch next year when everybody will look at him for pine tar.

For the record, I don't think Frank deserves any suspicion but I"m seeing accusations thrown at Clemens that could easily be made at Frank with the same assumptions. That was my point.

PaulDrake
01-10-2007, 10:22 AM
The talk of him using steroids is unfounded, unproven, and quite frankly, silly. He's too much of a Drama King, but you cannot argue with the on-field results. Until proven otherwise, the steroid crap shouldn't even be mentioned.

Clemens has pitched better at 40+ than most MLB pitchers in their primes. Plus he's actually LOWERED his career ERA the past three seasons, something 30+ year old pitchers usually do not achieve.

I don't think it's silly, or that it shouldn't be mentioned. I'm no big fan of Bonds, but it amazes me how Clemens gets a pass.

spawn
01-10-2007, 10:58 AM
Here's (http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/thomafr04.shtml) a guy who had a great year at age 40, after 2 sub par seasons. The arguments I've seen that are supposed to make me think Clemens roided up can apply to him too.
Frank turns 39 this year. DOB 5/27/68. Unless you can see into the future, we don't know what Frank will do at age 40.

soxinem1
01-10-2007, 12:28 PM
I don't think it's silly, or that it shouldn't be mentioned. I'm no big fan of Bonds, but it amazes me how Clemens gets a pass.

Has Clemens' trainer been caught distributing steriods? Roger wasn't even questioned. The guy works out just like Ryan did, keeping his legs strong so they can do most of the pitching work. And he's always been a big guy, he never showed up to camp one day like Barry and Ron Gant did. Bonds and Gant went from splints to a moose in a year, (maybe two for Barriod).

Until some evidence is shown that he cheated or cheats, I think a guy with 4000 K's, 300+ wins, and a stellar ERA pitching in an offensive era should get a better treatment than that.

And to be fair, who knows what Gibson and others had at their disposal during their times, when there were no tests for this stuff.

itsnotrequired
01-10-2007, 01:02 PM
Has Clemens' trainer been caught distributing steriods? Roger wasn't even questioned. The guy works out just like Ryan did, keeping his legs strong so they can do most of the pitching work. And he's always been a big guy, he never showed up to camp one day like Barry and Ron Gant did. Bonds and Gant went from splints to a moose in a year, (maybe two for Barriod).

Until some evidence is shown that he cheated or cheats, I think a guy with 4000 K's, 300+ wins, and a stellar ERA pitching in an offensive era should get a better treatment than that.

And to be fair, who knows what Gibson and others had at their disposal during their times, when there were no tests for this stuff.

Ryan threw 239 innings and had 301 Ks in 1989...at age 43. He also lowered his ERA by a third of a run when compared to 1988. Where is the suspicion over his numbers?

When Clemens moved to the NL in 2004, he got the advantage of both facing batters unfamiliar with him AND getting to face a pitcher rather than a DH. Result? His ERA fell by a full run when compared to the previous season. So his fabulous ERA in recent seasons don't seem that unbelievable. 2005 was indeed insane. A 1.87 ERA with over 200 IP? Wow. But even last year it can be seen that batter familiarity and age are taking its toll. ERA was up, WHIP was up, walks per inning were up, strikeouts per inning were down, etc.

Ryan benefited in 1989 by also switching leagues (his numbers went down in subsequent years as batters figured him out and age took its toll). Even having to face a DH instead of a pitcher, he still lowered his ERA.

PaulDrake
01-10-2007, 01:45 PM
And to be fair, who knows what Gibson and others had at their disposal during their times, when there were no tests for this stuff. I usually don't study people's profiles so I don't know how old you are. If you saw Gibson then you'd know what a ridiculous statement that is. If he had access to anything then maybe it was "greenies" or a similar amphetamine that some players of his era used. Not quite the same thing as the powerful performance enhancers used by some of today's athletes. I remain mostly convinced that Clemens has used stuff a lot stronger than greenies for quite some time. If I'm wrong then shame on me, but I really don't think I am. Sooner or later this will all come out. There will be probably be names revealed that neither you nor I, or anyone else for that matter suspected.

itsnotrequired
01-10-2007, 02:06 PM
I usually don't study people's profiles so I don't know how old you are. If you saw Gibson then you'd know what a ridiculous statement that is. If he had access to anything then maybe it was "greenies" or a similar amphetamine that some players of his era used. Not quite the same thing as the powerful performance enhancers used by some of today's athletes. I remain mostly convinced that Clemens has used something or somethings a lot stronger than greenies for quite some time. If I'm wrong then shame on me, but I really don't think I am. Sooner or later this will all come out. There will be probably be some names revealed that neither you nor I, or anyone else for that matter suspected.

Rumors abound of players using steroids in the 1970s and even as far back as the 1960s, well within the era that Gibson pitched in. The "science" of steroids and their application was no doubt far less sophisticated back then but I'm not surprised at all that players have come out saying that they were in use back then. This is in no way "proof" that Gibson took steroids or even speculation that he did but it appears as if enhancers beyond greenies and amphetamines were available to players in Gibson's era. I just take exception to statements that since Clemens is pitching successfully late in his career and is doing so in the "steroid age" that this someone makes it more probable that he took steroids than didn't.

soxinem1
01-12-2007, 07:45 AM
I usually don't study people's profiles so I don't know how old you are. If you saw Gibson then you'd know what a ridiculous statement that is. If he had access to anything then maybe it was "greenies" or a similar amphetamine that some players of his era used. Not quite the same thing as the powerful performance enhancers used by some of today's athletes. I remain mostly convinced that Clemens has used stuff a lot stronger than greenies for quite some time. If I'm wrong then shame on me, but I really don't think I am. Sooner or later this will all come out. There will be probably be names revealed that neither you nor I, or anyone else for that matter suspected.

Steroids have been around since at least WWII.

If it is ever revealed that Roger used the juice, I will definitely be one of the first to put him in a category with the others, but until then, he gets my vote.

WhiteSox5187
01-12-2007, 12:00 PM
Greatest pitcher of all time? Easy. Satchel Paige. But Christy Matthewson was pretty good too!

White Sox Randy
01-12-2007, 02:32 PM
Wow ! Some interesting thoughts on this one.

Here's mine: In his prime Pedro Martinez was the best followed by Koufax. If I had to pick one pitcher to win one game at his best - this is it: Pedro slightly ahead of Koufax.

Over an entire career, Clemens might be the best...up there with Walter Johnson,Christy Mathewson, Tom Seaver, Juan Marichal, Jim Palmer, Bob Gibson, Lefty Grove,Grover Alexander, Warren Spahn and Randy Johnson. If I had to pick a pitcher to live with for a whole career like 20 years - this is it: Walter Johnson from the first half century and from the second Roger Clemens followed by Warren Spahn and Randy Johnson.

It's so hard to judge eras but to me post season success is a critical measure- we're not talking about pitching great against weak teams or when the pressure is off but under the most intense spotlights and against the best teams so.....I say that eliminates Maddux from the conversation.

Santana can't be talked about yet.

Nolan Ryan might not be in the top 20 pitchers of all-time!

SouthSide_HitMen
01-12-2007, 03:27 PM
Wow ! Some interesting thoughts on this one.

Here's mine: In his prime Pedro Martinez was the best followed by Koufax. If I had to pick one pitcher to win one game at his best - this is it: Pedro slightly ahead of Koufax.

Over an entire career, Clemens might be the best...up there with Walter Johnson,Christy Mathewson, Tom Seaver, Juan Marichal, Jim Palmer, Bob Gibson, Lefty Grove,Grover Alexander, Warren Spahn and Randy Johnson. If I had to pick a pitcher to live with for a whole career like 20 years - this is it: Walter Johnson from the first half century and from the second Roger Clemens followed by Warren Spahn and Randy Johnson.

It's so hard to judge eras but to me post season success is a critical measure- we're not talking about pitching great against weak teams or when the pressure is off but under the most intense spotlights and against the best teams so.....I say that eliminates Maddux from the conversation.

Santana can't be talked about yet.

Nolan Ryan might not be in the top 20 pitchers of all-time!

Good post - I agree with just about everything here.

Clemens vs. Gibson is tough because of the different eras involved. Steroid concerns muck the issue as well. Gibson is the best money pitcher whereas Clemens had a better & much longer career.