Which pitcher was greater: Bob Gibson or Roger Clemens?

clemens. he's a 300-game winner compared to gibson's 251, although Clemens has played 6 more seasons.

I'm not old enough to have seen Gibson pitch but what i've heard from the old-timers is that he was nasty......

 

But since i've seen clemens pitch and by whats he's done i gotta go with him.....

 

If my life was on the line I'd go with Clemens.....

you people know how difficult it is to compare pitchers of different eras.....

 

 

 

but roger is starting to be called by a few as the best pitcher since wwii.

 

 

cant go wrong with either, but i'm taking roger.

 

 

but its a damn close decision. i loved what bob gibson did.

Clemens is much better than Gibson. This should not even be debated. Clemens is one of the top handful of pitchers ever. Gibson is not anywhere close to that.

Accurately comparing any pitcher who played before 1969 to any pitcher afterwards is impossible. Prior to that season, there were no height restrictions for the pitching mound. As I recall most mounds were around 16" in height before the change, whereas the new rule stipulates that the mound must be 10". The change was made because league ERA's were at record lows, but so were batting averages. This is in part demonstrated by Gibson's own 1968 season where he had a microscopic ERA of 1.12. During that period, the game favored pitchers so much that it has been called the "second deadball era" (the first having ended with the emergence of Babe Ruth).

 

I would also note that Clemens pitched during the "steroid era", where certain players (not all) had a very unfair advantage over their competition. Based on his sheer domination, Clemens could very easily be one of those players, though who knows? What it ultimately points to is that we cannot compare players from different eras. What I will say without a doubt is that Clemens was the MOST dominant pitcher of his era. How his dominance compares to the dominance of other players during their respective eras is beyond my scope of statistical analysis.

 

Now keeping that in mind, understand that Roger Clemens pitched in the most offensively bloated period in baseball history. While doing so, he's become second on the all time strike-out list, has 100 more wins than Gibson, and has dominated for nearly 2 decades. Mainly because of those reasons, if pushed to choose, I pick Clemens.

Clemens, to many, already holds the title of greatest living pitcher and he's rapidly making a case for greatest pitcher ever.

 

It's no contest...and this is with me realizing the Gibson cheated with doctored mounds and Clemens most likely having at least experimented with 'roids...since Canseco is rapidly turning into the authority on the matter and he fingered Clemens in Juiced.

Accurately comparing any pitcher who played before 1969 to any pitcher afterwards is impossible. Prior to that season, there were no height restrictions for the pitching mound. As I recall most mounds were around 16" in height before the change, whereas the new rule stipulates that the mound must be 10". The change was made because league ERA's were at record lows, but so were batting averages. This is in part demonstrated by Gibson's own 1968 season where he had a microscopic ERA of 1.12. During that period, the game favored pitchers so much that it has been called the "second deadball era" (the first having ended with the emergence of Babe Ruth).

 

I would also note that Clemens pitched during the "steroid era", where certain players (not all) had a very unfair advantage over their competition. Based on his sheer domination, Clemens could very easily be one of those players, though who knows? What it ultimately points to is that we cannot compare players from different eras. What I will say without a doubt is that Clemens was the MOST dominant pitcher of his era. How his dominance compares to the dominance of other players during their respective eras is beyond my scope of statistical analysis.

 

Now keeping that in mind, understand that Roger Clemens pitched in the most offensively bloated period in baseball history. While doing so, he's become second on the all time strike-out list, has 100 more wins than Gibson, and has dominated for nearly 2 decades. Mainly because of those reasons, if pushed to choose, I pick Clemens.

I think you can compare players from different eras by comparing them to their contemporaries. For example Clemens has been in the top 3 in ERA 8 times and in the top 3 in innings pitched 6 times. Gibson was in the top 3 in ERA only twice and in the top 3 in innings pitched only 4 times. Clemens vs Gibson is a 1st round KO.

I'm going with the Rocket since he's played against tougher hitters throughout his career.

They both were as dominent as could be, however if they would have pitched in the same era i believe We would be more impressed with Clemons due to his longevity. Gibson pitched in a time where pitchers were more dominant and pitched every 4 days Clemons pitched every 5 days. Gibson was asked to complete games while Clemons was asked to pitched 7 innings. Great question! I still give clemons a slight advantage

Accurately comparing any pitcher who played before 1969 to any pitcher afterwards is impossible. Prior to that season, there were no height restrictions for the pitching mound. As I recall most mounds were around 16" in height before the change, whereas the new rule stipulates that the mound must be 10". The change was made because league ERA's were at record lows, but so were batting averages. This is in part demonstrated by Gibson's own 1968 season where he had a microscopic ERA of 1.12. During that period, the game favored pitchers so much that it has been called the "second deadball era" (the first having ended with the emergence of Babe Ruth).

 

I would also note that Clemens pitched during the "steroid era", where certain players (not all) had a very unfair advantage over their competition. Based on his sheer domination, Clemens could very easily be one of those players, though who knows? What it ultimately points to is that we cannot compare players from different eras. What I will say without a doubt is that Clemens was the MOST dominant pitcher of his era. How his dominance compares to the dominance of other players during their respective eras is beyond my scope of statistical analysis.

 

Now keeping that in mind, understand that Roger Clemens pitched in the most offensively bloated period in baseball history. While doing so, he's become second on the all time strike-out list, has 100 more wins than Gibson, and has dominated for nearly 2 decades. Mainly because of those reasons, if pushed to choose, I pick Clemens.

:notworthy

Having watched the entire careers of both pitchers this is a really tough call, so I'm not.

 

I will say this though the mound height thing is a red herring. Go look at Gibson's number's after the change. They are still ridiculously awe inspiring. And look at his complete games and innings pitched. The guy was a #%^ machine.

 

The year after they changed the mound height (known as "the Bob Gibson Rule") his ERA was 2.18. That should tell you something and he threw 314 innings with 28 complete games.

 

Indulge me, go look at his stats, innings pitched, complete games, these are unbelievable numbers:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gibsobo01.shtml

 

And, I believe the word used above was "nasty". Nasty doesn't even come close. Mean would be better. These were the days when a guy hit a homerun off you, the next guy was on the ground and Gibson was the best of the worst. And he wasn't throwing some junk pitch to get it done, it was his fastball aimed right at your head. If you think Roger could pitch inside you should have seen Gibson.

 

But all that said Clemens can't be discounted. I remember when came up with the Sox, a total jerk, bar fights on Newbury St, chronically sore arm, but beyond that a talent that from day one was head and shoulders above just about everyone. It was obvious this was someone special, and he turned out to be.

 

I feel lucky having seen both. It's an impossible choice.

First off Rog is a 300 game winner, who can still bring it late in his career. Second off Clemens has pitched in an era where hitters can take you deep each time, and cut through a baseball like swiss cheese, edge goes to Clemens, he is the better pitcher hands down, and defines the meaning of a TRUE pitcher.

gibson for me by a good margin

Clemens is much better than Gibson. This should not even be debated. Clemens is one of the top handful of pitchers ever. Gibson is not anywhere close to that.

 

 

 

Your last sentence is one of the most ridiculuos statements I have ever heard on marlinsbaseball.com

Clemens is much better than Gibson. This should not even be debated. Clemens is one of the top handful of pitchers ever. Gibson is not anywhere close to that.

 

 

 

Your last sentence is one of the most ridiculuos statements I have ever heard on marlinsbaseball.com

Gibson is probably between the 10th and 15th best pitcher ever and that's nowhere close to the top handful of pitchers. You come across as the typical guy who allows his opinion to be shaped by the media and the media loves (and overrates) Gibson so I understand where you're coming from.

Clemens is much better than Gibson. This should not even be debated. Clemens is one of the top handful of pitchers ever. Gibson is not anywhere close to that.

 

 

 

Your last sentence is one of the most ridiculuos statements I have ever heard on marlinsbaseball.com

Gibson is probably between the 10th and 15th best pitcher ever and that's nowhere close to the top handful of pitchers. You come across as the typical guy who allows his opinion to be shaped by the media and the media loves (and overrates) Gibson so I understand where you're coming from.

 

 

 

I'll refrain from telling you what type of guy you come across as.

 

 

You said "Gibson is not anywhere close to" Clemens and then you said Gibson is between the "10th and 15th best ever". In the entire history of baseball you call Gibson in the top 15. Like I said, your last sentence sucked.

Clemens is much better than Gibson. This should not even be debated. Clemens is one of the top handful of pitchers ever. Gibson is not anywhere close to that.

 

 

 

Your last sentence is one of the most ridiculuos statements I have ever heard on marlinsbaseball.com

Gibson is probably between the 10th and 15th best pitcher ever and that's nowhere close to the top handful of pitchers. You come across as the typical guy who allows his opinion to be shaped by the media and the media loves (and overrates) Gibson so I understand where you're coming from.

 

I think the boston and NY media has way over-rated Clemens over his career as well. ESPN pretty much might as well build an altar and worship the guy as a false idol

I think the boston and NY media has way over-rated Clemens over his career as well. ESPN pretty much might as well build an altar and worship the guy as a false idol

I think he has earned just about any accolade he gets because of his combination of excellence and longevity. His 144 ERA+ with 4800 innings pitched is pretty special.

I think the boston and NY media has way over-rated Clemens over his career as well. ESPN pretty much might as well build an altar and worship the guy as a false idol

I think he has earned just about any accolade he gets because of his combination of excellence and longevity. His 144 ERA+ with 4800 innings pitched is pretty special.

I think he is top 10 ever but I dont think it is fair to talk about hyping for Gibson when we are in the era of hype.

 

It is exactly opposite of the time periods. Both are top 10 ever pitchers perhaps top 5 ever.

I think the boston and NY media has way over-rated Clemens over his career as well. ESPN pretty much might as well build an altar and worship the guy as a false idol

I think he has earned just about any accolade he gets because of his combination of excellence and longevity. His 144 ERA+ with 4800 innings pitched is pretty special.

I think he is top 10 ever but I dont think it is fair to talk about hyping for Gibson when we are in the era of hype.

 

It is exactly opposite of the time periods. Both are top 10 ever pitchers perhaps top 5 ever.

For what it's worth the "experts" voted Clemens ahead of Gibson as the best living pitcher. Gibson was voted 4th. He should be 5th or 6th after Clemens, Seaver, Maddux and Johnson and maybe Palmer. Palmer got screwed out of the list.

 

==========================

 

The Greatest Pitcher Alive

by David Gassko

May 05, 2006

 

Monday, ESPN published a much-publicized feature ranking the greatest living pitchers. The list was based on a poll of 32 ESPN baseball "experts," who all agreed that Roger Clemens was the greatest living pitcher, followed by Tom Seaver, Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, Greg Maddux, Bob Feller, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Steve Carlton, and Juan Marichal to round out the top-ten.

 

The entire article:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...-pitcher-alive/

Its difficult to compare differant eras of the game. Gibson was a bulldog when he pitched, throwing inside and was the source of more than a few days off for some of the old timers. Clemons has demonstrated an ability to pitch with power past 40 and has won a whole lot more games while pitching on a less frequent basis. For the 4,000+ K's and 300+ wins I would say Clemons.

Roger Clemens is the best pitcher I have ever seen. I think he has taken a lot of crap about not being a "big game" pitcher and that diminishes his shine a little bit. With that said, even with a little smudge, a high quality diamond still sparkles brightly when held up in the light. When all is said and done, Clemens will be a unanimous 1st ballott HOF pitcher and deserves it. His numbers are scary good and even past the age of 40, no one wants to face his fastball. He may not have had as many K's as Nolan Ryan, or wins as Cy Young, but he's easily better than the two of them combined.

 

Just think about this for a moment: SEVEN Cy Young awards.

 

He is not so much a pitcher as he is a pitching God! As good as Bob Gibson was, he simply does not compare to possibly the best pitcher we will ever see in our lifetime.

yf21 - Nobody is 100% first ballot. Unfortunately, there's always a writer with some sort of axe to grind (see Ripkin).

 

It probably can't be done, but I'd love to see this poll split by age of voter. As one who actually saw Gibby, he's my GOAT RHP.

 

And Koufax for LHP.

yf21 - Nobody is 100% first ballot. Unfortunately, there's always a writer with some sort of axe to grind (see Ripkin).

Fair enough. In my mind, 90% is the same as 100% becuase you are right, there are some voters who simply screw up. I would like to hear one good reason why anyone would have left Ripken off of their ballot. There simply isn't one. When guys like Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, and even Ty Cobb can't get 100% the only reason is because people are being pricks. That's a simple case of a voter who needs to lose their privs. I mean, how is Tom Seaver the guy with the highest voting %? It makes no sense.

 

It probably can't be done, but I'd love to see this poll split by age of voter. As one who actually saw Gibby, he's my GOAT RHP.

 

And Koufax for LHP.

Yeah, I know a lot of the younger guys probably don't know too much about some of the older players. I'm with you on Koufax. We'll just have to agree to disagree on Gibson. The way I see it, Clemens was more dominating over a longer period of time during a historic offensive era.

 

Just as a side note, here's a perfect example of someone who needs to lose their right to vote:

If no one else can find meaningful fault with Gwynn or Baltimore's iron shortstop, Cal Ripken Jr., count on Paul Ladewski to act as designated killjoy. The columnist for Chicago's Daily Southtown vowed in 2005 not to vote for anyone who played during baseball's steroid era, and confirmed Thursday that he had submitted a blank ballot this year.

Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/padre...lz1n7swing.html