As a Cubs fan, I hated the Cardinals, but I had nothing but respect for Gibson and some of the other talented players on the team. My favorite Cubs-Cards games were when Gibson and Fergie Jenkins went head-to-head. Regardless of who won or lost, you knew it was going to be a good game.
I went to a cubs cardinals game when I was younger and got to watch Albert Pujols hit two home runs and, and Sammy Sosa hit a home run all in the same game. I had no idea at the time how lucky I was to be watching the greatness in front of me.
YES. . .And that NEVER gets mentioned about Gibby. . .That's a "record" I don't think will EVER be broken, and many commentators don't seem to remember that fact or maybe don't even know about it. Gibson said that if his manager came to him in the dugout after the 6th inning and said, "Great job, Bob. Now, we're gonna turn it over to the bullpen." He would have said, "You're gonna do WHAT?" Gibson always expected to go the distance. He thought that today's "quality start" stat was kind of funny.
@@k.s.nichols4060 Don't forget the Curt Flood error. Curt Flood; one of the best fielding centerfielders of all-time. But yes, it was a great series, even though my Cards lost.
The only thing you kind of got wrong about Gibson was saying that he purposefully threw at people. Gibby himself said in his book with Reggie Jackson (Sixty Feet, Six Inches) that if a pitcher wants to throw inside, he should NEVER just throw to the inside part of the strike zone. . .He should pitch FURTHER inside than that or some hitters would pull a ball out of the ballpark. So, if a hitter wanted to crowd the plate it was up to him to get out of the way of a Gibson "inside" pitch. Not that Gibson never knocked a guy down, but he wasn't trying to hit the guy, he was just throwing far enough inside that the guy couldn't pull the ball for a home run. If a hitter crowded the plate, that pitch would sometimes knock a guy down, and it was said that Gibby threw at him. Not really, just don't crowd the plate against Gibby or you better be ready to "dance."
Gibson only hit one batter every 158 plate appearances, which is far behind Pedro Martinz (81), Randy Johnson (90), and Don Drysdale (92). Eight other HOFs also had a higher hit batter per plate appearance than Gibby, including Roger Clemens, Nolan Ryan, and Greg Maddux.
Oh, the era of real pitchers, when they were men, iron arms, pitching full games, no math, only results..been following for almost 70 years, i know what I am talking about.
Yeah, I asked the same question above and just saw your post! I think for a 6 yr stint, Koufax, Johnson, Maddux and Pedro Martinez were more dominating than gibson, in a 6 yr stretch, except for that 1.12 era freak of nature number. Look at greg maddux with a 1.62,19-2 win/loss though, not losing 9 games. Pedro martinez 1.74 but only 6 losses and just under 300 strikeouts. Gibson never struck out 300. In fact,he never got over 270... Yankees ron Guidry 1.72 but 25-3!
At 4:50 the narrator incorrectly states Gibson threw a wild pitch in the 3rd inning against the Dodgers to end his scoreless inning streak. I was 9 years old at that time and listening to Vin Scully broadcast the game. That wild pitch and run that scorred occured in the first inning. Len Gabrielson scored the run after back to back 2 out hits, and with Ron Fairly was at the plate.
@@Artificialintelligentle No argument. Martinez was so far above the pitchers of his era. Different eras. 13 shutouts in a season and a 1.12 era is the greatest single season by a pitcher . Ever, and I’ll agree that Pedro’s 5 is untouchable.
@@chrisweidner4768 Koufax and Pedro are kings in a 6 yr stint. But people ignore Greg Maddux between 92 - 98. His era was even lower, on the average in a 5 yr stint,than even pedro and gibson. Check out these Maddux ERA's, and combine with a brooks robinson like glove work on the mound. 92 - 2.18, 93 - 2.36, 94 - 1.56, 95 - 1.63, 96 - 2.72, 97 - 2.20, 98 - 2.22! 1995 , he was 19-2 with 1.63 ERA!! Besides koufax, in modern times,is there any other pitcher in a 5 yr span that had a lower era on the average with over 210 innings pitched each year and less than 40 walks a year!!???
No. Bob Gibson was not the reason the rules were changed. He was one of _many_ reasons, and not the most significant. His season was incredible, but context is crucial. During the season, Denny McClain (31 wins) and Don Drysdale (58 2/3 scoreless inning streak) received more hype than Gibson, whose hype came at the end of the season. By this time, everyone was already talking about rule changes. There were many newspaper and magazine articles from 1967 and 1968 discussing ways to increase offense. For example, a June 17th, 1968 article in Sports Illustrated suggested changing the strike zone, the mound height, etc. Many pitchers were mentioned in the article. Gibson wasn’t one of them. Restoring balance to the hitter was a popular topic _before_ Gibson’s dominance that year. Infamously, Charlie Finley even suggested changing the ball to a bright orange color. Others suggested 3 balls for a walk. Everyone had an opinion. The rule changes discussion started the year before, and was not caused by Bob Gibson. This is a myth perpetrated by Ken Burns and other revisionists, as well as Bob Gibson fanboys. Gibson did have an all-time great season, but the overall lopsided league-wide lack of offense was the true reason, and the trend was noticeable before 1968. Yaz’s .301 was the clincher, not Gibson’s pitching. Fans also knew that year after year, including 1968, Gibson had a losing record against the top 2 teams in the league. From 1961 to 1969, when facing the top teams in the league, Gibson’s winning percentage was only .371, lower than McClain and Drysdale. Marichal’s record against the top teams was .676 during the same time. Marichal also had more shutouts. I know wins and shutouts aren’t necessarily the best metrics to judge a pitcher, but at the time, they were a big deal. And his ERA? In 1968 the league ERA was 2.98. Yet Gibson’s 1.12 isn’t even in the top 50 all-time in terms of ERA versus the league. Nowhere near Pedro territory. Gibson deserved the MVP, and the post-season hype cemented his reputation. But it’s untrue that he’s the reason the rules were changed.
@@mikesnow4735 Not salty at all. I stand by my comment. Bob Gibson’s 1968 season was an all-time great season, but Pedro’s was the best ever in my opinion, and he did it in the era of the hitter, not the era of the pitcher. I certainly like Curt’s performance, as well, but my comment wasn’t to compare performances. That’s a never ending debate. My comment was to address the false notion that Bob’s season was the reason the rules changed. It wasn’t. Rule changes were being discussed before 1968 even started, and before Gibson’s hype took off near the end of the season. You sound like a fanboy. That’s fine. Enjoy Bob Gibson. He was great in 1968.
@@jeremybowman7126 not really. Plenty of differing opinions by players, managers, and umps who were there. First-hand accounts are actually something that really interests me. And contemporaneous accounts (hence the Sports Illustrated article I mentioned.) Gibson was undoubtedly the most intimidating pitcher of the era-people agree on this-but intimidation isn’t important for success. Nolan Ryan was more intimidating than Tom Seaver, but by every metric Tom Seaver was a better pitcher. Steve Dalkowski was the most intimidating pitcher ever, but he never played in the big leagues. Gibson also didn’t intentionally hit as many batters as other pitchers, but he looked like he would. Moreover, you can’t be the goat if you have a losing record against the top teams in the league for your entire career. Koufax, Marichal, Drysdale, Ford, etc all had winning records against the top teams. But no need to argue about this. We probably both love baseball and baseball history. I know I do. If you think Gibson is the goat, that’s fine. You’ve made up your mind. He certainly was an amazing pitcher.
@@mitchelvalentino1569 where does pedro sit all time in any statistics he had the one of the greatest runs a pitcher had 4 great seasons but where does he sit all time in wins, strikeouts, era and. I am just talking about the last 40 years of pitchers cy young awards
@@edx108 Sandy Koufax in 65-66 was equally as good (basically identical ERAs); plus he pitched 54 complete games compared to Pedro's 12. The numbers are the numbers.
@@ron88303 Black people didn’t even have civil rights yet 😭😭 They didn’t even allow dominicans to play yet 😭😭 those seasons don’t count + pedro was pitching during prime steroids era lol pedro season was wayyyy more impressive
@@edx108 Silly talk. I'm from that time. Blacks and Latinos were an integral part of the game by then. Pitchers pitched complete games back then, while guys like Pedro got replaced by relievers when they got "tired". Pedro's numbers would be drastically different if he had the workload of the 60's pitcher. Pedro's in the all-time great discussion, but really not more impressive than the other greats.
@@ron88303 Athletes in the 2000s are better than athletes in the 60s lol is literally a fact lol barry bonds woulda hit 120 Homeruns in one season lol Is ok to admit that things are better lol is just part of life. Pitcher are throwing harder than ever and batters are bigger and more athletic than ever lol they were great during their time but compare to players now….40s 50s and 60s players are just not good bro lol Bunch plumbers and part time baseball players
As a Cubs fan, I hated the Cardinals, but I had nothing but respect for Gibson and some of the other talented players on the team. My favorite Cubs-Cards games were when Gibson and Fergie Jenkins went head-to-head. Regardless of who won or lost, you knew it was going to be a good game.
i'm the biggest cardinals fan i know
I went to a cubs cardinals game when I was younger and got to watch Albert Pujols hit two home runs and, and Sammy Sosa hit a home run all in the same game. I had no idea at the time how lucky I was to be watching the greatness in front of me.
How did he lose 9 games with an era that astonishingly low?
@@Artificialintelligentle A lot of low scoring games.
Gibson won games 4 and 7 in '64. Games 1,4, and 7 in '67. Games 1 and 4 in '68. That's SEVEN CONSECUTIVE WORLD SERIES COMPLETE GAME VICTORIES
YES. . .And that NEVER gets mentioned about Gibby. . .That's a "record" I don't think will EVER be broken, and many commentators don't seem to remember that fact or maybe don't even know about it. Gibson said that if his manager came to him in the dugout after the 6th inning and said, "Great job, Bob. Now, we're gonna turn it over to the bullpen." He would have said, "You're gonna do WHAT?" Gibson always expected to go the distance. He thought that today's "quality start" stat was kind of funny.
Lost 9 games with a 1.12 era???? Never had a season like that before or after. 4 guys were better for a 6 yr stint.
Gibson was ridiculously tough. I'm so happy I have one of his auto cards.
My Tigers probably wouldn't have beat the Cards and Gibson in the Series without the great Mickey Lolich dominating. Heck of a Series.
Small point because your video is great. The ERA didn't increase by a "point," but by a "run.". But your videos are very good. :)
@@k.s.nichols4060 Don't forget the Curt Flood error. Curt Flood; one of the best fielding centerfielders of all-time. But yes, it was a great series, even though my Cards lost.
The only thing you kind of got wrong about Gibson was saying that he purposefully threw at people. Gibby himself said in his book with Reggie Jackson (Sixty Feet, Six Inches) that if a pitcher wants to throw inside, he should NEVER just throw to the inside part of the strike zone. . .He should pitch FURTHER inside than that or some hitters would pull a ball out of the ballpark. So, if a hitter wanted to crowd the plate it was up to him to get out of the way of a Gibson "inside" pitch. Not that Gibson never knocked a guy down, but he wasn't trying to hit the guy, he was just throwing far enough inside that the guy couldn't pull the ball for a home run. If a hitter crowded the plate, that pitch would sometimes knock a guy down, and it was said that Gibby threw at him. Not really, just don't crowd the plate against Gibby or you better be ready to "dance."
Gibson only hit one batter every 158 plate appearances, which is far behind Pedro Martinz (81), Randy Johnson (90), and Don Drysdale (92). Eight other HOFs also had a higher hit batter per plate appearance than Gibby, including Roger Clemens, Nolan Ryan, and Greg Maddux.
Always happy to see Curt Flood get his flowers as a player
He was a favorite when in St. Louis.
Oh, the era of real pitchers, when they were men, iron arms, pitching full games, no math, only results..been following for almost 70 years, i know what I am talking about.
Detroit Tiger fan here. Could someone please explain to me with that E.R.A. how he lost 9 games that year?
Yeah, I asked the same question above and just saw your post! I think for a 6 yr stint, Koufax, Johnson, Maddux and Pedro Martinez were more dominating than gibson, in a 6 yr stretch, except for that 1.12 era freak of nature number. Look at greg maddux with a 1.62,19-2 win/loss though, not losing 9 games. Pedro martinez 1.74 but only 6 losses and just under 300 strikeouts. Gibson never struck out 300. In fact,he never got over 270... Yankees ron Guidry 1.72 but 25-3!
@@Artificialintelligentle McLain was pretty incredible 1965-69. Those numbers will jump out at you too! 🙂
I LOVE CARDNAILS
At 4:50 the narrator incorrectly states Gibson threw a wild pitch in the 3rd inning against the Dodgers to end his scoreless inning streak. I was 9 years old at that time and listening to Vin Scully broadcast the game. That wild pitch and run that scorred occured in the first inning. Len Gabrielson scored the run after back to back 2 out hits, and with Ron Fairly was at the plate.
Gibson was too good
13 shutouts in one season. Love Pedro as well, but this will never be touched.
Nah highest is 16 but 13 is still crazy
@@Shel230 True, but done in 1876/1916. A completely different game. I guess the same could also be said for Bob’s era as well.
Martinez had a better 5 yr stint than gibson, if you eliminate the 1.12 era year 1968
@@Artificialintelligentle No argument. Martinez was so far above the pitchers of his era. Different eras. 13 shutouts in a season and a 1.12 era is the greatest single season by a pitcher . Ever, and I’ll agree that Pedro’s 5 is untouchable.
@@chrisweidner4768 Koufax and Pedro are kings in a 6 yr stint. But people ignore Greg Maddux between 92 - 98.
His era was even lower, on the average in a 5 yr stint,than even pedro and gibson.
Check out these Maddux ERA's, and combine with a brooks robinson like glove work on the mound.
92 - 2.18, 93 - 2.36, 94 - 1.56, 95 - 1.63, 96 - 2.72, 97 - 2.20, 98 - 2.22!
1995 , he was 19-2 with 1.63 ERA!!
Besides koufax, in modern times,is there any other pitcher in a 5 yr span that had a lower era on the average with over 210 innings pitched each year and less than 40 walks a year!!???
No. Bob Gibson was not the reason the rules were changed. He was one of _many_ reasons, and not the most significant. His season was incredible, but context is crucial. During the season, Denny McClain (31 wins) and Don Drysdale (58 2/3 scoreless inning streak) received more hype than Gibson, whose hype came at the end of the season. By this time, everyone was already talking about rule changes.
There were many newspaper and magazine articles from 1967 and 1968 discussing ways to increase offense. For example, a June 17th, 1968 article in Sports Illustrated suggested changing the strike zone, the mound height, etc. Many pitchers were mentioned in the article. Gibson wasn’t one of them. Restoring balance to the hitter was a popular topic _before_ Gibson’s dominance that year. Infamously, Charlie Finley even suggested changing the ball to a bright orange color. Others suggested 3 balls for a walk. Everyone had an opinion.
The rule changes discussion started the year before, and was not caused by Bob Gibson. This is a myth perpetrated by Ken Burns and other revisionists, as well as Bob Gibson fanboys. Gibson did have an all-time great season, but the overall lopsided league-wide lack of offense was the true reason, and the trend was noticeable before 1968. Yaz’s .301 was the clincher, not Gibson’s pitching.
Fans also knew that year after year, including 1968, Gibson had a losing record against the top 2 teams in the league. From 1961 to 1969, when facing the top teams in the league, Gibson’s winning percentage was only .371, lower than McClain and Drysdale. Marichal’s record against the top teams was .676 during the same time. Marichal also had more shutouts. I know wins and shutouts aren’t necessarily the best metrics to judge a pitcher, but at the time, they were a big deal.
And his ERA? In 1968 the league ERA was 2.98. Yet Gibson’s 1.12 isn’t even in the top 50 all-time in terms of ERA versus the league. Nowhere near Pedro territory.
Gibson deserved the MVP, and the post-season hype cemented his reputation. But it’s untrue that he’s the reason the rules were changed.
You salty bob the goat sit down pedro was ok and only won the world series once and if believe it was curt chilling that was the star pitcher
@@mikesnow4735 Not salty at all. I stand by my comment. Bob Gibson’s 1968 season was an all-time great season, but Pedro’s was the best ever in my opinion, and he did it in the era of the hitter, not the era of the pitcher. I certainly like Curt’s performance, as well, but my comment wasn’t to compare performances. That’s a never ending debate. My comment was to address the false notion that Bob’s season was the reason the rules changed. It wasn’t. Rule changes were being discussed before 1968 even started, and before Gibson’s hype took off near the end of the season. You sound like a fanboy. That’s fine. Enjoy Bob Gibson. He was great in 1968.
People that played the say different
@@jeremybowman7126 not really. Plenty of differing opinions by players, managers, and umps who were there. First-hand accounts are actually something that really interests me. And contemporaneous accounts (hence the Sports Illustrated article I mentioned.)
Gibson was undoubtedly the most intimidating pitcher of the era-people agree on this-but intimidation isn’t important for success. Nolan Ryan was more intimidating than Tom Seaver, but by every metric Tom Seaver was a better pitcher. Steve Dalkowski was the most intimidating pitcher ever, but he never played in the big leagues.
Gibson also didn’t intentionally hit as many batters as other pitchers, but he looked like he would. Moreover, you can’t be the goat if you have a losing record against the top teams in the league for your entire career. Koufax, Marichal, Drysdale, Ford, etc all had winning records against the top teams.
But no need to argue about this. We probably both love baseball and baseball history. I know I do. If you think Gibson is the goat, that’s fine. You’ve made up your mind. He certainly was an amazing pitcher.
@@mitchelvalentino1569 where does pedro sit all time in any statistics he had the one of the greatest runs a pitcher had 4 great seasons but where does he sit all time in wins, strikeouts, era and. I am just talking about the last 40 years of pitchers cy young awards
Excellent content. Keep it up!
Absolutely love how Angel Hernandez caught a stray dis in this!😂😂😂
Inner circle
"Throughout his life, nothing and no one on earth could stop Bob Gibson. So they moved the earth itself, and that still didnt work." ~Jon Bois
stupid
Sandy Koufax and Tom Seaver were the only two pitchers more dominate than Bob Gibson in that era.
Might also consider Juan Marichal and Jim Palmer. I suppose it's what one considers dominate. All of them all-time greats.
@@ron88303 Agree
Gibson, higher WAR, more wins, way more completed games and slightly better era. Ok that settles it, pack it up Pedro lovers 😅
Sorry bro. When you compare against the league average, there's no touching Pedro
Pedro 1999-2000 seasons run was the best performance by a pitcher ever ….like ever lol is not even close
@@edx108 Sandy Koufax in 65-66 was equally as good (basically identical ERAs); plus he pitched 54 complete games compared to Pedro's 12. The numbers are the numbers.
@@ron88303 Black people didn’t even have civil rights yet 😭😭 They didn’t even allow dominicans to play yet 😭😭 those seasons don’t count + pedro was pitching during prime steroids era lol pedro season was wayyyy more impressive
@@edx108 Silly talk. I'm from that time. Blacks and Latinos were an integral part of the game by then. Pitchers pitched complete games back then, while guys like Pedro got replaced by relievers when they got "tired". Pedro's numbers would be drastically different if he had the workload of the 60's pitcher. Pedro's in the all-time great discussion, but really not more impressive than the other greats.
@@ron88303 Athletes in the 2000s are better than athletes in the 60s lol is literally a fact lol barry bonds woulda hit 120 Homeruns in one season lol Is ok to admit that things are better lol is just part of life. Pitcher are throwing harder than ever and batters are bigger and more athletic than ever lol they were great during their time but compare to players now….40s 50s and 60s players are just not good bro lol Bunch plumbers and part time baseball players
I LOVE CARDNAILS