1969 NL Cy Young

craig44craig44 Posts: 3,285 ✭✭✭✭

Who was the best pitcher in the NL in 1969? I say Bob Gibson was. he didnt even finish 2nd in the balloting. I know it was the year Seaver won 25 and the Mets won, But as for metrics that actually matter, Gibby was the best pitcher in 69. More IP, K, better FIP, WAR, RAR. ERA was a wash, but Gibson threw 41 more innings.

were pitcher wins really that important back then? goodness.

Comments

  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 7,214 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:
    Who was the best pitcher in the NL in 1969? I say Bob Gibson was. he didnt even finish 2nd in the balloting. I know it was the year Seaver won 25 and the Mets won, But as for metrics that actually matter, Gibby was the best pitcher in 69. More IP, K, better FIP, WAR, RAR. ERA was a wash, but Gibson threw 41 more innings.

    were pitcher wins really that important back then? goodness.

    pitcher wins have always been stupid

  • TabeTabe Posts: 3,282 ✭✭✭

    Yes, wins were that important back then.

    This is one of those seasons where WAR doesn't make much sense. WAR for Gibson was 10.4. Seaver's was 7.2. I have no problem with Gibson's being slightly higher but 3.2 wins? Nearly 50% more? For 41 more innings with a higher WHIP? Yeah, not seeing enough to differentiate them by over 3 like that.

  • stevekstevek Posts: 21,906 ✭✭✭✭✭

    1969 was a magical season for the New York Mets for a multitude of reasons.

    There was simply no way that Tom Seaver was not going to win the Cy Young award.

    Case closed.

  • MLBdaysMLBdays Posts: 599 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Ok ...Next Topic....

  • keetskeets Posts: 20,984 ✭✭✭✭✭

    :)


  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 7,214 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @stevek said:
    1969 was a magical season for the New York Mets for a multitude of reasons.

    There was simply no way that Tom Seaver was not going to win the Cy Young award.

    Case closed.

    Somebody put a thumb on the scales of justice to get the desired outcome. Typical

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 5,188 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 9, 2019 7:53PM

    Marichal was the best pitcher that year imo.

    I don't think it was THAT bad that Seaver got it.

    Gibson would have been a good choice though.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • stevekstevek Posts: 21,906 ✭✭✭✭✭

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/1969_National_League_Cy_Young_Award

    Seaver received 23 out of 24 first place Cy Young votes.

    Gibson received no Cy Young votes.

    This case is now permanently sealed.

  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 19,078 ✭✭✭✭✭

    All the pitchers mentioned here were great! Couldn't go wrong with any of them.


    All Dimes All Varieties

    Coins for sale

    Canadian Dimes Set


    Washington Quarters All Varieties 32-64


    >RIP -image Rebecca 2004-2018...If love could have saved you - you would have lived forever<
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,413 ✭✭✭

    WAR does a poor job of evaluating pitchers, as noted. The three best pitchers of 1969 have all been mentioned, and the order isn't terribly important. I personally agree that Gibson was the best (then Seaver, then Marichal), but the margins are slight and I could live with any ordering.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 7,214 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @stevek said:
    https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/1969_National_League_Cy_Young_Award

    Seaver received 23 out of 24 first place Cy Young votes.

    Gibson received no Cy Young votes.

    This case is now permanently sealed.

    You are just pointing out the voting system is rigged so , worst take ever , unless that was your intention.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 5,188 ✭✭✭✭

    @bronco2078 said:
    You are just pointing out the voting system is rigged so , worst take ever , unless that was your intention.

    Still on FIRE!

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 7,214 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @bronco2078 said:
    You are just pointing out the voting system is rigged so , worst take ever , unless that was your intention.

    Still on FIRE!

    It happens rarely. I like to think the days when I am on FIRE!! are like tiny islands in a vast sea of mediocrity

  • stevekstevek Posts: 21,906 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @bronco2078 said:

    @stevek said:
    https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/1969_National_League_Cy_Young_Award

    Seaver received 23 out of 24 first place Cy Young votes.

    Gibson received no Cy Young votes.

    This case is now permanently sealed.

    You are just pointing out the voting system is rigged so , worst take ever , unless that was your intention.

    Spin it any way ya wish, but the best pitcher that season in the National League won the award.

    If you want to fill out an official complaint form to the committee, better do it soon, because in order to be properly acknowledged, complaints have to be submitted within the first fifty years of the voting.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,285 ✭✭✭✭

    I think one of the big things that puts Gibby over the top is the 41 extra innings he pitched over Seaver.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 5,188 ✭✭✭✭

    The Cy Young and especially the MVP award often go to the guy on the better team.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • EstilEstil Posts: 5,615 ✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:
    better FIP, WAR, RAR...

    That's not fair. Nobody even knew of those weird stats back then. I don't even know what those are (unless I cheat and google/wiki).

    My best friend Jamiee (born 7/14/12) and my dearly departed Tweetie (6/15/05 - 8/18/12):

    http://s650.photobucket.com/user/Estil/library

    WISHLIST
    1974 Topps set : 38, 46, 48, 78, 79, 102, 138, 143, 148, 151, 156, 193, 201, 210, 214, 223, 241, 243, 256, 264, 266, 268, 277, 289, 290, 316, 349, 367, 379, 391, 392, 398, 404, 405, 429, 435, 460, 466, 492, 504, 535, 552, 570, 577, 592, 603, 610, 614, 616, 633, 654, 655, 660
    1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
    1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,413 ✭✭✭

    @Estil said:

    @craig44 said:
    better FIP, WAR, RAR...

    That's not fair. Nobody even knew of those weird stats back then. I don't even know what those are (unless I cheat and google/wiki).

    That's true, but they did know that Gibson pitched more innings, had a better ERA, allowed fewer HR, and struck out a lot more batters. The giveaway that Seaver won because he won the most games is that the only other pitcher to get a CYA vote was Niekro, who won the second most games.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • EstilEstil Posts: 5,615 ✭✭✭

    But consider for who Seaver won those games for...and how his team was used to preforming the past several years. The fact that he was able to lead such a giant turn around (well lead the pitching staff part anyway) is no doubt what put him over the top.

    As for Gibson meanwhile, he played on what could be the team of the 60s...won world championships in 1964 and 1967 and NL champs in 1968...it was much easier for Gibson to get those wins.

    My best friend Jamiee (born 7/14/12) and my dearly departed Tweetie (6/15/05 - 8/18/12):

    http://s650.photobucket.com/user/Estil/library

    WISHLIST
    1974 Topps set : 38, 46, 48, 78, 79, 102, 138, 143, 148, 151, 156, 193, 201, 210, 214, 223, 241, 243, 256, 264, 266, 268, 277, 289, 290, 316, 349, 367, 379, 391, 392, 398, 404, 405, 429, 435, 460, 466, 492, 504, 535, 552, 570, 577, 592, 603, 610, 614, 616, 633, 654, 655, 660
    1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
    1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
  • EstilEstil Posts: 5,615 ✭✭✭

    @stevek said:
    https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/1969_National_League_Cy_Young_Award

    Seaver received 23 out of 24 first place Cy Young votes.

    Gibson received no Cy Young votes.

    This case is now permanently sealed.

    Not so fast. That was back when they only voted for one guy instead of 1st/2nd/3rd like today. Gibson would've no doubt gotten most all the second place votes if they had them.

    My best friend Jamiee (born 7/14/12) and my dearly departed Tweetie (6/15/05 - 8/18/12):

    http://s650.photobucket.com/user/Estil/library

    WISHLIST
    1974 Topps set : 38, 46, 48, 78, 79, 102, 138, 143, 148, 151, 156, 193, 201, 210, 214, 223, 241, 243, 256, 264, 266, 268, 277, 289, 290, 316, 349, 367, 379, 391, 392, 398, 404, 405, 429, 435, 460, 466, 492, 504, 535, 552, 570, 577, 592, 603, 610, 614, 616, 633, 654, 655, 660
    1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
    1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,413 ✭✭✭

    @Estil said:
    As for Gibson meanwhile, he played on what could be the team of the 60s...won world championships in 1964 and 1967 and NL champs in 1968...it was much easier for Gibson to get those wins.

    Let me see if I've got this right. Gibson pitched more innings, allowed fewer runs per inning, yet won fewer games. And this is because winning games was not just easier but "much" easier for Gibson?

    Is it possible, just possible, that the Cardinals scoring 3.5 runs per game for Gibson and the Mets scoring 4.4 runs per game for Seaver explains the difference in their W/L record?

    Consider, too, that when Seaver wasn't pitching (and therefore presumably not "leading" the Mets anywhere), the Mets W/L% was .583. When Gibson wasn't pitching, the Cardinals W/L% was .520. Leaving aside the irrelevant history of how good the Mets and Cardinals had been in years past, in 1969 the Mets were a better team than the Cardinals, and the Mets scored a lot more runs when Seaver pitched than the Cardinals scored when Gibson pitched. That's why - that's entirely why - Seaver's W/L was better than Gibson's.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 27,040 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 12, 2019 5:27PM

    Run support is invariably going to be the primary basis for wins as a pitcher (and one reason why guys like Hunter and Morris are overrated), and that year Seaver's Mets were the better, higher scoring team, but that said I agree with SteveK that 69 was Seaver's year.



    Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,285 ✭✭✭✭

    Keep in mind that neither seaver nor gibson "won" any games in 1969, their teams did. A pitcher is at the mercy of his offense in order to get a win. Wins are a team stat and not an individual one and should not be used as a comparative metric. I keep hearing that 69 was seavers year, but I really don't see an individual metric that favors seaver.

    Had the Mets traded seaver for gibson before the season, does anyone think he wouldn't have "won" over 25 games? He did pitch a significant number of extra innings.

  • stevekstevek Posts: 21,906 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Must have been at least one sportswriter from St Louis, right? He didn't vote for Gibson either.

    Why doesn't someone contact him, whoever he was, and give him an earful. 🤣

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,413 ✭✭✭

    That would have been Bob Burns back then. And Burns, like all old-timers, thought wins were pitching stats not team stats. Luckily, everyone today understands that and wins are no longer used in pitcher evaluations.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • keetskeets Posts: 20,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 13, 2019 4:03AM

    how much better was Gibson's ERA?? how many more innings /game did Gibson pitch?? it seems to me that Seaver, despite his perceived inept performance, must have put his Team in a better position to win than Gibson did. it would take research that I don't want to do to see what the scoring was like in Mets games to know how effective Seaver was. quite often, 1-2 poor performances can raise an ERA significantly, it happens all the time.

    I am not a statistics freak like Craig seems to be. sometimes, and I think the Sportswriters fit in this category, players simply have to be seen and stats set aside. does a guy pass the eye test?? pitchers like Tom Seaver and Bob Gibson tend to be watched and analyzed so that their performance is better judged in that way than 50 years after the fact with a stat sheet.

    BTW, that fantasy about Teams winning games is cute. go tell a pitcher that he didn't win anything, he only threw 108 pitches over eight innings, struck out 11, walked two, gave up three hits and his Team won 4-1. that is such BS that it's laughable. the outfielders stood around except for those six balls they had to field and the bench/bullpen enjoyed a night off.


  • stevekstevek Posts: 21,906 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    how much better was Gibson's ERA?? how many more innings /game did Gibson pitch?? it seems to me that Seaver, despite his perceived inept performance, must have put his Team in a better position to win than Gibson did. it would take research that I don't want to do to see what the scoring was like in Mets games to know how effective Seaver was. quite often, 1-2 poor performances can raise an ERA significantly, it happens all the time.

    I am not a statistics freak like Craig seems to be. sometimes, and I think the Sportswriters fit in this category, players simply have to be seen and stats set aside. does a guy pass the eye test?? pitchers like Tom Seaver and Bob Gibson tend to be watched and analyzed so that their performance is better judged in that way than 50 years after the fact with a stat sheet.

    BTW, that fantasy about Teams winning games is cute. go tell a pitcher that he didn't win anything, he only threw 108 pitches over eight innings, struck out 11, walked two, gave up three hits and his Team won 4-1. that is such BS that it's laughable. the outfielders stood around except for those six balls they had to field and the bench/bullpen enjoyed a night off.

    Completely agree.

    I mean come on now, nobody is saying that Gibson didn't have a helluva season or that he wasn't a great pitcher. It would be nonsense to say any of that.

    However Bob Burns likely wasn't naive. He watched every Cardinals game and a number of Mets games. Despite being from St Louis, he still chose Tom Seaver for the Cy Young award.

    Unless Burns was the one guy who voted for Phil Niekro. But most likely the guy who voted for Niekro was the Atlanta Braves sportswriter. So i'm presuming that Burns voted for Seaver.

    The obvious reason that Burns voted for Seaver is that Tom Seaver was the best pitcher in the National League in 1969.

    How many damn times do i have to close this case? ;)

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,285 ✭✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    how much better was Gibson's ERA?? how many more innings /game did Gibson pitch?? it seems to me that Seaver, despite his perceived inept performance, must have put his Team in a better position to win than Gibson did. it would take research that I don't want to do to see what the scoring was like in Mets games to know how effective Seaver was. quite often, 1-2 poor performances can raise an ERA significantly, it happens all the time.

    I am not a statistics freak like Craig seems to be. sometimes, and I think the Sportswriters fit in this category, players simply have to be seen and stats set aside. does a guy pass the eye test?? pitchers like Tom Seaver and Bob Gibson tend to be watched and analyzed so that their performance is better judged in that way than 50 years after the fact with a stat sheet.

    BTW, that fantasy about Teams winning games is cute. go tell a pitcher that he didn't win anything, he only threw 108 pitches over eight innings, struck out 11, walked two, gave up three hits and his Team won 4-1. that is such BS that it's laughable. the outfielders stood around except for those six balls they had to field and the bench/bullpen enjoyed a night off.

    If your standard is the eye test, then no one could ever discuss Ruth, Cobb, young, Alexander etc. Very soon no one would be able to discuss mantle, Mays or Williams. Human memory is faulty. That is as close to a fact as can be. Much more accurate are verified results. Statistics are verified results.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,285 ✭✭✭✭

    Era was very close to a wash. The real value comes in the extra 41 innings gibson pitched at that level. That is around 1/6 more than seaver. Seaver also enjoyed 1 more run per game. When era's are that low, one run is huge.

    Think of it this way. If the two were traded, Gibson would have "won" more than seavers 25 games as he would have had 25% more run support and threw significantly more innings of better quality.

    People get all emotional about a "horse" leading his team to the pennant, but in this case, emotion and memory are wrong. Gibby was the best pitcher

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 5,188 ✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:

    Statistics are verified results.

    Not really. SOME statistics are much better than others. Some are misleading at best.

    The "eye test" can be just as good.......or bad.

    @craig44 said:
    Era was very close to a wash. The real value comes in the extra 41 innings gibson pitched at that level. That is around 1/6 more than seaver. Seaver also enjoyed 1 more run per game. When era's are that low, one run is huge.

    You have to go look at athe game logs. Blyleven got the league average run support in 1973, but the Twins exploded a couple of times that year inflating the average. He was as good as anyone that year if not better.

    Think of it this way. If the two were traded, Gibson would have "won" more than seavers 25 games as he would have had 25% more run support and threw significantly more innings of better quality.

    Absolutely no way of knowing this. You simply cannot "transfer" stats. It may be a fair "guess" but you just cannot know.

    People get all emotional about a "horse" leading his team to the pennant, but in this case, emotion and memory are wrong. Gibby was the best pitcher

    Marichal had the lowest WHIP didn't he?

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,413 ✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    BTW, that fantasy about Teams winning games is cute. go tell a pitcher that he didn't win anything, he only threw 108 pitches over eight innings, struck out 11, walked two, gave up three hits and his Team won 4-1. that is such BS that it's laughable. the outfielders stood around except for those six balls they had to field and the bench/bullpen enjoyed a night off.

    Your example is very convenient, but it misses the point. What about the games where the pitcher throws 108 pitches over eight innings, strikes out 11, walks two, gives up three hits and his team loses 1-0? Your position, logically, is that it is the pitcher's fault that his team lost since it is "laughable" to even consider how many runs his team scored for him.

    Seaver won five more games than Gibson in 1969; Seaver had four "tough" losses (he got the "L" even though he pitched a quality start), while Gibson had nine tough losses. If you have the determination to avoid drawing the obvious conclusion, more power to you, but it's slapping you so hard in the face that eventually you are going to have to acknowledge it.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • stevekstevek Posts: 21,906 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Slightly off topic, but I think it relates to this thread...and that is the Moneyball movie. Because it involves some of the same principles that some are espousing here.

    Three points if I may:

    1. Billy Beane since he has been with the A's in a front office capacity, has never took the team to a World Series.
    2. When the Red Sox finally broke the curse of the Bambino back in 2004, they had the second highest payroll in MLB. It obviously wasn't just Sabermetrics or Bill James that helped win them a championship.
    3. That head scout who Beane dramatically fired in the movie, Beane actually hired him back some years later. Beane must have realized that the "eye test" is important, that it's not just about stats alone.

    I'm not saying at all that Bill James ideas don't have merit, because it definitely does. However the "eye test" has merit as well.

    The stats were close in 1969 between Seaver and Gibson. The sportswriters had access to all of those stats, and 23 out of 24 of them chose Seaver. I sincerely doubt that if they had access to Sabermetric type stats back then, that it would have made much of a difference in the voting, and perhaps not any difference at all.

  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 7,214 ✭✭✭✭✭

    just dance on baseball's grave , it will bring the end that much sooner

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,413 ✭✭✭

    @stevek said:
    The stats were close in 1969 between Seaver and Gibson. The sportswriters had access to all of those stats, and 23 out of 24 of them chose Seaver. I sincerely doubt that if they had access to Sabermetric type stats back then, that it would have made much of a difference in the voting, and perhaps not any difference at all.

    I won't argue with this, because it's possible that it's true; Gibson, Seaver and Marichal were all great that year and it wouldn't have been a travesty no matter which of them won the CYA.

    BUT, just two years earlier, when presumably mostly the same people were voting, they gave the CYA to Mike McCormick. McCormick led the league in wins, but he wasn't close to the best pitcher; ditto for Lonborg in the AL. In fact, the best predictor of who would win the CYA back in those days was wins; it's predictive value greatly exceeded the predictive value of WHIP, quality starts, ERA, innings pitched, etc. So while what you say might be true, I don't believe the writers so much as considered any other stat besides wins.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,413 ✭✭✭

    The irony is that the very next year Gibson won the CYA because he had the most wins, and Seaver was the best pitcher. So it all worked out.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 7,214 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Isn't it a bunch of BBWA slobs that vote?

  • keetskeets Posts: 20,984 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Think of it this way. If the two were traded..................................

    no, think of it this way --- if your Aunt had balls she'd be your Uncle.

    all we can know is what we know, speculation is nothing but mental masturbation. the same goes for the critique of my "eye test" comment because I think you know what I mean. as to the players you mentioned, there is enough historical "eye test" documentation that fans should never get lost as to the greatness of those players and their place in history. it is only when people have "coinstartled moments" that discussions like this take place.

    Bob Gibson was a great pitcher who had a fabulous 1969 season. unfortunately, Tom Seaver also had a great 1969 season and helped his Team reach and win the World Series. to engage in the aforementioned "mental masturbation" it is reasonable to presume that absent Tom Seaver the Mets would not have won the WS in 1969.


  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,413 ✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    Bob Gibson was a great pitcher who had a fabulous 1969 season. unfortunately, Tom Seaver also had a great 1969 season and helped his Team reach and win the World Series. to engage in the aforementioned "mental masturbation" it is reasonable to presume that absent Tom Seaver the Mets would not have won the WS in 1969.

    I get your point, but I'm going to take exception to one word. It is "possible" that the Mets don't win the WS with Gibson, but it is not "reasonable" to presume it, since all available evidence points to the conclusion that the Mets would have done at least as well with GIbson as with Seaver.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • keetskeets Posts: 20,984 ✭✭✭✭✭

    my Aunt may have helped the Mets in place of Seaver, but we'll never know, will we?? we can only know what Seaver did and not what someone else may have done. armed with that knowledge the writers in 1969 understood History and awarded it accordingly while Bob Gibson watched at home.

    Gibson was a great pitcher.


  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 2,413 ✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    my Aunt may have helped the Mets in place of Seaver, but we'll never know, will we?? we can only know what Seaver did and not what someone else may have done. armed with that knowledge the writers in 1969 understood History and awarded it accordingly while Bob Gibson watched at home.

    I hear you, but you realize that by your logic Ed Kranepool was more deserving of the MVP than Willie McCovey. After all, it's just mental masturbation to speculate about whether McCovey would have won as many games for the Mets as Kranepool did. While it is true that we can't know how the Mets would have done with McCovey instead of Kranepool at first, it is simply not reasonable to speculate that the Mets wouldn't have done even better. The same applies to Seaver/Gibson, although to a much smaller degree.

    dallasactuary

    Official defender of Ron Santo
    Official defender of Bert Blyleven
    Official defender of Bill Mazeroski
    Jim Rice sucks
    Jack Morris sucks and blows simultaneously.
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,285 ✭✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    Think of it this way. If the two were traded..................................

    no, think of it this way --- if your Aunt had balls she'd be your Uncle.

    all we can know is what we know, speculation is nothing but mental masturbation. the same goes for the critique of my "eye test" comment because I think you know what I mean. as to the players you mentioned, there is enough historical "eye test" documentation that fans should never get lost as to the greatness of those players and their place in history. it is only when people have "coinstartled moments" that discussions like this take place.

    Bob Gibson was a great pitcher who had a fabulous 1969 season. unfortunately, Tom Seaver also had a great 1969 season and helped his Team reach and win the World Series. to engage in the aforementioned "mental masturbation" it is reasonable to presume that absent Tom Seaver the Mets would not have won the WS in 1969.

    So now you are moving your standard from the eye test to anecdotal evidence? You are a moving target for sure. Memories and anecdotes fade. How many people are discussing pud galvin, king Kelly or dan brouthers on the forum? I will answer it for you. None. It is because they are so far into the reaches of the past that no one personally remembers them and the anecdotes have faded away. If it wasn't for the statistical record, no one would remember them though they were superstars of their day. A hundred years from now, the same would happen to many players from the 30's and 40's. Memory fades. Cmpare players by the record of what actually happened and not a blurry memory.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,285 ✭✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    my Aunt may have helped the Mets in place of Seaver, but we'll never know, will we?? we can only know what Seaver did and not what someone else may have done. armed with that knowledge the writers in 1969 understood History and awarded it accordingly while Bob Gibson watched at home.

    Gibson was a great pitcher.

    If you substituted a superior performance for an inferior one, couldn't you reasonably expect a better outcome?

  • keetskeets Posts: 20,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 15, 2019 3:31AM

    not on different Teams and a different schedule and a different......................you should see my point. I can't understand why you guys insist on re-writing the past. both players had great years and no amount of discussion here or anywhere else will alter that one bit. in the end, people better equipped than us, smarter than us who witnessed what each player did, who actually get paid to do this kind of stuff came to an almost unanimous conclusion that Tom Seaver was better than Bob Gibson in 1969. that doesn't and shouldn't take anything away from either player.

    why does it bother you so much, Craig??

    Seaver --- 25-7.
    Gibson --- 20-13.

    methinks there was a bit more than just the Mets scoring a run+/game more than the Cards that year. also, without any knowledge I would suspect that Gibson's 41 extra innings in less games means his manager kept him in longer when he was losing. that won - loss differential is pretty large and not explained, to me at least, by the Mets scoring more runs or any other statistic such as strike-outs. those are cool, but how much cooler than a two pitch out that results in a harmless infield pop-up??

    in 1969 Bob Gibson had a good season sandwiched between two that were better.
    in 1969 Tom Seaver had what is arguably the best season of his career.


  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,285 ✭✭✭✭

    @keets said:
    not on different Teams and a different schedule and a different......................you should see my point. I can't understand why you guys insist on re-writing the past. both players had great years and no amount of discussion here or anywhere else will alter that one bit. in the end, people better equipped than us, smarter than us who witnessed what each player did, who actually get paid to do this kind of stuff came to an almost unanimous conclusion that Tom Seaver was better than Bob Gibson in 1969. that doesn't and shouldn't take anything away from either player.

    why does it bother you so much, Craig??

    Seaver --- 25-7.
    Gibson --- 20-13.

    methinks there was a bit more than just the Mets scoring a run+/game more than the Cards that year. also, without any knowledge I would suspect that Gibson's 41 extra innings in less games means his manager kept him in longer when he was losing. that won - loss differential is pretty large and not explained, to me at least, by the Mets scoring more runs or any other statistic such as strike-outs. those are cool, but how much cooler than a two pitch out that results in a harmless infield pop-up??

    in 1969 Bob Gibson had a good season sandwiched between two that were better.
    in 1969 Tom Seaver had what is arguably the best season of his career.

    Bother me? None of this bothers me. It is just a fun thought exercise, a hobby of you will. My version of a jigsaw puzzle.

    To extrapolate the point, had Don Mattingly and Bill Buckner been traded for each other in December of 1985, would it not be reasonable to expect a different outcome for the following season? Of course it would. The two players in question were much closer in results, but the idea is the same. Other than wins/losses and team results Gibson was better almost across the boards.

    To your other point, while I have no doubt sportswriters of the past were smarter than us hacks in here, I would disagree that they were better equipped than us. They just didn't have access to the analytics we have today. Were oncologists better equipped in 1970? Were computer scientists better equipped 50 years ago? I could go on and on but we both know the answer is no.

Sign In or Register to comment.