Fields now have the walls much closer, so what would have been a deep fly out in '68 would be a HR in '18. -- Argument Against
Pitchers don't pitch like they did in '68 ... could Kershaw in his prime complete 20+ games and be as good? -- Argument For
Hitters were just regular gym guys -- there was no nutrition (or drug) plan to help them back in '68 -- Argument Against
Fewer teams meant less dilution of talent -- you were seeing the best of the best all the time in '68 -- Argument For
Mound height reduced after this season -- he was good just because he was so high -- Argument Against
If it weren't for one official scorer's determination of passed ball vs wild pitch, he would have had ERA of 1.09 -- Argument For

little mofo was just coming of age as a baseball fan in the late 70's, but one of my first baseball heroes was Ron Guidry back during his ridiculous 1978 season. 25-3, 1.74 era, 16 CG and 9 shutouts and almost won the Cy Young AND the MVP (Jim Rice won it). Guidry's career was impressive in that due to arm troubles he was able to successfully transition from a strikeout pitcher to finesse pitcher, and nearly won another Cy Young in '85 in a year where he only averaged 5 SO/9.

I don't buy the diluted talent, MLB is global now. Zero Asians in in the 60's or 70's.. nowhere near the amount of Cubans, Dominicans, Venezuelans etc.

Gibson in '68

22 wins, completed all 22, ERA in wins 0.57.

9 losses, completed 6, ERA in losses 2.14.

3 no decisions, completed 0, ERA in those 25 innings 2.52.

That's pretty disgusting.

Yeah, that Guidry year is better than Gibson's too.

I know W/L record is now considered "meaningless", and when a guy has an ERA of 1.12 he obviously didn't give up many runs. When I point out that in over 25% of his starts some guy pitched as good or better than Gibson, it's not to say that Gibson pitched poorly but to point out that a whole lot of guys were pitching very well, or it was just very difficult to hit.

When compared to the other pitchers at the time when it comes to limiting runs it's hard to top how good Pedro was in '99-'00.

After looking at Guidry's run support stats, Gibson takes the crown.

Gibson received 2 runs or less 18 times...and still managed a 9-8 record in those games.

Guidry only had 2 runs or less support 5 times, he went 1-3.

Put Gibson on that Yankees squad in 78 and he may not lose.

Also, in those 18 games the Cards only managed 0-2 runs, Gibson had an era of 0.97. So JORR, who you crappin' that he got out pitched in 25% of his starts.

Huh? He lost 9 games . He started 34. Quick math means 25% of 34 is 8.5 , round up to 9. So yeah , he was outpitched in 25% of his starts . This isn’t hard .

After looking at Guidry's run support stats, Gibson takes the crown.

Gibson received 2 runs or less 18 times...and still managed a 9-8 record in those games.

Guidry only had 2 runs or less support 5 times, he went 1-3.

Put Gibson on that Yankees squad in 78 and he may not lose.

Also, in those 18 games the Cards only managed 0-2 runs, Gibson had an era of 0.97. So JORR, who you crappin' that he got out pitched in 25% of his starts.

There's an article that agrees with you.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/870 ... ry#slide10

After looking at Guidry's run support stats, Gibson takes the crown.

Gibson received 2 runs or less 18 times...and still managed a 9-8 record in those games.

Guidry only had 2 runs or less support 5 times, he went 1-3.

Put Gibson on that Yankees squad in 78 and he may not lose.

Also, in those 18 games the Cards only managed 0-2 runs, Gibson had an era of 0.97. So JORR, who you crappin' that he got out pitched in 25% of his starts.

Then there's this BR piece that doesn't have Guidry in the top 10.

well i'm not going to dissect that list because i dont have a beef about any of the seasons listed, they are all great. Guidry's entire season of '78 and especially his stretch drive through the playoff race and playoffs make him worthy of mention with any of those seasons, but he rarely is mentioned, perhaps due to his lack of HOF credentials for his career. I personally find Maddux and Pedro and the guys who put up miraculous numbers during the steroid era to be particularly noteworthy - especially Maddux.

It's actually a little more than 25% of his starts.

What you call "run support" is actually nothing more than the runs allowed by the opposing pitchers in the games that Guidry and Gibson pitched. The fact that Guidry "received" more "run support" isn't an argument in favor of Gibson. It's actually an argument for how much more dominant Guidry was over the pitchers he faced than Gibson was over his opponents.

You completely ignore strength of offense...you're assuming all offenses are equal.

Yet the Cards could only muster a measly 2 or less in most of his starts.

While the Yankees mashed in the majority of Guidry's starts.

That's just the way it goes some years.

I think your reading of that is wrong. You seem to think Guidry was lucky with "run support" while Gibson was unlucky. The fact that the Cardinals could "only muster" 2 runs in Gibson's game is not unrelated to the fact that opponents could often only muster a single run or less vs. Gibson. It was very difficult to score in the 1968 NL. Guidry allowed 1.74 when the league average was 4.2. Gibson allowed 1.12 when the league average was 3.4.

So, based on this, Gibson's ERA was .33 of league average...while Guidry was at .41 of league average.

Gibson wins again!