And for your viewing pleasure, the game lines for that season (new window).

At the end of July his ERA was under 1. If Daniel Cabrera doesn't walk 100 this year it will be just as amazing.

Tr0mBoNe: And for your viewing pleasure, the game lines for that season (new window).

At the end of July his ERA was under 1. If Daniel Cabrera doesn't walk 100 this year it will be just as amazing.

Hell, his September 2 game alone is just as impressive:

Road game, 20th win, 4-hit 10-inning complete-game shutout, 8 Ks, 3 BB, finishes the day with a season ERA of 0.99.

In September.

That's not dominating; that's crushing.

How the hell did he lose 9 games?

/rhetorical.

Umm, he didn't change baseball forever. I don't even know what that means. The drop of the mound after 1968 wasn't due just, or even mainly, to Bob Gibson. And even so, dropping the mound is not 'changing baseball forever'.

Well, I'm an old fart, and in fact I'm so old that I remember that season and even remember seeing him pitch that year in person, in this game versus the Giants. That was one of the first baseball games I ever saw in person, and I was 9 years old at the time. Both he and Juan Marichal (who had an even better W-L record than Gibson that year, 26-9, but still wasn't as dominant as Gibson) pitched complete games in that game (when was the last time that happened in a major league baseball game?), but Gibson was unhittable, Marichal gave up a home run in the first inning, and the Cards won 3-0.

A complete game shut-out against a line-up than included the likes of Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, and Bobby Bonds was pretty impressive, but that's the kind of year Gibson had. I mean, look at the link Tr0mBoNe posted above, and you'll see that for the months of June and July he had 12 starts, all wins, all complete games, and 9 of them were shutouts--he gave up a total of 5 runs in those 12 complete games (108 innings), for an ERA over that two-month period of 0.33. You're unlikely to see anything like that anytime soon.

DamnYankees: The drop of the mound after 1968 wasn't due just, or even mainly, to Bob Gibson. And even so, dropping the mound is not 'changing baseball forever'.

Probably true--in fact, the American League (which had nothing to do with Gibson) was batting even more weakly than the NL that year--Carl Yastrzemski won the AL batting championship that year with only a .301 batting average, and was the only player in the whole league who hit over .300. The NL hit a little bit better, and the weak batting performance of the entire AL is what seemed to get people's attention the most.

When I was a kid I was such a pansy ass that in my first Little League at bat I dropped my own mound.

1.12 ERA and LOSE 9 games! Should have sued rest of team for lack of support!

RudMan: Make that 3 times. In the 60s the NBA widened the lane because of Wilt Chamberlin.

Four times if you count the NBA implementing the Goaltending rule... ALSO as a result of Chamberlain's dominance.

Glenechocreek: That's nothing. Denny McLain won 31 games that year.

Heh, too bad he proved to be a Tier-1 asshat.

Glenechocreek: That's nothing. Denny McLain won 31 games that year.

True, but he and Gibson pitched against each other in two World Series games that year, and Gibson won both. Mickey Lolich, on the other hand, started three games for the Tigers in that series and won all three (on two days rest, no less), including Game 7 versus Gibson.

Clonod: Gibson threw over 300 innings in his season. Think those two could have handled that?

Maddux, perhaps, but that's because of the type of pitcher that he is. Pedro couldn't have handled that many innings without seriously injuring himself.

You're the jerk... jerk: Did Pedro play in an era with huge strike zones and impatient hitters?

...yes? He didn't pitch in an era with the mound height advantage. Gibson was easily superior, though.

Killerclaw:

More importantly.

1971: Dobson, McNally, Cuellar, and Palmer. 20+ wins a piece.


Yep. That was a good one.