Bob Gibson and Denny McLain

[timconnelly]

The 31 win season of Denny McLain in 1968 has been completely overshadowed for the last 32 years by the 1.12 ERA of Bob Gibson. I think there are a number of factors responsible for this but I don't think any of them warrant such a one-sided view of who had the better season.

I think most people would say that ERA is an individual accomplishment and that how many games you win is more of a team related accomplishment. Gibby threw 13 shut-outs to Mclain's 6, beat him twice in the World Series, and had a Hall of Fame career. I think all of those things have validity but I'm not sure they add up to a greater season for Gibson.

McLain started 41 games to Gibson's 34. They both completed 28 games. Pitching on less rest is going to take more out of you, which will tend to cause a higher ERA. That would seem a worthwhile trade-off if you are winning 31 times! McLain pitched 31 more innings than Gibson. He struck out 12 batters more than Gibson. I think that most people would be very surprised by that because they think of the 17 strike outs in the World Series by Gibson and just feel like his stuff was miles beyond McLain's. I'm not saying it wasn't better; I'm just saying Mclain had an incredible season and nobody even mentions it.

I hear people say that Mclain won his 30 in the year of the pitcher. This is meant to minimize it. But if hitters aren't hitting, it is far easier to wrack up a low ERA than it is to win. You allow 1 run and the other guy pitches a shut out, you lose but have an ERA of 1.00. The goal of a pitcher is not just to prevent the other team from scoring; it is also to pitch your team to victory.

McLain's team had a winning percentage of .576 when he wasn't pitching. St. Louis had a winning percentage of .573 when Gibson wasn't pitching so the difference between Mclain's going 31 and 6 while Gibson was going 22 and 9 can't be attributed to Mclain's team being so much better.

I might add that McLain led all American league pitchers in wins by 9 games. Just an amazing year and one that shouldn't be shrugged off.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by timconnelly
I think most people would say that ERA is an individual accomplishment

Oh boy, here it comes. Net will be sure to point out to you the unfairness of ERA and while it shouldn't count for anything (not that I agree with him).

[NetShrine]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
Oh boy, here it comes. Net will be sure to point out to you the unfairness of ERA and while it shouldn't count for anything (not that I agree with him).

Hey - it doesn't suck, I just once pointed out that ERA is not the end all be all. Give me Ratio and KK/BB first.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by NetShrine
Hey - it doesn't suck, I just once pointed out that ERA is not the end all be all. Give me Ratio and KK/BB first.

Geez, what a back pedal. You wanted ERA to be a team stat ONLY for crying out loud.

[NetShrine]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
Geez, what a back pedal. You wanted ERA to be a team stat ONLY for crying out loud.

True, I think it's most pure only as a team stat - - - but, it does have some use. Like Batting Average - - it's not as great as some make it; but, it's still worth keeping track of it.

[nyy26wc]

My Neutral Wins/Neutral Losses stat looks at what a pitcher's record would have been, given his ERA and number of decisions, if he had a league average amount of run support, adjusted to his home park.

According to that stat, in 1968, both McLain and Gibson would have won 26 games with average run support.

The difference is McLain would have had 11 losses, while Gibson would have 5.

[nightal]

I've always wondered how Gibson lost 9 games in 1968. The Cardinal hitters will have to answer that one.

Gibson beats McLain any way you look at it.