Assume both pitchers in their prime.
2007-09-29 17:09:05 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
I can find other matchups with Gibson. That is how dumb Red Sox fans are. Good Luck against the Angels. You are going to need it.
2007-09-30 12:24:30 · update #1
Nice question! Bob Gibson gets the nod for me, simply because the man was absolutely dominant in World Series play (I want to say he only lost one game in the World Series, making six starts...wait a minute, he is 7-2 lifetime in World Series play, pitching in 1964, 1967, and 1968). When the October spotlight was upon him, he rose to the occasion like none other (Mariano Riviera notwithstanding).
2007-09-29 17:17:30 · answer #1 · answered by Snoop 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
White Sox TV announcer Ken Harrelson, who played for the Red Sox in 1967 when they faced the Cardinals in the World Series, still talks about the stuff that Gibson had in 1967. Schilling will always have a warm place in the hearts of New Englanders for his efforts in the 6th game of the ALCS and the 2d game of the World Series in 2004, but Gibson was just legendary. Imagine how miserable life must have been for NL hitters with guys like Gibson, Koufax, Marichal among others pitching in their primes in the mid-60s.
2007-09-30 01:43:43 · answer #2 · answered by mattapan26 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Gibson would win. When he was in his prime he was on better teams than Schilling.
I looked up their stats:
Gibson years played 17
Wins 251 Strike outs 3117
Shut outs 56
Complete games 255
Schilling
years played 20
Wins 216
Strike outs 3116
Shut outs 20
Complete games 83
They even changed the rules of the game due to Gibson. MLB changed the height of the mound, they lowered the mound to give hitters a better chance.
2007-09-30 02:02:35 · answer #3 · answered by Rudy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gibson by a mile. Schilling a good pitcher but Gibson was one of the best in flock of great pitchers, Koufax, Drysdale Marachel, Spahn etc etc. Even though Denny McLain won 31 games in 68, Gibson was thought to be the dominant pitcher that yr cause his era was 1.12, and led to the mound being lowered. You hear about the bloody sock, in 1967 Gibson had a ball richochet off his leg and pitched to the next batter...even though it was broken. His tenacity and no fear attitude was legendary...even as a pitching coach in the 1990s no one wanted to take bp against him cause they were afraid he would buzz them inside. No offence to Schilling but Gibby is a HOFamer for a reason...hes one of the best
2007-09-30 04:08:48 · answer #4 · answered by allenmontana 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I like Schilling's chances since Bob Gibson is in his 70's. I'm guessing Gibby's stuff has deteriorated with age.
In their respective primes it would be no contest. At his best Gibson was more dominant that possibly any other pitcher in history. Seriously, a 1.12 era while pitching 304 innings in a season, that is absolutely ridiculous. As far as I know Doc Gooden's 1985 season (1.53 era in 276 innings) is the only thing that comes even close in the Modern era.
2007-09-30 02:55:45 · answer #5 · answered by devioustrevor 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bob Gibson.
2007-09-30 00:38:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bob Gibson and Gibson would buzz one inside while schill is at the plate making him eat dirt!
2007-09-30 00:15:48 · answer #7 · answered by bigbadmonster13 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gibson pitched with a broken leg! Schilling had blood on his sock. Give me a frickin' break!
Curt couldn't hold Robert's jock.
2007-09-30 00:19:52 · answer #8 · answered by pricehillsaint 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Schilling isn't even in Gibson league if you're comparing primes
2007-09-30 00:14:13 · answer #9 · answered by egami 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Schilling's good, but Gibby had some of the best stuff ever and was mean as a junkyard dog. He'd have beaned his grandmother if she was crowding the plate too much.
2007-09-30 00:30:51 · answer #10 · answered by bobdanailer69 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋