Bob Gibson Underated

[Wymers Auction]

I think Bob Gibson did not get his just due and still doesn't. Roger Maris Rookie is worth more than Gibson's. I think this is strange and don't get me wrong I like Maris.

[drc]

I think Gibson's cards are correctly valued compared to his talent. His prices are about the same as Steve Carleton's, who I'd rate as a superior pitcher. Maris' are an aberration due to the 61 hrs and being a Yankee.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by drc

I think Gibson's cards are correctly valued compared to his talent. His prices are about the same as Steve Carleton's, who I'd rate as a superior pitcher. Maris' are an aberration due to the 61 hrs and being a Yankee.

Carlton superior? If your only qualification is longevity, than I can't disagree (Carlton played 7 more seasons). If you only take in 162 game averages Gibson edges Carlton out.

If you look at just the years 67-71 when they both pitched for STL with at least 25 Game Starts Gibson is superior. This time range would show how they bitch against (and hit) against the same people.

67-71 stats:
Gibson Pitching Starts-158, ERA-2.49, W-L% - .657, SO 1143, CG-89, Hits/9innings 7.34

Carlton Pitching Starts-161, ERA - 3.09, W-L% - .556, SO 905, CG - 64, Hits/9innings - 8.2

Gibson Batting Avg. - .205, OBP .256

Carlton Batting Avg. - .181, OBP .210

If you compare their Best Season:

1968 Gibson Pitching
Starts - 34, W-22 L-9, CG -28, ERA - 1.12, SHO -13, SO 268, Hits/9innings - 5.8

1972 Carlton Pitching
Starts - 41, W-27 L-10, CG - 30, ERA - 1.97, SHO -8, SO 310, Hits/9innings - 6.7


I really can't say that Carlton is Superior and depending on what your criteria is, it is really easy to say Gibson is Superior. In the end when you take longevity into account I think they are very comparable.

[39special]

Originally Posted by Wymers Auction

I think Bob Gibson did not get his just due and still doesn't. Roger Maris Rookie is worth more than Gibson's. I think this is strange and don't get me wrong I like Maris.

I agree with you.I also think that of Frank Robinson.

[BearBailey]

I think you are confusing under rated card values versus under rated player rankings. I would agree that Gibson's cards are undervalued especially his high number 59 topps RC. But as a player I feel he is over rated, that does not mean he wasn't great, but compared to other pitchers, even from that era. Compare his stats and numbers to Jim Palmer and then try and guess why Gibson's RC is so much more than Palmer's? Maris RC as another poster stated is so high due to 61 and being a Yankee for a portion of his career.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by BearBailey

I think you are confusing under rated card values versus under rated player rankings. I would agree that Gibson's cards are undervalued especially his high number 59 topps RC. But as a player I feel he is over rated, that does not mean he wasn't great, but compared to other pitchers, even from that era. Compare his stats and numbers to Jim Palmer and then try and guess why Gibson's RC is so much more than Palmer's? Maris RC as another poster stated is so high due to 61 and being a Yankee for a portion of his career.

Jim Palmer was an AL pitcher. He didn't have to bat so his fatigue wasn't going to be as high later in the games. Also the batters and parks he pitched in are not comparable. If you look at his value rating on Baseball Reference they are very close.

[nolemmings]

I agree with the other posters on differentiating between the player and his rookie cards. Also, Topps didn't do Gibby any favors putting him with a pink background

Gibson and Carlton are remarkably close stats wise, but I can see Carlton being considered slightly better. Longevity didn't help Carlton, it hurt him, bad, at least as far as his legacy carrying a tag of hanger-on. If you just look at his stats through 17 seasons--the number of seasons Gibson pitched--Carlton's numbers are slightly better. He has a few more wins and Ks than Gibson during that time, and his ERA is comparable but slightly higher (I think 2.99 -2.91). Throw in the fact that Carlton lost 1/3 of a great season to a labor strike and that Gibson pitched half his career with a pitcher-benefiting higher mound (Carlton had use of that only one full season) and I think a case can be made that Lefty was the better pitcher. Not by much though, and I wouldn't strongly oppose the counterargument.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Gibson and Carlton are remarkably close stats wise, but I can see Carlton being considered slightly better. Longevity didn't help Carlton, it hurt him, bad, at least as far as his legacy carrying a tag of hanger-on. If you just look at his stats through 17 seasons--the number of seasons Gibson pitched--Carlton's numbers are slightly better. He has a few more wins and Ks than Gibson during that time, and his ERA is comparable but slightly higher (I think 2.99 -2.91). Throw in the fact that Carlton lost 1/3 of a great season to a labor strike and that Gibson pitched half his career with a pitcher-benefiting higher mound (Carlton had use of that only one full season) and I think a case can be made that Lefty was the better pitcher. Not by much though, and I wouldn't strongly oppose the counterargument.

My point was that overall I don't think it is cut and dry who was superior to the other. Yet when you compare the two together in the only full on comparison of being on the same team it shows that Gibson was the better player... the problem even with that is that Gibson's best year is mixed in that and Carlton's comes after going to Philly.

If you look at them overall as a value to the Team. I think Gibson may edge out Carlton. Any list of 20 top hitting pitchers would have Gibson on it.

Even then, though, I can't say that one is superior over the other. I think it is too close to call one superior. They were both great neither one deserves to be considered better than the other in my view. Their stats are so close. Neither one just dominates over the other.

[Wymers Auction]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I agree with the other posters on differentiating between the player and his rookie cards. Also, Topps didn't do Gibby any favors putting him with a pink background

Gibson and Carlton are remarkably close stats wise, but I can see Carlton being considered slightly better. Longevity didn't help Carlton, it hurt him, bad, at least as far as his legacy carrying a tag of hanger-on. If you just look at his stats through 17 seasons--the number of seasons Gibson pitched--Carlton's numbers are slightly better. He has a few more wins and Ks than Gibson during that time, and his ERA is comparable but slightly higher (I think 2.99 -2.91). Throw in the fact that Carlton lost 1/3 of a great season to a labor strike and that Gibson pitched half his career with a pitcher-benefiting higher mound (Carlton had use of that only one full season) and I think a case can be made that Lefty was the better pitcher. Not by much though, and I wouldn't strongly oppose the counterargument.

You are right Gibson's rookie is an ugly card.