09 Mathewson - or - 68 Gibson ? High cap. I've used Gibson before. He was alright. I have seen him win awards for others however. I don't recall seeing Mathewson very much. Mathewson's normalized numbers look better than Gibsin's (except oav#, .194 -.210).

Have you used them?

Thanks

I'd take Mathewson. I haven't had much success with Gibby at high caps

I've had some luck with Gibby in -HR parks. Matty is solid but unspectacular, Gibby can be dominant or awful.

"Matty is solid but unspectacular, Gibby can be dominant or awful."

That may be why I have not seem very much of Matty in the few high leagues I have played (mostly high cap.) Your feast-or-famine description of Gibby fits with what I have observed.

With that in mind it sounds like a bit of a push, with perhaps a nod to Matty because of a greater likelihood of him at least holding his place. Gibby would be a gamble that could pay off big or sink the whole ship.

What is it about Gibson that makes him variable? Is it his hr's allowed?

Some of the fact that he gives up too many homers, some of what eras the players he runs into most often come from. Since he comes from the worst normalizing pitching season in the database, normalization is bound to hurt him, but the degree can vary wildly. In some leagues lots of people go with the strategy of taking hitters from poor hitting seasons and assuming they'll normalize well. Not against Gibby...

id go with gibson

I want to use Greg Maddux '94 here to illustrate what hurts Gibson '68 in the WIS environment.

Maddux '94 is the closest Maddux season to Gibson's '68 season.

Maddux 288ip 0.90 WHP .207 OAV 155 WHP+ 129 OAV+ 539 HR9+

Gibson 305ip 0.85 WHP .184 OAV 141 WHP+ 132 OAV+ 168 HR9+

Maddux also has an edge in BB9# 1.38 to 2.04.

This Maddux will out perform Gibson in almost any league, and the only apparent reason is HR allowance. In high caps, in which most of the hitters are high BB guys, it also helps that Maddux has the lower rate of BB9.

I think you'll find a little of these same advantages for Matty over Gibson, but if you've got the choice, I'd take Maddux.

...And one more comparison shows how Gibson's normalization is hurt by the context of 1968; that is, generally strong pitching and relatively few HR:

y Gomez gave up 10 HR in 293 IP and gets an HR9+ of 205 in the HR-rich environment of 1938.

Gibson's 11 HR allowed in 305 IP gets an HR9+ of only 168 for 1968.

Their HR9 ratings are just slightly different, 0.29 to 0.32, respectively.

I long used the ARomano standard of drafting no pitcher with an HR9 rating higher than 0.50, but I've recently realized that it's not working since the last update. I'm paying more attention to HR9+ now.

(By the way, whatever happened to ARomano? He's one of the great ones, but I never see his user name around anymore.)

Quote: Originally Posted By doubletruck on 3/12/2010...And one more comparison shows how Gibson's normalization is hurt by the context of 1968; that is, generally strong pitching and relatively few HR:

y Gomez gave up 10 HR in 293 IP and gets an HR9+ of 205 in the HR-rich environment of 1938.

Gibson's 11 HR allowed in 305 IP gets an HR9+ of only 168 for 1968.

Their HR9 ratings are just slightly different, 0.29 to 0.32, respectively.

I long used the ARomano standard of drafting no pitcher with an HR9 rating higher than 0.50, but I've recently realized that it's not working since the last update. I'm paying more attention to HR9+ now.

(By the way, whatever happened to ARomano? He's one of the great ones, but I never see his user name around anymore.

excellent post. something to really think on. by the way, Aromano is still around, has posted in the forums within the last week and has several active teams going, some of which have just started.

Still around, just playing progressives, HBD and HD more than SLB but I've got a couple open teams out there. Regarding HR/9 and HR/9+ I always use both to filter and I agree that I now use .3 as my filter for HR/9 but also 200 for HR/9+. Just thought I'd throw that out there. And I agree Maddux > Mathewson > Gibson and I personally think Gibson's a far cry from either.