I have no problem with people saying Gibson was better, I originally intended only to prove he wasn't the reason for the rule changes. Who was better is a matter of opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs. Maddux pitched in a tougher time for pitchers than Gibson did, I don't think that is really debatable, but that doesn't necessarily mean Gibson wouldn't have been just as successful in the 90's as he was in the 60's.
See post Post 36 - the post season stats alone would do it.
Longevity reaches the point of diminishing returns - is Jamie Moyer better than Gibson or MAddux?
They both averaged around 15 wins per season, MAddux had a slightly higher winning %. I don't have the stats on me at the minute but I'm pretty sure Gibson had better hits to innings pitched and strike outs to innings pitched ratios.
I also want to go back and see what % of starts were complete games. Being able to finish a game is a good measure of a COMPLETE pitcher.
The game is not played the same way. It's like saying being able to punt and play defense is a good measure of a college quarterback. It used to help the team - but it isn't the way the game is played now.
The managers don't think the same way. I'm guessing most current MLB managers would disagree with your hypothetical choice above. I'm not saying you wouldn't win that game with your choice - I'm saying that probably 28-29 of the guys actually managing teams today would go the other way.
I'm not a baseball expert, and I could be way wrong on this, but I really think most would go with Gagne.
Average season:
Maddux: 32 starts, 16-10 record, 3.16 ERA, 5 CG, 1.6 SHO, 147 K's, 227.2 IP, 205 Hits, 43 walks, 248 baserunners allowed, 14% baserunners score
Gibson: 32 starts, 16-11 record, 2.91 ERA, 17 CG, 3.7 SHO, 207 K's, 258.9 IP, 218 Hits, 89 walks, 307 baserunners allowed, 24% baserunners score
Strikeouts per 9IP: Maddux, 6. Gibson, 7.
Hits per 9IP: Maddux, 8. Gibson, 7.5
I don't know how it turned into me trying to prove Maddux was better than Gibson, because I only intended to prove Gibson wasn't the only reason for the lowering of the mound. If you read everything I posted, I think it's easy to see Gibson was not the reason for the rule change. That's the main point. As for who was better, I think Maddux accomplished more and had a more impressive career because of the statistics, his longevity, awards, and the era he did it in. That does not necessarily mean he was a better pitcher than Gibson. That's an argument statistics will never answer because of the different eras.