My original comment on Gibson vs. Marichal:

Chuck Shaeffer’s reply:
 [W]ith respect to Gibson, I must disagree vehemently.  First his 1968 ERA was 1.12 not 1.14, regardless of the pitching conditions of today lets compare numbers with his contemporaries.  I don't have the numbers with me but they were not even close to his ERA.  As for 68 being a time of weak offense please explain this to me.  I agree that the mound was different but all pitchers at that time (except for perhaps the Dodgers who monkeyed with their mound considerably for Koufax and Drysdale) pitched from the same surface.  I would also point out that ERA is typically a poor indicator of performance however his 68 performance is an exception, McLain (who won 31 games) was also not even close either and they did not have the DH back then.

 I would agree that he has one of the most intimidating players of that time. I think you are misguided, in saying that baseball establishment allowed pitcher to intimidate players, THAT WAS THE WAY THE GAME WAS PLAYED BACK THEN.  It is unfortunate  that the game is not played that way now, you would have considerably less bench clearing brawls.  Back then it was expected that pitchers were to take care of their own.  I think you may have also overlooked Gibson's athleticism (was a member of the Harlem Globetrotters).  In comparing Marichal and Gibson, I have to go with Bob hands down, in my book Marichal got off easy in the Roseboro incident.  I tend not to be long winded but I would challenge you to name those "dozen" pitchers who you would build a team around before Gibson.  Certainly not Marichal, I would cite the Roseboro incident and his inability to have any kind of relationship with his son-in-law Jose Rijo.

My respnse to Chuck:
 In 1963, the baseball rules committee expanded the strike zone, and total runs scored that year dropped by 12% from 4.5 runs per game to 3.9.  Throughout the 60s, all the new ballparks with the exception of Atlanta's Fulton County stadium were pitchers parks.  These included Candlestick, Dodger Stadium, Shea, the Astrodome, Anaheim and Busch.  All these parks had large foul territories making station to station offense much less effective.  They were also tough home run parks with the possible exception of Shea during day games.  Combine all this with mound height (yes the Dodgers monkeyed with this more than most, but there was no standard until 1969) and the intimidation factor, and by 1968, offense (in terms of runs per game) reached a low not seen since the dead ball era at the beginning of this century.  McCovey won a Home Run title with only 36 home runs.  Yaz won a batting title with a .301 average.  I was born in September 1960, so I don't remember this first hand, but my baby boomer friends assure me that watching baseball in the 1960s was like taking a visit to a mausoleum.  I much prefer the 1990s version of baseball with the wonderful new offense-friendly, baseball-only parks, small strike zones (at least in height if not width) and stiff fines and suspensions for head hunters.

I don't know who had the next best ERA to Gibson in 1968, but I've seen published accounts comparing ERA leaders to the corresponding league ERA for the appropriate year, and Gibson's 1968 ERA, although good, doesn't stand out as spectacular.  If I recall correctly, Maddux and Lefty Grove who put up excellent ERAs (almost as low as Gibson's) while pitching in eras with high offense (and in hitters parks I might add) had the best ERAs when adjusted for league ERA.

 You seem to long for the days when pitchers threw at batters "to protect their own" suggesting this self policing mechanism would lead to less bench clearing brawls.  I disagree for the same reason I disagree with the NRA when they say that more guns for more people would reduce crime.  Revenge always begets revenge, and civilization can not long endure in the face of lawlessness.  That's why they made us read those boring translations of Greek tragedies in high school.  If you really want to stop gratuitous beanings and bench clearing brawls, why not institute stiffer penalties for hit batsmen--something like an automatic ejection for the pitcher in addition to the free base for the batter.  We might modify that to say that a batter hit while his body is in the strike zone doesn't merit a pitcher ejection, but the point is if you make the penalty stiff enough and enforce it, pitchers won't throw at batters in the first place.  Intimidation may have been the norm for the 1950s and 1960s, but in earlier eras they really clamped down on pitchers.  I'm thinking primarily of the 1920s soon after Carl Mays killed Ray Chapman with a pitched ball.  Bob Gibson was the perfect pitcher for his time, but when we look for all-time greats, we have to evaluate how a player would have done in different eras.  I think Gibson's value would drop in any era where they clamped down on intimidators.  

I agree that Gibson was a fine hitter and probably the best all-around athlete in baseball at the time.  For this, I give him extra points but apparently not as many as you think he deserves.

 Marichal won more games than Gibson every year from 1960 through 1969 including the great year Gibson had in 1968.  He did this despite playing for a team that was not quite as good as Gibson's over those years.  His ERA over the entire period was also better than Gibson's.  Their lifetime totals are more comparable because Marichal's career ended prematurely due to an allergic reaction to a penicillin shot that led to arthritis in his back.  But for 10 straight years Marichal was distinctly better than Gibson.  He didn't get as much publicity because he didn't get to pitch in as many World Series games but that had nothing to do with Marichal.  Bill James analyzed his September starts and found that Marichal was a fantastic pitcher during stretch drives especially against the dreaded Dodgers.  Unfortunately, the Giants as a team didn't fare as well.  They lost some tight races, and people have forgotten how good Marichal really was in those situations.

 With respect to the Rosboro incident, I think you're being unfair to Marichal here.  Yes, he was wrong, but Rosboro had some culpability himself.  His return throws wizzed past Marichal's ear, and he hurled some racial epithets as well.  With tensions high, Marichal snapped and clubbed Rosboro.  He shouldn't have done it, and it damn near cost him a spot in the hall of fame.  Had Rosboro not forgiven Marichal and openly campaigned for his induction, I doubt that Marichal would be in the hall of fame today.  Marichal publicly thanked Rosboro in his induction speech and apologized for his actions.  As a Christian man, I find this story of reconciliation both heartwarming and inspirational.  It in no way reduces Marichal's status in my eyes.

 With respect to Marichal's relationship with Jose Rijo, I don't know anything about that.  Family relationships are really complex, and I hardly think any of us are in a position to judge Marichal on this matter.  I have a daughter myself, and I hope I will have a good relationship with her future husband if she decides to marry.  But I can conceive of situations where my love for my daughter might preclude that, and I would never pass judgement on Marichal (or anyone else for that matter) if they had a strained relationship with a son-in-law.

P.S.  Here are the dozen pitchers (no particular order) that I rank ahead of Gibson:

Christy Mathewson
Walter Johnson
Lefty Grove
Carl Hubbell
Bob Feller
Tom Seaver
Roger Clemens
Greg Maddux
Steve Carlton
Grover Cleveland Alexander
Robin Roberts
Juan Marichal