50 FAVORITE WHITE SOX PLAYERS

[knightni]

22. Bobby Thigpen

 

(11 of 27 lists - 92 points - highest ranking #9 shipps)

 

bio by Texsox -

 

Who doesn't love a closer? There is no position like it in any other sport. Like a Red Auebach victory cigar, the appearance signals victory is at hand.

 

In a rather unspectacular season for his stats, Bobby Thigpin managed to somehow set the MLB record with 57 saves in one season. Brought in 65 times to close 'em out, he failed 8 times to go along with an 1.83 ERA. Critics would continue to point to his failures long after that season, but to some loyal Sox fans, it was still something special. His performance that season started a controversy as he finished fourth in CY Young voting and fifth in MVP. During that time the closer role was being defined by Thigpen along with Lee Smith and Dennis Eckersley and suddenly those awards seemed within reach for a guy whose job was to pitch one inning.

 

Another guy should be mentioned along with Thigpen. Barry Jones who quietly set up Thigpen that season. Much like Matt Suhey blocking for Walter Payton, Jones was the set up man and compiled an 11-4 record and 2.31 ERA. Reminding everyone that is takes a team to set some of these records.

 

His 201 career saves still ranks number 1 for the White Sox. Back problems abruptly ended his career before he could climb higher on the all time career saves list. Sadly, it seems his back problems may have been caused by getting injured during a bench clearing brawl. For a few seasons, Bobby Thigpen was "the man" and for many Sox fans, his 1990 season remains the gold standard to judge all the other closers. He currently is with the organization as the manager for the Bristol Sox.

[Hatchetman]

Back in the day, Thigpen was quoted in the paper as saying it would be nice if the Sox moved to St. Pete so he would be closer to home. Never forgave him for that.

[Felix]

The greatest single season ever for a relief pitcher was Bobby Thigpen in 1990.

Gagne's 2003 disagrees, and that's without putting any research into it. Thigpen had a great season, but it's not even close between the two.

[thedoctor]

thiggy should be back in the television here in a few weeks.

[Texsox]

Gagne's 2003 disagrees, and that's without putting any research into it. Thigpen had a great season, but it's not even close between the two.

That depends on the criteria you use. Based solely on saves, Thigpen had more than any other reliever, ever. No argument from me if you want to look for other stats and reasons to name Gagne's season better. It will be fairly easy to do and if I wasn't a Sox fan, I just might do that. But I'm a Sox fan and used saves as the bottom line for a closer.

[shipps]

When we would play baseball in the alley and I pitched I was Bobby Thigpen.Now that I look back I thought he was so much more of a talent at the time then I do now.He was a god when I was a kid and to me he could do no wrong.

[Balta1701]

Gagne's 2003 disagrees, and that's without putting any research into it. Thigpen had a great season, but it's not even close between the two.

Gagne also did that season with a needle in his arse.

[Felix]

That depends on the criteria you use. Based solely on saves, Thigpen had more than any other reliever, ever. No argument from me if you want to look for other stats and reasons to name Gagne's season better. It will be fairly easy to do and if I wasn't a Sox fan, I just might do that. But I'm a Sox fan and used saves as the bottom line for a closer.

Based on a terrible stat for evaluating seasons by individual players, then yes, Thigpen had a better season. Based off of anything else, it's not even close. I say this as a Sox fan who likes Thigpen a ton more than Gagne. One could even argue (although I won't be the one to do it) that Gagne had two straight seasons better than anything Thigpen had. A 251:36 K:BB ratio over two seasons? Ridiculous.

 

Gagne also did that season with a needle in his arse.

No argument from me, but until we know without a doubt which players did use and which didn't, there's no point in discrediting a certain players past performances.

 

 

 

Either way, this probably isn't the thread for this. Thigpen was a great player and deserves all the credit he gets.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Felix

[Texsox]

Saves is a terrible stat to use? I'll admit it does not tell the whole story, most closers may never get 50 chances in a season, but it seems that the very definition of closer is to earn saves. So it may not tell the entire picture, but it should be the first stat to use. I've never seen how they won in the standings just how many.

[santo=dorf]

If a manager intentionally uses his 9th inning guy to get 1 out saves ala K-Rod on the Angels this year, I don't see how he's more important than the guy who pitches a scoreless 8th inning.

 

Teams that don't have a great offense where they aren't capable of blowing other teams out of the water tend to have closers with high save totals because they win by less than 4 runs a good percentage of the time. That's how guys like Chad Cordero are able to rack up the high, misleading numbers.

 

Give me the best pitcher available in the 9th inning. Logic like yours make the Billy Koch trade sound worthwhile.

"Wow dude! 44 saves and 11 wins!!! He must be a great closer."

Edited August 21, 2008 by santo=dorf

[Texsox]

As I said, saves alone does not tell the whole story. I'm a simple guy, I noticed that they have been ranking teams by wins for over one hundred years. So I prefer pitchers that win and save games. When they start ranking them by other means, I'll stop looking at wins and saves. It ain't how, it's how many.

 

Wait, I did forget, we also have to look at the player's contract. Comparing salaries, Thigpen's paltry salary was way better then Gagne and his impossibly large contract.

[Balta1701]

As I said, saves alone does not tell the whole story. I'm a simple guy, I noticed that they have been ranking teams by wins for over one hundred years. So I prefer pitchers that win and save games. When they start ranking them by other means, I'll stop looking at wins and saves. It ain't how, it's how many.

When did they start ranking teams by saves?

[Balta1701]

Wait, I did forget, we also have to look at the player's contract. Comparing salaries, Thigpen's paltry salary was way better then Gagne and his impossibly large contract.

Gagne made $550,000 in 2003. Thigpen made $325,000 in 1990.

[Texsox]

When did they start ranking teams by saves?

By wins, and if a closer doesn't earn a save, it's generally a loss.

 

I like guys who win. Some like guys who put up great stats. To each their own.

[Texsox]

Gagne made $550,000 in 2003. Thigpen made $325,000 in 1990.

Hmm, Soxtalk. We run a favorite WHITE SOX player poll and decide to prove that the closer with the MLB record actually isn't as good as other closers.

 

So let's start a favorite DODGERS List.

 

f*** we can't even celebrate a Sox player who has the MLB record without people ripping Sox players. This list is going to keep getting better and better.

Nothing like having a place that White Sox fans can go to s*** on their team and history.

 

[Balta1701]

Hmm, Soxtalk. We run a favorite WHITE SOX player poll and decide to prove that the closer with the MLB record actually isn't as good as other closers.

 

So let's start a favorite DODGERS List.

 

f*** we can't even celebrate a Sox player who has the MLB record without people ripping Sox players. This list is going to keep getting better and better.

Nothing like having a place that White Sox fans can go to s*** on their team and history.

 

Didn't I already say Gagne's season didn't count because he spent the whole time with a needle in his arse?

 

And anyway, I'm just pulling out numbers to prove you wrong at this point. I find it very entertaining.

[Texsox]

Didn't I already say Gagne's season didn't count because he spent the whole time with a needle in his arse?

 

And anyway, I'm just pulling out numbers to prove you wrong at this point. I find it very entertaining.

The team is in first. We put togewther a list of the fan's favorites and instead the usual soxtalk negativity comes s***ting through.

[Milkman delivers]

The team is in first. We put togewther a list of the fan's favorites and instead the usual soxtalk negativity comes s***ting through.

 

What you call negativity, another poster may call the truth. Felix didn't say Gagne had a better season to be a dick, he said it because he believes that Gagne had a better season.

[Texsox]

What you call negativity, another poster may call the truth. Felix didn't say Gagne had a better season to be a dick, he said it because he believes that Gagne had a better season.

 

No problem, I fixed the bio.

[Felix]

Saves is a terrible stat to use? I'll admit it does not tell the whole story, most closers may never get 50 chances in a season, but it seems that the very definition of closer is to earn saves. So it may not tell the entire picture, but it should be the first stat to use. I've never seen how they won in the standings just how many.

I do think saves are a terrible stat to use because they discredit players on teams that suck or that tend to blow others out.

 

 

Hmm, Soxtalk. We run a favorite WHITE SOX player poll and decide to prove that the closer with the MLB record actually isn't as good as other closers.

 

So let's start a favorite DODGERS List.

 

f*** we can't even celebrate a Sox player who has the MLB record without people ripping Sox players. This list is going to keep getting better and better.

Nothing like having a place that White Sox fans can go to s*** on their team and history.

 

I didn't mean it to bash Thigpen, nor was I trying to degrade what Thigpen did. However, the sentence was initially written as fact, which is something I disagreed with. Milkman basically covered it.

[YASNY]

I do think saves are a terrible stat to use because they discredit players on teams that suck or that tend to blow others out.

 

 

 

I didn't mean it to bash Thigpen, nor was I trying to degrade what Thigpen did. However, the sentence was initially written as fact, which is something I disagreed with. Milkman basically covered it.

 

Stat worthiness has been discussed on Soxtalk ad nausem, and will continue to be discussed. But you take one sentence out of a "favorite players" bio because you happen to disagree with and start sniping. The man was enjoying writing these bio's and had stepped up and volunteered to help write as many he can. Now, he's washed his hands of the whole damn thing and I don't blame him one iota. This thread, and the others like it are meant to light and fun. There are plenty of threads where discussion and disagreement can take place and be totally appropriate, but this wasn't one them. Basically, by turning into a discussion on the value of a save to judge a player, you hijacked the thread.

 

Oh, and Milkman, before you jump all over me for this post, I took into consideration what you said about me being critical of negative posts and decided you may have a valid point so I backed off and have refrained from doing that quite so much. However, I couldn't let this go without putting in my two cents. It's not so much the negative posts themselves, it's the thread that they occured and the time and effort being put into these threads by various people to make this a fun and enjoyable series of threads.

[ptatc]

By wins, and if a closer doesn't earn a save, it's generally a loss.

 

I like guys who win. Some like guys who put up great stats. To each their own.

 

You'll never win the discussion here with those numbers. I've been saying that wins are the most important number but most just don't seem to agree. Give me the pitcher that wins over the other stats and I'll be perfectly happy.

 

[Felix]

Stat worthiness has been discussed on Soxtalk ad nausem, and will continue to be discussed. But you take one sentence out of a "favorite players" bio because you happen to disagree with and start sniping. The man was enjoying writing these bio's and had stepped up and volunteered to help write as many he can. Now, he's washed his hands of the whole damn thing and I don't blame him one iota.

That certainly wasn't my purpose, as I've enjoyed reading these. I apologize if that did happen as a result of me.

 

This thread, and the others like it are meant to light and fun.

And I didn't mean to turn it into anything else. However, if I'm reading these things and something is said that I disagree with, I'm going to say so. I don't think I did anything out of line and I thought the whole purpose of these forums was to promote discussion about baseball (and other things). Now if I were to start talking politics in this thread I could see how it was out of line, but when I was merely talking about the worthiness of saves in a thread about the guy who holds the saves record, which doesn't seem off-topic or out of place at all to me.

Edited August 22, 2008 by Felix

[ptatc]

That certainly wasn't my purpose, as I've enjoyed reading these. I apologize if that did happen as a result of me.

 

 

And I didn't mean to turn it into anything else. However, if I'm reading these things and something is said that clearly isn't true, I'm going to say so. I don't think I did anything out of line, as I thought the whole purpose of these forums was to promote discussion about baseball (and other things). Now if I were to start talking politics in this thread, I could see how it was out of line, but when I was merely talking about the worthiness of saves in a thread about the guy who holds the saves record, which doesn't seem off-topic or out of place at all to me.

 

This is the point they are making. You may think "it is clearly untrue," however other people think otherwise. There are many ways to look at it. Is it arguable, yes, is it clearly untrue or a definitive right answer, no. You can argue it, but don't attack it as if it were fact.

 

As a great philosopher once said, it is true, from a certain point of view

 

 

 

[Felix]

This is the point they are making. You may think "it is clearly untrue," however other people think otherwise. There are many ways to look at it. Is it arguable, yes, is it clearly untrue or a definitive right answer, no. You can argue it, but don't attack it as if it were fact.

 

As a great philosopher once said, it is true, from a certain point of view

And thats what I edited right after I posted