On Saturday night with the White Sox up 3-2 on the Texas Rangers in the top of the ninth, Ian Kinsler came up to the plate with two outs. White Sox closer Bobby Jenks then reared back to throw his first pitch to Kinsler, and it was a 96 mph fastball delivered behind Kinsler. It was a purpose pitch.Anybody in the stadium or at home on television knew this. The White Sox had been talking the last few days about how they were tired of being used as target practice and were going to respond sooner or later. After Rangers pitching beaned two more Sox players on Saturday, you knew a response was coming. So Jenks threw that pitch, got a warning, and got Kinsler to pop out to end the game. It was a perfect response to everything, and then the postgame interviews came and Jenks messed up.
And while it didn't necessarily please Ozzie Guillen, Jenks' teammates had to appreciate his effort after six of them were hit by pitches in the last week by Rangers pitchers.Sigh.
Asked if the two-out, ninth-inning pitch to Kinsler "got away from him," Jenks replied without hesitation:
"No, I meant to. To send a message. Basically I was saying, 'I'm sick of seeing our guys get hit and hurt and almost get taken out of the game.' I threw it with intention."
Listen, Bobby. We all know you did it on purpose, but that doesn't mean you admit to it after the game. You just respond to any question about it with a "it got away from me" and a smirk on your face. After that, everybody laughs and you move on.
When you admit to doing it on purpose then MLB starts "looking into" the situation, and now you run the risk of being suspended and hurting your team. At this point you may as well have planted the pitch between Kinsler's shoulders.

















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-11-2009 @ 9:58PM
Chuck said...
Jenks did'nt mess up...he Manned Up !!!
Marlins Fan-
Reply
5-11-2009 @ 10:38PM
claytor said...
Hahahaha, no doubt! Wow, bout freaking time, really. I mean how many more batters do the Rangers attempt to cripple before intention is sent in kind?
Reply