PDA

View Full Version : MLB to review Jenks' purpose pitch - only a fine


RockyMtnSoxFan
05-11-2009, 11:04 AM
I didn't see this (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4157644) anywhere else, so I thought I'd post it.

Maybe, while they're at it, they can review the Rangers' pitchers who have been hitting Sox hitters left and right. It seems to me that Bobby did the right thing: he sent a message, without actually hitting anybody. And why did Ozzie throw him under the bus? He acted like this is totally on Bobby, and if he gets in trouble it's his own fault. I realize Bobby was probably throwing that pitch on his own, but Ozzie should at least back him up.

thomas35forever
05-11-2009, 11:05 AM
That is such bullcrap. Why are the Rangers getting a free pass for hitting our guys, yet our closer throws one purpose pitch and may be facing a suspension and/or fine? I hope the White Sox plead their case to the MLB office.

CHISOXFAN13
05-11-2009, 11:08 AM
I didn't see this (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4157644) anywhere else, so I thought I'd post it.

Maybe, while they're at it, they can review the Rangers' pitchers who have been hitting Sox hitters left and right. It seems to me that Bobby did the right thing: he sent a message, without actually hitting anybody. And why did Ozzie throw him under the bus? He acted like this is totally on Bobby, and if he gets in trouble it's his own fault. I realize Bobby was probably throwing that pitch on his own, but Ozzie should at least back him up.

So Ozzie complains when we don't retaliate then he does when we do. Jenks had a plan. He was sending a message without putting Kinsler on. Ozzie should shut the **** up on this issue.

jabrch
05-11-2009, 11:08 AM
What's the actual rule here? You can't deliberately HIT a batter, right? Jenks deliberately threw way behind Kinsley. If Jenks wanted to hit Kinsler, he'd have a mark on him... I hope they don't come down hard on Bobby for not hitting him. If they do, it will only encourage people to not miss.

SoxGirl4Life
05-11-2009, 11:09 AM
None of the Rangers' pitchers came right out and said they were throwing at the Sox on purpose.

Jenks knew the risk, did it anyway, and admitted it after the fact. Good for him. Someone had to do something!

Jerko
05-11-2009, 11:10 AM
So it's worse to miss one guy than it is to drill 4 or 5? What crap.

soltrain21
05-11-2009, 11:10 AM
Watching Carlos Quentin not move and get hit is FAR different than Bobby throwing BEHIND somebody. Take off the blinders.

CHISOXFAN13
05-11-2009, 11:13 AM
Watching Carlos Quentin not move and get hit is FAR different than Bobby throwing BEHIND somebody. Take off the blinders.

Did you have the blinders on when Dye got hit in the hand last week?

soxinem1
05-11-2009, 11:13 AM
It looked intentional to me, even though I disagree with the call.

One could rationalize that Jenks had no reason to hit him in a close game and put the tying run at 2B (because Kinsler would have stolen a base shortly after that), but Bobby did seem to aim at him.

But since he was not hit, I think MLB should let it go, especially since the batter never got hit.

Lorenzo Barcelo
05-11-2009, 11:38 AM
I just wish Buehrle and KW weren't so open about the issue with the media earlier in the week. Jenks's pitch to Kinsler would have been less noticed, but Texas would have understood the message. I'm sure the Umps/MLB were aware of the comments and kept a lookout for any purpose pitches.

voodoochile
05-11-2009, 11:48 AM
So it's worse to miss one guy than it is to drill 4 or 5? What crap.

Yep, especially when you brag about it afterwards. MLB frowns on that crap. If Bobby hadn't opened his mouth and admitted he did it on purpose, this would all be over and done with. Don't blame anyone but Bobby for this mess - he should have shut the **** up or answered no with a smirk when asked if he did it on purpose.

It's all good until someone opens their mouth about it. That's been the case for years. The minute I read Bobby had admitted he threw a purpose pitch I figured something like this was coming.

voodoochile
05-11-2009, 11:49 AM
Did you have the blinders on when Dye got hit in the hand last week?

The hand that was attached to the bat and practically in the strikezone when the pitch arrived at the plate?

soltrain21
05-11-2009, 12:04 PM
The hand that was attached to the bat and practically in the strikezone when the pitch arrived at the plate?

Thank you, Voodoo. I understand the Sox get hit a lot, but they NEVER get out of the way.

JB98
05-11-2009, 12:04 PM
Jenks screwed up by admitting he did this on purpose. Now, he's going to get suspended.

Why do the Sox have to be so candid about these sorts of things all the time? They always come off looking like the bad guys.

Every other team in the league lies about it when they intentionally throw at someone, and there are no consequences. The Sox need to start doing the same.

jabrch
05-11-2009, 12:08 PM
Is it an offsense worthy of being suspended to admitting you deliberately MISSED hitting a batter? I'm not sure.

If he hit him, and said he deliberately hit him, that would be different in my eyes. He deliberately threw a ball - way outside the strike zone, and way behind him. Has anyone ever been suspended for missing a hitter before?

palehozenychicty
05-11-2009, 12:25 PM
Jenks screwed up by admitting he did this on purpose. Now, he's going to get suspended.

Why do the Sox have to be so candid about these sorts of things all the time? They always come off looking like the bad guys.

Every other team in the league lies about it when they intentionally throw at someone, and there are no consequences. The Sox need to start doing the same.


I agree. He should have said nothing.

Domeshot17
05-11-2009, 12:25 PM
Bobby has to learn to keep his mouth shut. I wouldn't appeal here, just take the game or 2 you get and hope for some blowouts

RockJock07
05-11-2009, 12:33 PM
I agree. He should have said nothing.

Come on. Today no one says what they really feel, bobby did, so what?

Domeshot17
05-11-2009, 12:40 PM
Come on. Today no one says what they really feel, bobby did, so what?

Its the difference between a suspension or not, and that hurts the team. Ozzie is pissed because he is going to be without his closer and he fought his ass off FOR JENKS. If Jenks keeps his mouth shut, the mlb reviews it, Jenks said why would I risk coming anywhere close to putting the tying run on when hes fast and can steal 2nd etc. and while everyone knows what happens, nothing happens.

The peple saying WHO CARES BOBBY IS CHICAGO TOUGH FOR TALKING remind me of my brother and job interviews when you are a teenager. Every major retailer asks you the same question "You're co worker is really thirsty, they forgot their wallet and take a dollar to buy a drink out of the register. They tell you they will return it tomorrow. do you turn them in?" Everyone knows you just say yes how you feel. My brother lost out on 3 jobs because he took the CHICAGO TOUGH mentally of saying what a stupid question it is, and that he would just lend the guy a buck. Sometimes its just knowing how to play the game.

voodoochile
05-11-2009, 12:47 PM
Is it an offsense worthy of being suspended to admitting you deliberately MISSED hitting a batter? I'm not sure.

If he hit him, and said he deliberately hit him, that would be different in my eyes. He deliberately threw a ball - way outside the strike zone, and way behind him. Has anyone ever been suspended for missing a hitter before?

The classic way of hitting guys includes throwing behind them because most people backup when the ball starts heading their way.

Given the state of the current disciplinary system - which is strict and getting stricter, I can imagine Bobby being given a week for admitting he threw a purpose pitch.

Sad
05-11-2009, 12:52 PM
Yep, especially when you brag about it afterwards. MLB frowns on that crap. If Bobby hadn't opened his mouth and admitted he did it on purpose, this would all be over and done with. Don't blame anyone but Bobby for this mess - he should have shut the **** up or answered no with a smirk when asked if he did it on purpose.


that's it exactly... Jenk's should've kept his lip zipped...
Texas got the message...

dumbass...

ChiSoxFan81
05-11-2009, 12:59 PM
I hope their "review" includes that fact that 1) it was a 1-run game, 2) Bobby had great command and was throwing filthy stuff, 3) He didn't actually hit the batter, and 4) The pitch was at the guy's backside. Even IF he gets hit, it's in a soft spot, and not at his head or in his ribs. All Bobby admitted to was intentionally missing a batter. If he wanted to hit him, he would have. Easily.

TDog
05-11-2009, 01:00 PM
Yep, especially when you brag about it afterwards. MLB frowns on that crap. If Bobby hadn't opened his mouth and admitted he did it on purpose, this would all be over and done with. Don't blame anyone but Bobby for this mess - he should have shut the **** up or answered no with a smirk when asked if he did it on purpose.

It's all good until someone opens their mouth about it. That's been the case for years. The minute I read Bobby had admitted he threw a purpose pitch I figured something like this was coming.

That really is the point most people seem to be missing.

Also, throwing behind a batter has always been recognized as the worst sort of message (other than throwing at the head) because it is a natural reaction for a hitter to move back from the plate when a ball is coming inside. When you're hitting and you see a ball coming way in and you back into it, it feels like the ball followed you. The umpire could have been justified in ejecting Jenks on the spot instead of issuing the warning.

And Jenks left no doubt he was trying to send a message. Politicians use the term plausible denial. If you want to send a message that you can't care to plausibly deny, you are asking for a suspension, and perhaps a reputation.

Jenks could have shattered Kinsler's kneecap with a fastball in the batter's box, apologized with a wink and it would have sent a stronger message that he would have been able to plausibly deny.

LoveYourSuit
05-11-2009, 01:07 PM
I was happy with Jenks when he did it becasue I knew what he was doing. Contrary to all the stupid stuf I heard from Hawk, Stone, & people on this board who were up in arms on why there was a warning issued. You have to be blind or dumb to not realize what was going on. But Kudos to Jenks for stepping up.

But then Jenks decides to play the Macho Card on us and admit it to the media. :angry: That's as dumb as you can be.

ChiSoxFan81
05-11-2009, 01:16 PM
I made the mistake of turning on Mike Murphy, and he wants to know if throwing behind a batter is a "new trend" developing in baseball. He also questioned it because he said there would be a guy on with no outs in a 1-run game. He then went on to make an obligatory comparison to Dempster throwing high and tight to Ricky Weeks.

:rolleyes:

Woofer
05-11-2009, 01:30 PM
Jenks would have been better off saying something like, "The ball felt a little slick, it must have slipped out of my hand. I know that Texas had hit a few of our batters, but I wasn't looking to put the tying run on." He will probably get suspended now. Not that we need a closer much lately anyway.

jabrch
05-11-2009, 01:36 PM
The classic way of hitting guys includes throwing behind them because most people backup when the ball starts heading their way.

Given the state of the current disciplinary system - which is strict and getting stricter, I can imagine Bobby being given a week for admitting he threw a purpose pitch.


But the rules don't say you get suspended for throwing behind a hitter. It is for deliberately hitting a guy - right? There was no way he was going to back into that ball.

I'm just not sure what the rule is - and how it will be applied. Had he hit him, and said he hit him intentionally, I don't see how it wouldn't be a suspension. But with this - I am not sure...just don't know the rule...

doublem23
05-11-2009, 01:41 PM
Even though it was stupid, I respect Bobby for being full of ****.

asindc
05-11-2009, 01:42 PM
I also think the crucial part of Bobby's admission is that he tried NOT to hit Kinsler. I don't recall anyone being suspended for throwing the ball close to someone, but not trying to hit him. I also ask the question: What would the suspension be for? Deliberately throwing close to him?

Chez
05-11-2009, 01:44 PM
But the rules don't say you get suspended for throwing behind a hitter. It is for deliberately hitting a guy - right? There was no way he was going to back into that ball.

I'm just not sure what the rule is - and how it will be applied. Had he hit him, and said he hit him intentionally, I don't see how it wouldn't be a suspension. But with this - I am not sure...just don't know the rule...

Are there different criteria for an ejection and a suspension? I think MLB has broad discretion on suspensions. Players can appeal -- that's their recourse.

Sargeant79
05-11-2009, 02:22 PM
I also think the crucial part of Bobby's admission is that he tried NOT to hit Kinsler. I don't recall anyone being suspended for throwing the ball close to someone, but not trying to hit him. I also ask the question: What would the suspension be for? Deliberately throwing close to him?

That's a good point. Every day, pitchers try to throw close to guys but not hit them. Usually all they're trying to do is move them off the plate a little. Bobby was also trying to throw close to the guy, but not hit them, albeit his motives were a bit different.

BleacherBandit
05-11-2009, 02:35 PM
I agree with what has been said, but however, does it really matter to the team's wellfare if Bobby gets suspended for say, a week? Seems to me they haven't had a need for him besides this Saturday. If he was reprimanded, it would send the message to the Rangers that we aren't ****ing around with them and that we do protect our batters. It would also probably get national coverage because I the natural response to that call is that the umpire was full of crap.

jabrch
05-11-2009, 02:41 PM
I agree with what has been said, but however, does it really matter to the team's wellfare if Bobby gets suspended for say, a week?

That's ridiculous. Just because we haven't needed him, doesn't mean losing him wouldn't "impact the team's welfare"

BleacherBandit
05-11-2009, 02:45 PM
That's ridiculous. Just because we haven't needed him, doesn't mean losing him wouldn't "impact the team's welfare"

It would definitely piss off the whole team, but I don't think we have needed Bobby that much so far. You don't need your closer if you're not winning games.

CLR01
05-11-2009, 02:48 PM
None of the Rangers' pitchers came right out and said they were throwing at the Sox on purpose.

Jenks knew the risk, did it anyway, and admitted it after the fact. Good for him. Someone had to do something!


Nice to see that a few people here get and and are not just whining as usual.

soxinem1
05-11-2009, 03:00 PM
Jenks screwed up by admitting he did this on purpose. Now, he's going to get suspended.

Why do the Sox have to be so candid about these sorts of things all the time? They always come off looking like the bad guys.

Every other team in the league lies about it when they intentionally throw at someone, and there are no consequences. The Sox need to start doing the same.

I remember when Rich Dotson admitted hitting Cal Ripken and throwing at Eddie Murray in Game three of the 1983 LCS.

Why tell anyone? The target knows if it is intentional or not?

Chez
05-11-2009, 03:00 PM
My guess is that he gets fined but not suspended. If he's suspended, it will be for one game.

slavko
05-11-2009, 03:48 PM
I just wish Buehrle and KW weren't so open about the issue with the media earlier in the week. Jenks's pitch to Kinsler would have been less noticed, but Texas would have understood the message. I'm sure the Umps/MLB were aware of the comments and kept a lookout for any purpose pitches.

This method worked a few years ago when Jesus Pena used it. Never never never say that you threw at someone. "It got away." "I have to pitch inside to be effective." "That part of the plate belongs to me." "I wouldn't intentionally try to hurt someone." "You think I would try to put the tying run on base?" THAT'S what you say. Wise up, Burls and Jenks.

KenBerryGrab
05-11-2009, 03:57 PM
I remember when Rich Dotson admitted hitting Cal Ripken and throwing at Eddie Murray in Game three of the 1983 LCS.



Which led to a total implosion and blowout. So stupid.

DickAllen72
05-11-2009, 05:02 PM
So Ozzie complains when we don't retaliate then he does when we do. Jenks had a plan. He was sending a message without putting Kinsler on. Ozzie should shut the **** up on this issue.
Ozzie has never learned how to handle the whole HBP/protect your own hitters situation. He talks too much and nthan throws his own players under the bus in public.

DickAllen72
05-11-2009, 05:06 PM
But the rules don't say you get suspended for throwing behind a hitter. It is for deliberately hitting a guy - right? There was no way he was going to back into that ball.

I'm just not sure what the rule is - and how it will be applied. Had he hit him, and said he hit him intentionally, I don't see how it wouldn't be a suspension. But with this - I am not sure...just don't know the rule...
I'm not certain about this, but didn't Randy Johnson get suspended a few years ago for throwing an inside pitch after one of his teammates got hit? It was either Johnson or maybe the opposing pitcher but I remember he was involved in the game and one of the pitchers got in trouble for merely throwing up and in.

southside rocks
05-11-2009, 05:55 PM
I'm not certain about this, but didn't Randy Johnson get suspended a few years ago for throwing an inside pitch after one of his teammates got hit? It was either Johnson or maybe the opposing pitcher but I remember he was involved in the game and one of the pitchers got in trouble for merely throwing up and in.

Johnson got a 5-game suspension for intentionally throwing inside to Eduardo Perez.

Johnson did that, however, *after* warnings had been issued by the umps.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/sports/539961/johnson_gets_five_games_for_throwing_at_perez/index.html

No warning was issued in the Sox/Rangers game before Jenks pitched to Kinsler, which would seem to make a difference.

Domeshot17
05-11-2009, 06:23 PM
Beckett got 5 for headhunting this year, wasn't ejected, didn't hit Abreu

WhiteSoxJunkie
05-12-2009, 01:10 PM
Beckett got 5 for headhunting this year, wasn't ejected, didn't hit Abreu

Yeah but Beckett threw at his head. Jenks threw it behind his butt. If a pitcher wants to hit a batter or move him off the plate, he should throw at his midsection, not up by his head and neck.

thechico
05-12-2009, 01:24 PM
Have to say it is bold of Bobby to come out and admit it. Course, he and the rest of our org will be spanked BECAUSE it was admitted to. :angry:

asindc
05-12-2009, 01:24 PM
Yeah but Beckett threw at his head. Jenks threw it behind his butt. If a pitcher wants to hit a batter or move him off the plate, he should throw at his midsection, not up by his head and neck.

The other distinction in the Beckett case was his reaction after throwing the pitch.

RockyMtnSoxFan
05-12-2009, 01:26 PM
Beckett got 5 for headhunting this year, wasn't ejected, didn't hit Abreu

Good point, after that precedent they will probably have to give him some sort of penalty.

BTW, I read in one of the articles about this topic that Sox pitchers have hit 270 batters since Ozzie became manager, the fewest in the majors in that time period. Sox hitters have been beaned 331 times. I'd like to know the splits with the Rangers.

Domeshot17
05-12-2009, 02:02 PM
I wasn't saying Jenks did anything near as bad as Beckett, but I was saying you no longer need to hit the guy to be suspended. Josh got 1 game for throwing at a head (well 5, but 1 start), I expect Jenks to get 1 game.

sox1970
05-12-2009, 02:09 PM
Just a fine.

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2009/05/white-soxs-bobby-jenks-fined-by-mlb.html

asindc
05-12-2009, 02:16 PM
I wasn't saying Jenks did anything near as bad as Beckett, but I was saying you no longer need to hit the guy to be suspended. Josh got 1 game for throwing at a head (well 5, but 1 start), I expect Jenks to get 1 game.

That's what I understood, but given that only a fine has been imposed, maybe MLB saw Beckett's actions as more malicious.

It's Dankerific
05-12-2009, 02:21 PM
Plus, the Beckett suspension is just for image. no loss of a start, or anything else.

asindc
05-12-2009, 02:33 PM
I hope it's a small enough amount that the other guys on the team chip in to help pay it. If I'm one of the regular hitters on the team, I certainly would offer.

KenBerryGrab
05-12-2009, 02:37 PM
I hope it's a small enough amount that the other guys on the team chip in to help pay it. If I'm one of the regular hitters on the team, I certainly would offer.

Except that's not allowed.

doublem23
05-12-2009, 02:41 PM
Except that's not allowed.

It's not? I know putting a price on someone's head (like, anyone who plunks A-Rod gets $1,000) is not allowed, but I don't know about fines levied by MLB.

Anyways, still hard to track cash.

It's Dankerific
05-12-2009, 02:42 PM
Except that's not allowed.

They can buy him dinner for a while though, right? :cool:

KenBerryGrab
05-12-2009, 02:45 PM
Yeah, kind of like a purpose pitch. You'd never admit to doing it, right? :cool:

Jim Shorts
05-12-2009, 02:57 PM
Good point, after that precedent they will probably have to give him some sort of penalty.

BTW, I read in one of the articles about this topic that Sox pitchers have hit 270 batters since Ozzie became manager, the fewest in the majors in that time period. Sox hitters have been beaned 331 times. I'd like to know the splits with the Rangers.

While you're placing the order, can we see the splits with the Royals as well?

TDog
05-12-2009, 03:13 PM
Except that's not allowed.

MLB can't stop an unofficial collection among players that never comes to their attention.

In 1970, Syd O'Brien, in an act of frustration after a particularly bad appearance at the plate, shattered his batting helmet. The White Sox, who drew fewer than 500,000 people to 83 (not a misprint) home games in that 106-loss season, billed Sir Sydney $17.50, which was what a batting helmet cost them at the time. Considering that for the season, Carlos May was only getting paid $20,000, Aparicio only $40,000, I'm guessing O'Brien made close to the $13,000 minimum at the time. Sir Sydney was not happy.

Players took up a collection. They called it the Obie Fund. One player successfully solicited team treasurer Leo Breen, who may have been the bean counter who determined the team was owed $17.50 in the first place. Until an accounting of the story appeared in The Sporting News, he probably didn't know he contributed to the collection to pay for the broken helmet.

It would only be speculation to suggest that Ken Berry himself started the collection. Berry was O'Brien's roommate, according to a story in The Sporting News about how the two flakey personalies were perfect for each other (the beat writer for the White Sox finding off-the-field adventures more interesting topics for the weekly story on the team that they had in those days before The Sporting News became just another disposable sports magazine). Bill Melton roomed with O'Brien at the beginning of the season, though.

O'Brien was sent off to the Angels at the end of the season, with Berry, for Jay Johnstone and Tom Bradley, in what may have been one of the flakiest deals in baseball history.

Anyway, there is nothing to prevent a teammate from dropping off an envelope with a check in it at Bobby Jenks' locker.

Also, in this situation, an undisclosed fine is sort of a warning, both to not throw at hitters and not talk about the purpose of purpose pitches.

voodoochile
05-12-2009, 03:28 PM
Yeah, kind of like a purpose pitch. You'd never admit to doing it, right? :cool:

Exactly, so long as Bobby doesn't come out and talk about the other guys chipping in, they should be fine...

:jenks:
"Thome just handed me a stack of hundreds and said not to worry about it. Then JD did the same. I tell you, I'm gonna throw at a player on every team who hits one of ours for the rest of the season, since I don't have to worry about getting hurt by the fines..."

Bobby signed a $5M contract this off season. I think he can afford the fine...

DirtySox
05-12-2009, 03:44 PM
Jenks Fined $750 (http://espn.go.com/chicago/story?id=4161668&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines)

angiew
05-12-2009, 03:47 PM
Jenks Fined $750 (http://espn.go.com/chicago/story?id=4161668&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines)

Worth every penny.:cool:

BigP50
05-12-2009, 04:56 PM
I was there and I was scared for Kinsler. To see a 95 MPH fastball going right at a living person is scary!

Also I thought it was funny that AJ was yelling at the ump, I think that he was arguing that he didn't do it on purpose then Bobby comes out and says it is.

:bandance:

scarsofthumper
05-12-2009, 06:00 PM
So it's cheaper to throw behind Ian Kinsler than it is to buy a good seat at Yankee Stadium...

lol