Talk:Doug Eddings

Untitled

A better image would probably be that of Eddings making the out motion, can anyone find that? zellin 02:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Changes

I changed "He came to public attention with a controversial call that allowed the Chicago White Sox to win a 2005 American League Championship Series game over the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim." to "He came to public attention with a controversial call during Game 2 of the 2005 American League Championship Series between the Chicago White Sox and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim."

At the point in which the call was made, the game was tied. The Angels could have ended the inning by getting Pablo Ozuna out when he stole second base, or could have struck out Joe Crede at the plate. Even then there was no guarantee that the Angels would have scored in the 10th and won the game. — Linnwood 06:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, true. Good catch.--Mike Selinker 15:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I added context about the 2005 incident to show that it was not an average missed call. The article written was written by an avid White Sox fan, the team that benefitted from the call. Thoughts? cls98 8 September 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 03:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Obviously I am one of the editors against it. We already mention this one game much more predominantly than any other game he has umpired and to add hyperbolic commentary from one individual is a step too far. If anything the rest needs to be reduced. There are uncited claims and what appears to be individual interpretation of the call. Also you need consensus to add negative information to a BKP, not to remove it. Especially if you are the only one adding it and it was nmot in the article previously. AIRcorn (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Even the talk page here shows that there have been multiple attempts to add more info to this page regarding incidents. However, each time an incident is brought up, it appears a few gatekeepers rush to sweep it under the rug. This does not appear to be in the best interest of maintaining accurate information. If people with far more expertise in the field of baseball than us feel the need to critique Doug Eddings for being a poor umpire, it is not for us to withhold that information from people, especially if it is the majority opinion of commentators on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cls98 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove the content you added. You cannot possibly believe that Ben Shapiro is an expert on baseball. If you do, you should not be editing Wikipedia. Actually, you should not be editing Wikipedia anyway because of your anti-umpire agenda, which will not be tolerated. Lepricavark (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"Doug Eddinges is a Douche"

This thread has outlived its usefulness. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've removed this link again.

1. It is not NPOV
2. It is is a link to some guy's random weblog that is devoted to an event that has passed

— Linnwood 05:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the best collection of questionable calls by Mr. Eddings. If you can point to a more definitive site where all opinions about the infamous 2005 ALCS call as well as his previous calls then I'll stop linking it in.

This site is the number five result when searched on in Google and the number one result in MSN. It certainly has a point of view but so does Firedoug.com. Please link in any site that praise Mr. Eddings, but why shy away from fair, yet strident criticism.

I would also add that someone who is a Chicago partisan should be making this call. It would be like someone allowing a team to have an extra shot at a third out in the bottom of the ninth.

How about someone who is not a newly minted wikipedian make this call? The site is NPOV in its title and not appropriate for the site. Your own bitterness about issue is blinding you. — Linnwood 06:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia etiquette dictated that you sign your posts.

Wikipedia was designed from the ground up to prevent gatekeepers and those that know better from holding back information. So just because you've been contributing longer and know the secret handshakes doesn't mean you're anymore informed or less biased than myself.

And nowhere in the reading of the NPOV materials here does it state that an external link has to also follow the NPOV guidelines. The site in question certainly is biased. But when literally dozens of news articles showing questionable calls over the last 5 years of Mr. Eddings career there aren't many positive conclusions to be drawn.

The only reason there is a Doug Eddings page here is because of a spectacularly controversial call.

http://DougEddingsIsADouche.blogspot.com shows that this is not an isolated incident. It has also been linked by a major sports site and several discussions of the call. It is a snapshot of reaction to Mr. Eddings, that call in particular and a larger question of his general abilities.

NPOV

--Digitalfilmmaker 08:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Digitalfilmmaker

There's been enough battling over the anti-Eddings blog, in my opinion. When I created the Eddings page, I did so specifically because of his controversial (and wrong [and I'm a White Sox fan]) call. So a site that attempts to analyze Eddings' calls, no matter how hamfistedly or NPOV-edly, seems at least moderately relevant to me. I suggest leaving it on the page, and ending the argument over one external link. At the very least, Linnwood, please stop reverting it and leave it up there for a while to see if anyone else has a problem with it. Thanks. -- Mike Selinker 14:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

August 24, 2008 Obstruction Call

It seems to me that one call, in one regular season game in August is not significant at a level to be included in an encyclopedia. Umpires make many calls over the course of a game, and many that the team on the disadvantaged end of the call would disagree with. While I do agree that the third strike call on Pierzynski in the 2006 ALCS is worthy of mention, the obstruction call from Aug. 24, 2008 is clearly not.

I propose deleting the section on the August 24, 2008 obstruction call.

What is the consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justus R (talk • contribs) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No discussion for over a month. I am going to delete this section. Discuss here if you disagree. Justus R (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the removal of the Aug 24 2008 obstruction call. It indeed was significant, as it was a turning point in a late-season game between the White Sox and Rays, a game ultimately won by the White Sox, who went on to play a one game playoff for entry to the playoffs. Without the obstruction call, agreed by nearly all to be in error, the outcome of that Aug 24 game would have been in question, and without that victory, the winner of the Division would instead have been the Minnesota Twins. Was the reference to this game removed for space constraints? It appeared to have been reasonably well written and reasonably free of bias. It was clearly not an insignificant call. It takes on further significance because the benefitting party was, once again, AJ Pierzynski. Even if the game didn't have playoff implications, the mere fact that Pierzynski was involved yet again makes the call extremely relevent.

I propose reinserting the deleted section in its original form. The fact that there was no discussion of its removal for "over a month" is likely because there was no reason to "check back in" to ensure this clearly appropriate entry was still in tact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.154.232 (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this ChristianMan16 (talk)?

Justus R (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who ChristianMan16 is. What does this other ex-contributor have to do with the validity (or lack thereof) of the Doug Eddings entry in question? Again, why should the obstruction entry be deleted when it very directly affected the AL Central race in 2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.119.246 (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Still no reply to the above? If this entry remains deleted, someone out there owes a coherent argument as to why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.137.247 (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doug Eddings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080831072240/http://www.umpire.org/mechanics/ to http://www.umpire.org/mechanics/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Editorial commentary

Regarding this edit: with respect to how Eddings throws the ball to the pitcher, there is no source confirming that he is known for this. Regarding his throwing the ball wildly, I think lots of umpires are guilty of this at one time or another. I don't see much point in underscoring it in this biography. With respect to screwups: it's tricky because the source is a standard sports journalism listicle. It's a single person's opinion and designed to get hits. That being said, there's never going to be a definitive list of worst umpiring errors. But on the third hand, I don't think it's important to rank the error against others. It should be enough to make note of it and its importance to the game and series. Readers are capable of judging its severity for themselves. Thus I suggest removing the reference to this being one of the worst umpiring mistakes. (Also it would be helpful if some more context was given regarding why there was no out call, such as the information in the Bleacher Report article, though I would prefer that it be sourced to reports written at the time.) isaacl (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Why has this article been vandalised?

Looking at the history of this article, there have been edits making out Eddings has died, which are clearly works of vandalism. Cany anyone decipher why the vandals seized upon this article? YTKJ (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@YTKJ: Why is any article vandalized? Don't ask why, do something. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Umpire articles are targeted for vandalism from time to time. Given that Eddings is one of the more controversial umpires, it's not a huge surprise. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)