An Angels blog
Pearly Gates: An Angels Blog
Pearly Gates: An Angels Blog

Navigate

Pearly Gates is...

Quick Reference

BP Player Cards:

ESPN Player Cards:

Baseball Cube:

Baseball Reference:

Recent posts

Links

Archive

Contact

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Last thing on Eddings (for now, at least)

So, I decided to search for Eddings on Google on a lark (actually, I did it after reading this story Rob found. I clicked through a few pages of Google before I decided I had enough, and I basically ignored all of the stuff about last night's game and any time he is listed as just umpiring. As a caveat, an umpire's name only comes up when there is some sort of a controversy and I do not know how this compares to other umpires. Anyways, let's begin the link tour:

In 2003, in an article about misuse of umpire power, near the bottom Eddings is mentioned tossing Bobby Higginson out (Higginson essentially says Eddings was on a power trip) in the context of "...26 umpires out of a total of 68 with four or less years in the majors; ten of the 17 four-man crews had two of these young umpires while six crews had one and one crew, none." Kirk Gibson was also ejected that game after coming to Higginson's defense.

Eddings was also home plate umpire in an important Game 2: the 2002 ALDS Angels-Yankees series. Eddings is mentioned at the bottom of this article, which declared a wide strike zone the whole night.

In a game on June 15 of this year Braves catcher Johnny Estrada apparently bumped Eddings and was instantly ejected. No idea if this was the proper call or not (the article makes no claim as to whether the bump was on accident or not and whether or not that matters). In a game on August 28 of this year, Craig Biggio (major league record holder in HBP), was hit by a pitch and Eddings, the home plate umpire, declared Biggio leaned into it. Was this a good call? No idea. Biggio flied out and was later ejected for arguing the call.

Bronx Banter discussed Eddings in September 2004 (second paragraph) when discussing Zach Greinke's domination of the Yankees before a full count walk in the 5th, in the words of Alex Belth: " believe it was a fastball, inside at the knees. Though it was called a ball, it looked like a strike from where I was sitting. Greinke and his catcher thought it was strike three as well and they started toward the dugout. Howver, Greinke walked too far, prompting the home plate umpire Doug Eddings to walk to the mound and remind him that although he's mad talented, he is still just twenty years old." After that, the wheels came off for Greinke a bit and he ended up losing.

The White Sox had a mild controversy with Eddings in late August, where Damaso Marte pitched inside twice in a row to Rangers 1B Mark Teixeira. The columnist (from Chicago) says that Teixeira over-reacted to the pitches, which led to Eddings issuing a warning to both benches. This article also was meant to illustrate that Guillen doesn't accept his pitchers going after batters, not that Eddings was wrong in any way.

In 2004, he was home plate umpire for Ben Sheets' 18K game (mentioned in the first comment). It basically argues that Eddings' large (and expanding) strike zone was a big help to Sheets.

So, how big is this guy's strike zone? Well, this year he called the most strikes of any ump, 65.9% when the average was between 62 and 63%. Well, is he consistently higher than the rest or is that just this year? In 2002, Baseball Prospectus looked at umpire K/BB rates for 2001 and determined that Eddings was not just an outlier at 2.97 K/BB, but was .3 (~10%) higher than the next guy (2.67 K/BB).

Will's Minnesota Twins Page points us to a previous post of his (in early June) in which he relates a humorous take on Eddings gaping wide strike zone. A comment on that first link claims that Eddings has a history, quite possibly much larger in scope than I have been documenting.

Finally, in what appears to be a picks website, they claim (in the Bal-TB game) that the home team wins 67% of the time when Eddings is home plate umpire. This was on August 11, so it was about 2/3rds of the season, and by the end of the season, the home team won 53.7% of the time. Pretty striking difference to me.

So, there are some facts, take them as you will. The only things we know for certain are that he has a big strike zone and people like to argue with him. It certainly does seem like this guy is not a Major League caliber umpire, though.

Comments:


He also hates Mexicans and old people and he once scissor-kicked a handicap boy.

But you didn't hear it from me 'cuz I ain't the one to gossip.

posted by Blogger Joe @ 11:52 PM
Sorry I haven't been able to respond until now to your slander re: OC's illegal slide. Briefly: it was illegal. There's a difference between a "hard slide" into second and what Cabrera did, which was essentially do a tuck roll right into Iguchi's body. You can't do that. It is against the rules. That said, the ump didn't catch it and the Angels score a run. Would they have won Game 1 anyway? Who knows? There's no sense in revisiting it over and over, just as there's no sense in revisiting last night's play.

Basically all I'm seeing on your blog (which is the only decent Angels blog, which is why I'm posting) is that Eddings, like every other umpire in the entire world, has fucked up in the past. You still haven't been able to refute the basic fact that, mistake or no, calls like this are a part of the game, they do not determine who wins a game or series, and you are trying to excuse your team's poor play by using Eddings as a scapegoat. You just wish your catcher was as smart as AJ.

GO SOX.

posted by Anonymous Anonymous @ 12:10 AM
If OC would have been called out because of a hard slide, I would have been upset, but it would have been forgotten. The fact is that this guy called an OUT and then changed his call after the fact without an appeal or anything. Because it was the 3rd out of the inning EVERYTHING changed from then on. If OC was called out on the hard slide as the third out, then the White Sox start walking off the field, OC jogs to third and is called safe, it would be the same. I can live with bad calls: this went beyond.

posted by Blogger Unknown @ 12:20 AM
If I may?

Lucas, I'm a reader of this blog because I enjoy the writing and, in all honesty, I root against the Angels most of the time.

That said, I don't think I've read once from this blog, Seitz's, Rob's or the Rev's that the Angel blogsphere is "excusing" the Angels' "poor play" (ChiSox played just as "poorly".) Nor are they using Eddings as a scapegoat.

What I have read is that Eddings made a huge mistake and he has yet to try to clear things up or admit he rang up A.J. even if his mechanics are consistant. None of the Angel bloggers are saying Eddings caused the Angels to lose. They are saying Eddings caused the Angels not to get a chance to win it on their own.

I suggest you take the high road like most of the Angel bloggers have already done.

posted by Blogger Joe @ 12:24 AM
"You can't do that. It is against the rules."

What rule? Here's MLB's rules regarding baserunning - find me the passage that says contact with a defender is illegal. I was kind enough to provide specific references in my reply, I ask that you do the same. Of course, if I were you, and I was the one who was talking out of his ass, I wouldn't want to provide context either.

posted by Blogger Richard @ 1:03 AM
(g) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead. The umpire shall call the runner out for interference and also call out the batter runner because of the action of his teammate. In no event may bases be run or runs scored because of such action by a runner. (h) If, in the judgment of the umpire, a batter runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, with the obvious intent to break up a double play, the ball is dead; the umpire shall call the batter runner out for interference and shall also call out the runner who had advanced closest to the home plate regardless where the double play might have been possible. In no event shall bases be run because of such interference.

Is that specific enough?

posted by Anonymous Anonymous @ 1:12 AM
Joe, homey, I hardly think making big ass "LIAR" signs of Eddings and calling for physical violence against him (tongue-in-cheek as it may be) is taking "the high road." Taking the high road would be what Sciosia did; shoulder the responsibility for the loss and forget about it. Go Sox,

posted by Anonymous Anonymous @ 1:16 AM
Yes, specific enough to prove my point, thank you.

Look at that passage again. Note the words "batted ball". As I explained in one of my previous replies:

"This has always been interpreted as interfering with the initial fielding of the ball, not any relay or throw."

If OC had intentionally knocked the ball down as it passed him, or tackled whoever fielded the grounder, than you would have an argument. But hard slides are part of the game. The runner has a right to his baseline (the three feet on either side of a "direct line between bases") - and the right to take out any defender who ventures into it.

posted by Blogger Richard @ 1:20 AM
also, Joe, you're probably just pissed about the royal spanking the Red Sox just received. I am currently enjoying a Presidente with Pedro down in the DR as we speak. We are on his deck and he is reading over my shoulder and laughing. Go Sox(White).

posted by Anonymous Anonymous @ 1:22 AM
dude, now you're just splitting hairs. I suppose you'll tell me now that sharpening spikers are ok, too, since the pivot man didn't technically FIELD the ball. But since you insist:

6.05
(m)A preceding runner shall, in the umpire's judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play: The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in leaving the baseline for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play, rather than trying to reach the base. Obviously this is an umpire's judgment play.

a THROWN BALL, get it? Now that that's settled, let's get back to talking about the series.

p.s. who the fuck cares if Eddings has a big strikezone? Every umpire is different and as long as he doesn't change the zone suddenly mid-game, it doesn't mean anything.

posted by Anonymous Anonymous @ 1:41 AM
sharpening spikes, I mean. Ty Cobb style.
I'm going to bed -- I expect a solid refutation plus some unnecessary verbal jabs when I check tomorrow.

posted by Anonymous Anonymous @ 1:43 AM
lucas, you just keep digging that hole.

"The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in leaving the baseline..."

Standing on the base (as Cabrera was) is well within the baseline. Your rule does not apply.

BTW, I like the fact that it took you 20 minutes to find that. You must have been very excited.

posted by Blogger Richard @ 1:49 AM
Wow, what a dustup.

posted by Blogger Rob @ 8:14 AM
Back to the subject at hand . . .

The links on Eddings don't seem all that out of the ordinary. My guess is every umpire has a couple mentions a year for either ejections or some other dispute. The only one I saw was the Biggio lean into the pitch. He made the right call on that one and more umpires should make that call. Too many players now a days wear the elbow protectors and then lean way over the plate so they can handle the pitch on the other side of the plate. Then if the pitcher uses the inside of the plate the batter gets first base free.

Having said all that, he was obviously wrong on Wednesday night. You don't call a guy out and then call him safe.

Sciosia is right to downplay the ump's mistake and tell the team they could have scored earlier and wouldn't have mattered. Let the fans argue about the ump. He needs the team focused on the next three games.

posted by Blogger LargeBill @ 9:05 AM
Largebill, I tend to agree...I don't think any of these ejections sound particularly egregious, but at the same time he seems to have a humongous strike zone and may (if only for one season) favor the home team. It could be that a wider strike zone favors the home team, because of the likelihood of a lower scoring game (lower scoring is more likely to be randomly tied and home team is more likely to win if it is tied in the late innings). Nothing seems to indicate Eddings has been an especially bad umpire, but he is a fairly young one and the MLB seems to have had problems with their young umps in the past.

posted by Blogger Unknown @ 9:18 AM
look dude, I'm getting tired of this so I will make one last appeal to common sense -- you realize you're trying to say that any baserunner has carte blanche to do WHATEVER he wants to the pivot man to break up a DP, provided he doesn't leave the baseline? That's completely asinine. If you've ever watched baseball in your life, you've observed that when a runner makes an extraordinary, unsportsmanlike effort to focus his effort on taking out the pivot man on a DP, he is called for interference and is out. That is just a fact. What is interference, you ask?

(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

You can deconstruct all the rules and sub-rules you want, sucka, but common sense rules in this case and I feel your denseness here must be deliberate.

Though I just noticed on your profile you're a big Ayn Rand fan and that explains a lot -- your arguments are about as sterile and overwrought as Objectivism itself. I officially can no longer take you or your "Who Is John Galt" bumper sticker seriously.

p.s. Thanks for backing me up on the strike zone, boys, I agree -- pitchers need a slight edge in this day and age.

posted by Anonymous Anonymous @ 11:22 AM
look dude, I'm getting tired of this so I will make one last appeal to common sense

Translation: having come onto this blog, been grossly insulting not only to its proprietor but Angels fans generally, and setting up strawmen all the while ignoring the principle problem (Eddings' call rather than the O-Cab slide -- HUH?), I'm going to take my marbles and go home if you don't agree with me.

Jeez, please do.

posted by Blogger Rob @ 1:16 PM
Oh for crying out loud, I thought we were all enjoying the heated exchange. Apparently not. What good is a rivalry without some insults? Was the Ayn Rand jibe crossing the line? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I don't think the DP slide thing is irrelevant at all, as it pertains to my original point, which still stands: Umpires, for good are bad, are and always will be a part of the game. Your time is better spent analyzing your own team's shortcomings as opposed to the umps'.

Good luck in the rest of the series, boys. I'll head back to the mlb forums. Chasing away opposing points of view, while certainly a very American thing to do, makes for a shit-boring blog. Think about it.

See ya, and Go Sox.

p.s. Seriously man, there are way better books out there.

posted by Anonymous Anonymous @ 2:40 PM
1) "Rob" and "Richard" are two different people. Hence the different names.

2) We've seen enough of your type around here to know the ol' troll two-step by heart. You're not fooling anyone.

posted by Blogger Richard @ 3:05 PM