I think I was more offended by Franklin's pitching than by Dukes.

At least he didn't threaten to kill anybody.

I dunno, maybe Eddings hasn't checked his text messages.

Mallorean reference. I love it, Repoz. I loved Eddings. You a fan, or just a fun reference on the name?

Sorry - but when you're lucky to be in the bigs at all, and hitting below Mendoza to start the game, you need to be a bit more humble. And showing up umpires - real or perceived - isn't exactly Mensa material.

Eddings should explain that called 3d strike on Pujols in the 9th first - that was far more offensive.

Sorry - but when you're lucky to be in the bigs at all, and hitting below Mendoza to start the game, you need to be a bit more humble. And showing up umpires - real or perceived - isn't exactly Mensa material.

Neither is screwing up a playoff series with a bizarre call and then offering a horrible explanation focusing on your personal "mechanic," but Doug Eddings proved capable of doing that.

Neither is screwing up a playoff series with a bizarre call and then offering a horrible explanation focusing on your personal "mechanic," but Doug Eddings proved capable of doing that.

Wait--which series was that?

EDIT (upon a moment's reflection): The Josh Paul play, right?

Dukes should know that payback's a #####.

EDIT (upon a moment's reflection): The Josh Paul play, right?

Yeah. When Eddings let AJ Pierzynski sell him a patch of land in the Sahara.

This is a pretty good analysis of it.

Yep, once a ump ever makes a mistake he should be pilloried for life, and endure any amount of crap from future penal league all stars.

Eddings needs to STFU. When I stop seeing umpires make exaggerated, over-the-top strike-3 calls I'll start to care about this stuff.

Yep, once a ump ever makes a mistake he should be pilloried for life, and endure any amount of crap from future penal league all stars.

Yawn. I'll have more sympathy for this argument when umpires stop acting like professional jackasses themselves. If we want to talk about unprofessionalism in the game, umpires are first in line.

Eddings after screwing up that playoff series focused on his "mechanic" for making an out call. Well, his explanation didn't pass the giggle test, but the more important point is that umpires feel the need to make the game about them, by all using their own personal "mechanics." If they all used the same "mechanic," maybe we could avoid some of this confusion.

There isn't a reason in the world an umpire should have to sit there after the game explaining his unique "mechanic."

Doug Eddings was a lousy umpire long before AJ Pierzynski and Josh Paul and he certainly hasn't improved since.

I would love for some enterprising pitch F/x guru to re-draw the strike zone back into the pitch F/X system and evaluate these umpires.

Yawn. I'll have more sympathy for this argument when umpires stop acting like professional jackasses themselves. If we want to talk about unprofessionalism in the game, umpires are first in line.

Eddings after screwing up that playoff series focused on his "mechanic" for making an out call. Well, his explanation didn't pass the giggle test, but the more important point is that umpires feel the need to make the game about them, by all using their own personal "mechanics." If they all used the same "mechanic," maybe we could avoid some of this confusion.

There isn't a reason in the world an umpire should have to sit there after the game explaining his unique "mechanic."

I can't believe I agree 100% with something Ray says but there it is, I do. That was a disgraceful bit of umpiring.

Yawn. I'll have more sympathy for this argument when umpires stop acting like professional jackasses themselves. If we want to talk about unprofessionalism in the game, umpires are first in line.

I'll side with Ray on this one too. Phil Cuzzi has a special place in Toronto fans memories for his wonderful work as, I'm sure, does the ump who baited Bradley in San Diego. I'm sure people can list dozens of other incidents as well. Simply put, too many umps seem to believe that they're the product, rather than a form of quality control.

Ray, I would appreciate it if you would stop holding positions I consider to be reasonable - it's much more fun to debate with you that agree with you.

Eddings is quite a character. I played poker with him in one of the low stakes NL games in the Monte Carlo in Vegas. On his last hand of the first night that I played in the same game as him he got into a massive argument with the dealer over whether or not he had called a bet on the turn. See, he had called the bet and the other player moved all-in in the dark on the river so Doug tries to take his bet back. The dealer is super diplomatic about it stating that he believed that Doug never said call but it doesn't matter because he had already put his chips past the magic action line on the table. Doug then states that no one can assail his integrity because of his professionalism on the field. He puts the chips in and storms off without waiting for the river card. The next night he's playing in the same game when I show up-he goes all-in preflop and shows me his cards (I'm observing while waiting for a seat). He had 7-4o, I smiled indicating that was indeed a good hand to be all in with. He lost the hand and left, then I took his seat at the table.

Edit: This was less than a year after the famed ALCS call.

Eddings is a lousy umpire and has proven it on several occasions, but it was ridiculous of Dukes to make such a fuss. Starting with that strike 3 on Pujols, his strike zone consistently became "anything in the general vicinity of home plate." He clearly had somewhere to be. If Dukes was surprised by his strike call, then he wasn't paying any attention for a few innings.

Elijah Dukes should get beaned every time he comes up to bat. The guy is a disgrace as a human being, and should be happy to be playing the game of baseball instead of hide the sausage in prison. And Eddings was right to call him out on this play. It doesn't matter if he is horrible person himself or bad at his job, he still can call the players who are being jackasses out.

Starting with that strike 3 on Pujols, his strike zone consistently became "anything in the general vicinity of home plate."

So, Dukes shouldn't have made a fuss because Eddings decided to change the strike zone in the middle of the game?

If I remember correctly from listening to assorted interviews, don't most players (both batters and pitchers) say that they would rather deal with an overly large or small strike zone which is consistant, rather than one which changes non-stop? If you're right about the strike zone changing, then I can easily understand why Dukes was so irate.

Eddings is paid to follow baseball's strike zone - not whatever strike zone is most convenient for him at the time.

Dukes hit a game winner in extra innings, and the ump was upset that he showed "too much emotion". I can't help but think that this umpires view of the situation is painted by what he has read in the media.

Its disgraceful.

Elijah Dukes should get beaned every time he comes up to bat. The guy is a disgrace as a human being, and should be happy to be playing the game of baseball instead of hide the sausage in prison.

So because he's a jackass, he should be assaulted in the game, and then subjected to prison rape? Nice.

The guy obviously has anger-management issues, and he's done a whole bunch of things which I consider to be disgusting and reprehensible. I also fully expect that it's only a matter of time before he ends up in prison. However, in this case, while he overplayed things a bit, he was probably in the right.

It doesn't matter if he is horrible person himself or bad at his job, he still can call the players who are being jackasses out.

But he only had to call out Dukes because Dukes reacted to Eddings initial jackassery.

Starting with that strike 3 on Pujols, his strike zone consistently became "anything in the general vicinity of home plate."

So, Dukes shouldn't have made a fuss because Eddings decided to change the strike zone in the middle of the game?

Come on, Ryan. You're missing the point. Sparkles thinks that Eddings can be excused for evolving his strike zone in-game since Eddings's strike zone consistently became something different.

And Sparkles says this with a straight face.

Of course, maybe I'm the one missing something here; when both Gaelan and Ryan agree with me on an issue, I clearly need to re-think it.

If I remember correctly from listening to assorted interviews, don't most players (both batters and pitchers) say that they would rather deal with an overly large or small strike zone which is consistant, rather than one which changes non-stop?

Well, they would "rather" deal with the correct strike zone, but since the ship sailed on that long ago, they'd prefer the lesser of two evils, yes.

The guy obviously has anger-management issues, and he's done a whole bunch of things which I consider to be disgusting and reprehensible. I also fully expect that it's only a matter of time before he ends up in prison.

Hey - I thought people dealing with legal troubles aren't allowed to play.

Can't we just agree they both acted like jackasses? Eddings shouldn't change his zone during the game, but Dukes is a complete moron if he thinks one bad strike call means he should be making a point of showing up the umpire. You just don't do that sort of thing to the people who call the games, and other umpires will remember this even if they agree that Eddings is a jackass.

Doug Eddings is responsible for the games being too long.

It doesn't matter if he is horrible person himself or bad at his job, he still can call the players who are being jackasses out.

Actually, you're right; it doesn't matter if he is a horrible person himself or bad at his job. Okay, you're half right. Whether he's good at his job or not, "calling out" players he doesn't like is above his pay grade. His job is to make calls, and otherwise shut up.

FWIW, umpires are taught to "sell" their calls, so to reduce the inclination players or managers might have to argue a close call that goes against them. I'm not sure if this is what Ray means by umps being "professional jackasses" or not, but anyway, there it is.

Of course, maybe I'm the one missing something here; when both Gaelan and Ryan agree with me on an issue, I clearly need to re-think it.

How do you think I feel about this?

Isn't it amazing? It took hatred of umpires (or at least a specific umpire) to unite us all.

Hey - I thought people dealing with legal troubles aren't allowed to play.

Just to check - have I previously said something to the effect that players facing legal trouble shoudn't be allowed to play? Because I don't remember doing so.

Come on, Ryan. You're missing the point. Sparkles thinks that Eddings can be excused for evolving his strike zone in-game since Eddings's strike zone consistently became something different.

Dukes took it personally when it was just shitty umpiring. That's what I'm saying. If Dukes makes an out because of a bad call, just say so on the way back to the dugout, like everyone else was doing. The Cardinals were the team hurt by Eddings deciding to start calling everything a strike, and yet Dukes was the one who threw a real fit over it.

The Cardinals were the team hurt by Eddings despite the fact that you readily admit the Nationals had to deal with the same strike zone in their half of an inning?

Dukes took it personally when it was just shitty umpiring. That's what I'm saying.

I agree with you in that it was shitty umpiring. We differ, however, on when it's appropriate to call out shitty umpiring, or how players should react to shitty umpiring. If I screw up something at work, or decide to cut corners, my co-workers will (rightfully) call me out. I don't understand why it should be different for umps.

To be honest, Dukes shouldn't have had to call out Eddings because someone should have done it already.

The Cardinals were the team hurt by Eddings despite the fact that you readily admit the Nationals had to deal with the same strike zone in their half of an inning?

I think the argument is that the Card batters were the one who got to first encounter the negative change in the strike zone, whereas the National batters at least had a chance to find out in advance.

I don't understand why it should be different for umps.

Because they work in crews, they watch each others' back, and if you get on their bad side, it can make life more difficult for you and your team.

Sort of on a par with the fact that there is simply no percentage in mouthing off to a cop, since only one of you can stick the other's ass in a holding cell with Lonesome Billy Bob.

I think the argument is that the Card batters were the one who got to first encounter the negative change in the strike zone, whereas the National batters at least had a chance to find out in advance.

That's assuming that when an umpire makes a few borderline calls one way that, his zone is going to stay that way. Why should the Nats believe that was the new zone because Pujols got called out once on a borderline pitch?

Dukes took it personally when it was just shitty umpiring. That's what I'm saying. If Dukes makes an out because of a bad call, just say so on the way back to the dugout, like everyone else was doing.

I'm not commenting on Dukes's actions, which seem mildly unprofessional as well. I'm saying that Eddings doesn't have standing to complain, especially given the behavior of Eddings in changing his strike-zone in game. Eddings deliberately chose to do his job incompetently, which affected the game on the field, whereas Dukes's behavior did not.

The fact that Eddings then chose to complain is not only a bit much, but, as David says, is not his job. What we have here is a situation where Eddings chose to do incompetently something that was his job, which led to him focusing later on something that wasn't his job.

I think the argument is that the Card batters were the one who got to first encounter the negative change in the strike zone, whereas the National batters at least had a chance to find out in advance.

The problem, Ryan, is that it's not like Eddings broadcasts on the jumbotron that he's now calling a different strike zone. The players have to figure it out, which could take some time. (And by then Eddings is probably on to his next strike zone anyway.)

To say nothing of the high comedy in Sparkles pretending that Dukes, playing right field, should be acutely aware of the whimsical changes in Eddings's zone. Sparkles laughably blames Dukes for "not paying attention," rather than for not being able to tell from right field that Eddings has suddenly expanded the width of his strike zone by X inches and narrowed the height by Y inches.

The problem, Ryan, is that it's not like Eddings broadcasts on the jumbotron that he's now calling a different strike zone. The players have to figure it out, which could take some time. (And by then Eddings is probably on to his next strike zone anyway.)

Ray, I never said that I agreed with the argument - I was just trying to divine Sparkles' intention, which is why I qualified my comment. Once again, I'm inclined to agree with you - the Nats have no way of knowing if the strike zone is a temporary or permanent change, or even (in most cases) whether there was a change. As you note, for an outfielder to detect a difference of 6 inches from a normal defensive position is almost impossible.

This entire argument is hilarious, as it's being conducted by people who seem not to have seen the actual play. Dukes' celebration almost certainly had nothing to do with Doug friggin' Eddings but rather with the fact that, after two months of atrocious play, he hit his FIRST home run as an extra-innings, game-winning walk-off to cap a day where he had already gone 3 for 5 (triple, single, single, error leading to a double, K, BB). That's a hell of a day for a guy who had struggled mightily up until then. You would grant any other player the right to do a little chest-thumping after that...it's just because it's Dukes that Eddings (and some others here) feel okay in calling him out.

That's assuming that when an umpire makes a few borderline calls one way that, his zone is going to stay that way. Why should the Nats believe that was the new zone because Pujols got called out once on a borderline pitch?

Did you see the pitch? It was NOT borderline - it was a minimum of 4 inches off the plate, and probably closer to 6. AND it was low. It was nowhere close to a strike, even adjusting for Eddings' shitty zone.

One thing everyone can agree on.

Yeah, strike three to Pujols was way off the plate. When I saw where the red dot was for the FX call, I thought that it must have been off, but when I saw the replay on the monitor, I was stunned. I'm surprised Pujols didn't get himself thrown out -- he wasn't going to play in the game anymore anyway, might as well curse the umpire out.

I've seen the play, when I chest thump because I think I've done something awesome, I don't turn around awkwardly to look back at the umpire.

This entire argument is hilarious, as it's being conducted by people who seem not to have seen the actual play. Dukes' celebration almost certainly had nothing to do with Doug friggin' Eddings but rather with the fact that, after two months of atrocious play, he hit his FIRST home run as an extra-innings, game-winning walk-off to cap a day where he had already gone 3 for 5 (triple, single, single, error leading to a double, K, BB). That's a hell of a day for a guy who had struggled mightily up until then. You would grant any other player the right to do a little chest-thumping after that...it's just because it's Dukes that Eddings (and some others here) feel okay in calling him out.

He turned to the ump and pointed at him, then clapped his hands in Eddings' face as he came home. It was clearly directed at him.

It was dumb of Dukes to do that, but Eddings needs to get over it. Be a goddamned professional and do your job objectively.

Why should the Nats believe that was the new zone because Pujols got called out once on a borderline pitch?

if that pitch was borderline, i'm the earl of snohomish.

I agree with everything said about Eddings and the umps, but Dukes moment of personal satisfaction will be repaid tenfold.

Count on it.

#18 is a great story.

Elijah Dukes should get beaned every time he comes up to bat. The guy is a disgrace as a human being, and should be happy to be playing the game of baseball instead of hide the sausage in prison. And Eddings was right to call him out on this play. It doesn't matter if he is horrible person himself or bad at his job, he still can call the players who are being jackasses out.

This is a disgraceful comment.

it's just because it's Dukes that Eddings (and some others here) feel okay in calling him out.

This is spot on. This is the Milton Bradley incident all over again. Umpire sees a man with a bad reputation and thinks he can get over. Eddings should be suspended for this but then I would have fired the guy who provoked Bradley.

In fact if I was running the show I'd try and fire Eddings too. If an umpire demonstrates that he is the type of person to hold grudges that is evidence that he not only is he bad at his job but he's incapable of impartiality which is the most important part of the job.

It was dumb of Dukes to do that, but Eddings needs to get over it. Be a goddamned professional and do your job objectively.

Eggs-actly.

Eddings always has a huge strike zone; I don't think he decided to change it in mid game. Sharp bettors in Las Vegas know this...I know one guy who automatically bets Under whenever Eddings is calling the game.

I was watching the game and it was pretty clear Dukes was trying to show up Eddings. He clearly was pissed about the earlier call, stormed out of the batter's box shaking his head and acting like an ass. Then pulled his crap on the home run call...just pathetic. He's a low class jerk, wouldn't be surprised to see this homer the highlight of his career.

In fact if I was running the show I'd try and fire Eddings too. If an umpire demonstrates that he is the type of person to hold grudges that is evidence that he not only is he bad at his job but he's incapable of impartiality which is the most important part of the job.

When did Eddings demonstrate he's the type to hold grudges? Crappy ump maybe, but just because he expressed displeasure with Dukes' antics does not mean will hold a grudge in the future (he might, but we should wait until he does it before calling for his head).

Eddings probably was just upset that a HR is the one type of call even he can't #### up.

Doug Eddings was a lousy umpire long before AJ Pierzynski and Josh Paul and he certainly hasn't improved since.

Hear, hear. That wasn't even the worst call I've seen him make. I've seen him call strikes above the shoulders, I've seen him not call catcher's interference when the bat actually knocked the glove off of the catcher's hand and sent it flying two feet up the line. The fact that he continues to ump in the major leagues is a complete slap in the face to the very idea of fair competition.

I would love for some enterprising pitch F/x guru to re-draw the strike zone back into the pitch F/X system and evaluate these umpires.

Jonathan Hale took a look at this last year over at the Hardball Times.

Eddings had the 2nd biggest zone.