Talk:Sam Holbrook

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sam Holbrook. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sam Holbrook at the Reference desk.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group.

Baseball: Umpires Low‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Umpires task force (assessed as High-importance).

United States: Kentucky Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky.

Referees High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Referees WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Referees. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.RefereesWikipedia:WikiProject RefereesTemplate:WikiProject RefereesReferees articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Ejection[edit]

I don't believe there is anything specifically notable about the ejection of Zack Greinke on July 7, 2012: players have been ejected before for making similar actions. Greinke later said throwing the ball was a mental mistake and he regretted his actions.[1] Thus I do not think the ejection warrants inclusion in this article. isaacl (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to add basic information about a single decision by a game umpire/official, unless the decision or call itself is unusually notable, which this apparently is not. Examples of notable decisions that may go into an officials BLP article would be Jim Joyce, John Hirschbeck, or Ed Hochuli. Officials who made very questionable and obvious incorrect calls that noticeably effected the outcome of games or decisions, led to rule changes, or who's "incident" received an unusual amount of publicity and notoriety. This ejection doesn't appear to fit that bill.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat inclined to agree with the above statements. However, I would argue that this warrants mention on Greinke's page for sure, especially since this did receive somewhat significant media coverage. It is fairly unusual for a starting pitcher to be ejected after just four pitches. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:Recentism, articles should be written from a long term historical perspective.Orsoni (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no further discussion, then I will proceed with removing the information on the ejection from the article. isaacl (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this information was re-inserted; I believe the consensus above was that the ejection was not notable for this article. I propose that the information be removed again. isaacl (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know (and perhaps should have checked accordingly) that there was a discussion about this previously. I'm going to ask AutomaticStrikeout to come back over here and help figure out what we're doing. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my take on this is that it is certainly a very rare situation to see a pitcher ejected after only four pitches, particularly for spiking a baseball. If, however, you wish to leave the content out, that is fine. AutomaticStrikeout 17:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Call[edit]

Yes, this is definitely going to be notable. However, I suggest everyone back off and wait until the content can be added neutrally and with sources. AutomaticStrikeout 00:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, a neutral version has been added. Vandalism will continue to be removed. AutomaticStrikeout 00:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be worth noting that the longest dropped infield fly over the past three seasons was 178 feet, but the one last night was 225 feet.

Neutrality[edit]

This article lacks neutrality; it seems to imply that the call made in the NL Wild Card Game is considered correct. This is not the case; analysts and others have certainly suggested that it may be correct, but consensus still says it was incorrect. The article fails to mention this; it is too slanted in Holbrook's direction. --68.41.105.102 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that most people consider the call to be incorrect is not surprising. People tend to not give the umpire the benefit of the doubt, even though he was much closer to the play and knows the rules better than most fans will. Besides, as I understand it, Major League Baseball stated that the call was correct, so officially Holbrook was right. AutomaticStrikeout 18:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a judgement call, which means it was up to the umpires discretion and was going to be considered correct by MLB regardless. Holbrook ruled that the infielder was camped under the ball. You could just as easily say that he was not. A large portion of fans and a large majority of analysts disagree with the call, including Curt Schilling, David Wells, and Dennis Eckersley. To date, Harold Reynolds is the only analyst to say he agrees with the umpire. I agree that the article lacks neutrality. -- 152.21.169.171 (talk)

Well, since the call has been officially deemed correct, the burden of proof is on you to show that it was otherwise. AutomaticStrikeout 14:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a court room. It's fine to say it's correct, but there needs to be another sentence noting the large public objection to the call. --152.21.169.171 (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is already enough information about the call in the article. If the call is correct, which it was, why should Wikipedia indicate anything to the contrary? AutomaticStrikeout 20:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's better now, although i believe the "several analysts" part needs to be changed to "one analyst", as Reynolds is the only analyst i've seen who's supported the call. Whether you think the call is correct or not is irrelevant. The article needs to represent both viewpoints. --152.21.169.171 (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.21.175.61 (talk) [reply]

The simple truth is that this call was indisputably correct by the letter of the rule. Those disputing it have been unable to cite a rulebook reason why it should not have been called. They only state that it was "too far from the infield" or that it's "against the spirit of the rule," neither of which have any relevance. Hbk314 (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all, if you're going to post an analyst's opinion, you need to cite your source in accordance with Wikipedia policies. I've gone ahead and added a source for the TBS comments. RefereeOrganist (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cubs vs. Padres[edit]

There is no citation for this addition: On April 17, 2015, in a game between the Padres and Cubs at Wrigley Field, Holbrook was responsible for all 5 Padres runs, as he twice failed to call strike three on a ball in the strike zone, leading to a homerun on the next pitch. He successfully turned Kris Bryant Day into Sam Holbrook Day, taking over the game as only an umpire can do. The fans booed lustily; apparently they had not bought tickets to see the umpires, but to see the players.

It is also written in an editorial manner, "The fans booed lustily; apparently they had not bought tickets to see the umpires, but to see the players."

Finally the pitch to Wil Myers has been shown on pitch FX to be a ball, which is contrary to what the post states. http://i.imgur.com/Y2TQUf7.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.161.35.203 (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]