Talk:Dock Ellis

Untitled
Does anyone else find it odd that Dock Ellis, when listed on a roster, would appear as "Ellis, D"? Say it aloud ("ell-ess-dee"). When I first read this story years ago, I dismissed it as an urban legend or drug lore. Apparently not!

I been reading up on his LSD No hitter, and find this articles information to be way off. I will correct it with the proper information latter.

Beaning Reggie Jackson
The way the article is written makes it appear that Ellis beaned Jackson during the 1971 All-Star game. I reverted User:Mojo Len's edit because it was unsourced and the tone was wrong for an encyclopedia. A little researching turned up an anecdotal post about the beaning occurring in 1976 because of the '71 home run, but I can't find anything that qualifies as a source that meets Wikipedia standards. Anyone else have more/better info? CarbonX (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Ellis' best season came in 1971 when he won 19 games for the world champion Pirates. He was the NL starting pitcher in the All-Star Game that year and gave up a famous homer to Reggie Jackson off the Tiger Stadium light tower. Five years later Ellis, pitching for the Yankees, beaned Baltimore's Jackson in the face in apparent retaliation for the All-Star Game home run." -- from Dock's obit at http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2008/12/20/2008-12-20_from_nohitter_on_lsd_to_hair_curlers_to_.html --CliffC (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Didn't realize this question was over a year old, have added the cite. --CliffC (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh?
Because the no-hitter was the first game of a double header, Ellis was forced to keep track of the pitch count for the night game.

I don't know what this means. 68.239.116.212 (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Added two links, thanks for the heads-up. --CliffC (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I came here to ask the same question. Is the idea that the second game could have gone so long that the Pirates ran out of pitchers, and Ellis would have to pitch again on just a few hours rest? That's something you'd do only as a last resort, right? But once you were in that situation, you have to use the guy, however many pitches he threw in game one. Right? So why bother counting? And couldn't somebody else have counted the pitches? The pitching coach, say, or another team employee? Or whoever is scoring the game? Nowadays they track pitch counts in every game, double header or no. Didn't they do that in the 70s?


 * With Google, I have found other pages with this same bit of verbiage. (They seem to be copies of each other, though I can't tell whether this article is the source or another copy.) But I can't find an explanation. I'm curious what the links are that CliffC mentions adding; perhaps they make it all plain. I'm stumped. TypoBoy (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My understanding of a pitch count, is to gauge a number of things related to a pitcher during a ballgame, such as his effectiveness, strategies for how to pitch to batters on their subsequent at-bats, concerns for any potential injury or even after-effects of previous injuries. This way, the manager can always make the best informed decisions on how to pitch to one batter vs another, and for keeping a pitcher in, or removing him for a reliever. I'm sure there are other motivations for counting pitches as well. This is a rather mundane duty and the one doing the counting should be a player who doesn't really need to focus on other aspects of the game, so that he can give the most accurate info to the manager in real time. The idea behind a starting pitcher keeping track of the pitch count the game after he pitches, is that he would, under most circumstances, be the least likely player to be called upon to play in the very next game, precisely because he did just finish pitching earlier in the day for a doubleheader, or the previous day for single games. Fgoron2000 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Acid no hitter
This is a popular story, and well referenced, but there is some skepticism that probably should be in the article about this event. Bill Christine, a beat reporter of the Pirates disputes the story, though I wish I could find a better source than deadspin. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Add "self-reportedly" to the beginning of the sentence and put it back in. This is not an urban legend.__ E L A Q U E A T E  17:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alternately, you could re-add the well sourced stuff you removed and add the minority bit of skepticism as a quote at the end.__ E L A Q U E A T E  17:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * After taking a look at it, it looks like there are a couple of naysayers who are just speculating that it couldn't have happened because they would have seen it and admit they wouldn't want to admit missing a good story. Considering this is the era of sports journalism that said people weren't on steroids because they would have seen it too, I think we should go with the widespread belief in reliable sources that this was true. The Deadspin article itself supports this view. If you want to add a bit about the speculation at the end, go ahead, but don't make it seem like it's not a minority view. i.e. if you add naysaying, you'd have to add more corroborating, as the Deadspin article ultimately does. __ E L A Q U E A T E
 * I'm ok with "claims" or whatnot.   As for "minority view", there is only one view, which is Ellis claimed he was tripping during the no no.  Under no circumstance should the article report that he was under the influence of LSD, because we have no sources stating such.  Christine's skeptism is quite relevant, as not only is he a journalist, he had intimate knowledge of the team and their procedures.  And btw, that wasn't the roids era, but the greenies era.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead and no hitter
Despite Elequate's unsubstantiated claims that "dozens" of journalists believe they LSD claim, the statement in the lead reflects journalists who were at the game and were well familiar with the workings of the team. Those views are considerably stronger then any presented so far, so they are certainly not "undue". As Ellis is widely known for this claim, it must be tempered by the highly reliable sources who cast doubt on this claim.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are certainly a full barrel of stories like this (where the claim is taken at face value without insistence it couldn't have happened) to support my claim that many reporters conditionally believe it could have happened. Snopes suggests we should generally believe it, as well as your own big source, Deadspin. If someone self-reports drunk driving, where they make it home safe without an incident, we don't usually give tonnes of weight to those who say they didn't notice any bad driving. But if you want the article to be more like Deadspin, go ahead, although you still might want to re-write some of your bit before I do, as it seems a little heavy-handed in trying to show that people who believe him couldn't possibly know, and people who didn't believe him "would surely" have noticed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We aren't in a position to say a reporter would have had to notice something. Again, if someone who's theoretically done drugs didn't raise much suspicion, it shouldn't be presented as known proof that no drugs were taken. I'd also remove the part starting "despite" as that's turning something that was a speculation in the article into a non-questioned factor in our article. It's also pretty unintentionally funny that you assert that Bill Christine was intimately familiar with Danny Murtaugh. There might be a BLP issue in there somewhere.__ E L A Q U E A T E  01:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If anyone is dense enough to think there is sexual innuendo, by all means fix it. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's improve the article together.__ E L A Q U E A T E  11:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, new information. It looks like Charley Feeney wasn't in attendance at all, according to Charley Feeney. He did write up a story about the no-hitter later. But we can't reference Bill Christine's recollections of Feeney's "on-site" speculation if Feeney says he wasn't there. For the record, Feeney is still alive, and is a Baseball Hall of Fame sportswriter. I'll fix it before a Feeney-fan notices.__ E L A Q U E A T E  16:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's odd. I saw this a week ago.  .  One of them has to be wrong, or maybe this was a "remote" interview?Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that too. The quote is in Feeney's later newspaper article, but it doesn't say Feeney specifically "asked" a question on-site. I think it was an introduced paraphrase error on Garland's part, after reading the news article.__ E L A Q U E A T E  16:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, he must have been referring to his colleagues about hearing something. Thanks for the correction. Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dock Ellis. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://deadspin.com/5819880/the-long-strange-trip-of-the-dock-ellis-lsd-no+hitter-story
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080403011128/http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/03/28/pitch/ to http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/03/28/pitch/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dock Ellis. 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/20120705085549/http://www.statesman.com/life/newsmakers-entertainment-austin-filmmakers-talk-to-ron-howard-2407415.html to http://www.statesman.com/life/newsmakers-entertainment-austin-filmmakers-talk-to-ron-howard-2407415.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)