Quote:
Originally posted by David Emerling
Oh. Well that seems to be a difference that makes no difference.
Just for the record, Garth. You're saying that an individual who coaches is necessarily going to bring attributes into his umpiring that will not serve him (or the game) well. Is that correct?
If not, exactly what is your position on this? You throw around the phrase "coach who umpires" in an unmistakably denigrating way. If I were a fireman, would I be a "fireman who umpires?" Should stockbrokers be allowed to umpire? Should baseball fans be allowed to umpire?
At least I'm making a case for my opinion. What's YOUR case? What kind of reasoning goes behind your opinion that coaches make bad umpires? ... or, that coaches shouldn't umpire ... or, that coaches can't umpire?... or, well, that coaches shouldn't be allowed to umpire ... or, just what are you claiming?
Or, do you just put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes real hard, stomp up and down, and say, "I'm not listening, I'm not listening, I'm not listening!"? [g]
|
David:
To quote Horton: "I meant what I said, I said what I meant."
I believe, and you have provided much of the raw data that I have seen most recently, that there is a difference between coaches who umpire and umpires who coach when it comes their umpiring. You must be the one with fingers in your ears. I have made this very simple statement to you before, several times.
This has nothing to do with firemen, pilots, nurses, college professors, music teachers, bankers or whores. (Although that last one might pertain.)
Admittedly, I have the same amount of scientific data as Peter collects on many of his studies, or as you have offered. None. I have only anecdotal data, but I have seen enough to convince me that it reveals the truth.
Coaches, or Rats as they are known by some, bring to their umpiring the same instincts, quirks, habits, beliefs and character that make them good coaches, bad coaches, indifferent coaches, but coaches none the less. These effect the way they see the game, make their calls, treat their parnters, undestand the rules, manage situations. And, from my experience and that of many others with whom I have shared this opinion, the effect of all this on their umpiring is not positive.
It is very hard for coaches, Rats, if you will, to leave behind that which makes them succesful in their primary world. (And "primary" has nothing to do with percentage of time of involvement.) You, yourself, on a private list have described numerous instances in which your coaching instincts have interfered with your umpiring duties. You even have the honor of a having a game management technique, of lack thereof, named for you. Additionally you have described how you have, when acting as a coach, berated and baited umpires. You have said you have done this because you "are an umpire" and knew whatever the situation was, better than the umpire on the field.
I submit that one who is an umpire first would not behave that way when coaching. I submit that one who is a coach first will behave that way.
Successful coaches are first and foremost, at game time, lobbyists. They always want something from the umpire. If they don't they aren't good coaches. They're just filling space until a real coach shows up.
Despite some coach-writers plea to the contrary, there is damn little a coach can do to make his players play better during the game. A college Rat explained to me once at a clinic, "Basically, in an average game, each team will get 50% of those calls that can go either way. My job during the game is to do what I have to do to get 52% or 55% of those calls. Even 52% can tip the game my way."
Now none of this is to say that I have no respect for coaches. And certainly I do not accuse them of being stupid. I respect good coaches. I respect quality at any job. I just remember that even good coaches, no, make that
especially, good coaches, are Rats. I always understand their motives. I alwasy remember a quote I heard at a pro clinc years ago. It might sound familiar to you Dave, Tony has a similar version: If coaches and players were honest and had the Game's best interest at heart, there'd be no need for umpires.
Dave, you, Chad and Rich Ives are very good Rats. One could make a case that you have prgressed to Weasels. As Tee has alluded, you not only get to lobby umpires at an umpire site, you have managed to get paid to lobby umpires at an umpire site. Amazing. This is one of the reasons I don't subscribe to the paid portion of this site. Why should I pay to be lobbied?
[Edited by GarthB on Aug 25th, 2004 at 01:47 AM]