Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GarthB
I hear this argument about all post season play opportunities. Horse pucky!
Post season has the best teams, the best players, the best coaches. They didn't get to post season becuase they played the most games or had perfect attendance or were really nice guys. They earned their way there by their performance on the field. They deserve umpires who did likewise.
If you need to reward somebody for covering games, give him a gift certificate for dinner, a good citizenship award, or buy him a watch.
|
Mr. B:
I agree with almost all you said above. I do, however, find it disingenuous if an umpire who didn't work in the league takes a post-season assignment and says he earned it for his on-field performance.
The best teams don't get to sit out the league schedule and proceed straight to the post-season based on their outstanding performance in another league or during prior seasons. Umpires shouldn't either.
If I have a crew of umpires from which to choose rated 1 (worst) through 10 (best), I do a balancing act on the issue. Based on how much he worked and his performance, an umpire can elevate his consideration for post-season play by one or two spots. So, an 8 could surpass a 10, but a 7 likely could not.
Big-boy-ball sees it differently, apparently, than youth. Absent extraordinary circumstances, neither MLB, any level of affiliated MiLB, nor the NCAA (I, II, or III) chooses umpires who didn't work the league for post-season play.
I understand your point; I just don't subscribe to it completely.