[brandda]

Obviously, this is a silly editorial, but it does bring up an interesting question which I would be curious how other leagues around the country handle.

Many years ago, American business came to understand that the ability to measure quality and communicate that measurement to workers was a key ingredient to improvement of products and processes. In our league (LL), I am one of the senior umpires, but have never been evaluated for the quality of my officiating other than in a very casual manner. BTW - I'm not talking about mechanics here, but the actual calls themselves.

I do as much self evaluation as I can, but honestly, it's pretty hard to know whether my strike zone is off or on or if I missed or did not miss a bang-bang call at the plate. I figure I probably miss anywhere from 3 to 5 pitches in a 6 to 7 inning game (low outside usually) that I wish I had a second look at, but have no way of knowing whether that is an accurate statement. Nor do I know what is an appropriate standard (0,1,2?) to be shooting for.

So, my question is, do any of your leagues have any kind of evaluation system that is tied to reward or advancement? In the case described in the editorial, maybe the PU did miss the call, but if it was the only one he missed all night, then overall he had a good game. On the other hand, if his zone was off all night (think Eric Gregg) then this should be taken into account when plum assignments such as playoffs or all stars are being considered. The question is, how do you know? Do any of you have structured evaluation programs for your umpires other than coaches generally saying like or dislike?