Stance

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

I think PWL is referring to a perception of "good ol' boy" politics in the association he and I are members of. What I know is that the same handful of veterans have held most of the officer positions for a long time. My opinion is that that is really just a reflection of the 80/20 rule - 20% of the people in any volunteer organization end up doing 80% of the work, rather than any conscious effort on their part to exclude new blood from coming in.

I agree that the 80/20 rule is probably in play in more situations than any sinister motive.

Most playoff assignments are the result of coaches' requests, a practice I find somewhat peculiar but not particularly sinister. It does, though, I think make it tougher for the newer umpires to gain the necessary familiarity to get playoff assignment requests.

So if an umpire isn't getting playoff assignments, it's due to the what the coaches who he has had think about him and not exclusion by the "big dogs." Interesting.

[RPatrino]

Coach's providing feedback is important, but having them select who works the playoffs is a bit much.

What should be more important, the opinions of coach's or the respect of your peers?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

Coach's providing feedback is important, but having them select who works the playoffs is a bit much.

What should be more important, the opinions of coach's or the respect of your peers?

Too many cons outweigh the pros.

Even if the coaches knew enough about mechanics, rules, and game management to make an intelligent decision, there would still be the matter of which umpires the coaches have seen through the season.

We told American Legion we would no longer work their games when the commissioner insisted on having approval of which of our members worked Legion games. He dropped that demand.

[jkumpire]

In my little association, I might be considerd "a big dog". Not that I am a great umpire or anything (though I think I am great umpire), but I spend 12 months a year on umpiring, and I do a lot of work in my local association, like teaching new umpires and etc.

So here is what I have to say to you:

1. The ultimate test of umpiring is the "mirror test". Can you look at yourself in the mirror the day after a game and say you did the best you can for those kids you umpired. That means are you the best umpire you can be with your "skill set"? If yes, then who really cares what anyone else thinks.

2. If you don't get any tournament games, who cares? If you pass the mirror test, then you are in good shape. There are some great umpires in my area who should be doing State Finals in baseball, and are better IMO than a lot of guys who are getting the games. For whatever reason, they don't get them. Many times it has nothing to do with politics, or anything else. Life isn't always fair.

3. I may be a big dog who baseball has passed by, but I see a lot of people who are not great B/S umpires because of a mechanical flaw or flaws, which lead to inconsistency. They may think they have a great zone and they think they are funamentally sound, but when they have the money pitch on the corner they miss it. Or when they have a big regular season game with two good batteries they hear the inconsistent word thrown all around them. Or on the tough pitches, they are not consistent.

Maybe those big dogs are in your corner, and want you to take the next step in your career. And they see something you need to think about doing to make your B/S better. Don't be so stubborn you don't at least listen to the older guys, and think about their advice. Ultimately it's your call, their advice might be bad. But doesn't hundred's or thousands of games under someone's belt give them some insight as to what might improve your work?

Or is it that every big dog in your association ar guys with 1 year of experience 20 times, instead of 20 years experience? Think about it.