MLBU - what kind of program would you run

[PeteBooth]

Hi All:

It's the off-season and we have had many a thread on Professional Baseball Umpiring so I will give you all a chance:

Today / Tomorrow

YOU are named Commissioner of Major League Baseball. Also, Let's strictly concentrate on Umpire issues not the "other" issues a Commissioner is responsible for

The Subject of Professional Umpires is on the Agenda.

What type of Program would you run?

1. It's a known fact that unless you make it to the BIGS it is very difficult to make a living on a Minor League umpires salary. One could make more money being manager of Wal-Mart

Therefore, would you as Commissioner FIRST address the Minor league System. If Major League baseball truly wants the Best of the Best then it stands to reason that the Pay Scale / Living Conditions in the Minor leagues should be improved so that more candidates are attracted.

2. Would you have the rule- book re-written?

3. What type of rating system would you imploy? Should being a Professional major League baseball umpire be "for life"

4. Would you adopt IR and if so to what extent?

5. The Strike Zone? Would you re-define it? Also would you stress the PRO Schools to make certain that for the most part EVERY umpire call the strike zone the same way.

6. Mentoring Program - Would you hire EX major Leaguers ie; Steve Palermo etc. to mentor the young umpires.

7. Other - What "other" items about umpiring would you address


Pete Booth

[fitump56]

Pete, shoot me or Interested Ump a PM; we are doing all of htis at the amateur level.

[tiger49]

First off I would do away with the umpire schools and the PBUC as we now know them. I would select umpires from various programs ie: NCAA, USA Baseball, Baseball Canada, and other High Calibre programs. I would then work with one of the two schools to develop a set training school solely for these umpires. From there I would send them out to work with the low level Minor Leagues in groups of two, working in a three man crew with a local umpire who will be look at to see if he can also be brought along.

As far as pay scale goes I would pay these umpires a normal full-time job rate of about $40,000/year. However they would be required to be available all year except for set vacation periods. I would also group the umpires into three levels. The first level would be set to short-season A and Rookie classes, but rotate through the leagues and switch partners four times during the season. Level 2 would have full season A and AA in the same matter. While Level 3 would be your AAA and MLB fill-ins. The only way you could move up a level is to get assigned to do one of the fall/instuctional leagues in the off-season.

I would rewrite and reorganize the rule-book and issue a full updated version.

I do not believe in being a MLB umpire for life, however I don't feel you should lose your job just because of a couple of bad calls. As it becomes clear that an older umpire has fallen behind the times I would keep him on to act as a mentor/evaluator at various levels in the program.

The one major area of umpiring I would love to address is the fitness level of the umpires. There should be a set fitness requirement for umpires at all levels within the professional program. You never see a grossly out of weight official within any of the other major sport leagues (NBA, NFL, NHL)

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by tiger49

First off I would do away with the umpire schools and the PBUC as we now know them. I would select umpires from various programs ie: NCAA, USA Baseball, Baseball Canada, and other High Calibre programs. I would then work with one of the two schools to develop a set training school solely for these umpires. From there I would send them out to work with the low level Minor Leagues in groups of two, working in a three man crew with a local umpire who will be look at to see if he can also be brought along.

I believe the school system and PBUC are strengths, not weaknesses. Currently anyone can attend proschool and put himself in position to make it to the pros. Doing away with that and moving to the system you propose inserts politics and more hoops into the process. We don't need NCAA or Baseball Canada involved in saying who may or may not be qualified to be trained as a professional umpire. It is far better to let those who aspire to that level select themselves as candidates.

Perhaps this is a cultural difference between our societies, but we value individual initiative over group control.

Asfar as pay scale goes I would pay these umpires a normal full-time job rate of about $40,000/year.

All of the umpires would be paid the same? The rookies up to AAA? Regardless of performance?

Another cultural difference, I guess. I don't think a socialist model would work in a capitalist environment.

... but rotate through the leagues and switch partners four times during the season.

This would benefit the umpires or their craft how?

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by jpc2119

The issue of lifetime appointments seems to me to be one of the more difficult questions. As much as we like to complain about them (the likes of Doug Eddings or Angel Hernandez), they're all outstanding umpires. That being said, some are probably better than others. When these player and coach rankings come out, someone is always going to finish last, even if they did a pretty good job that year. Does that mean they should be demoted or fired? What is to say that someone in the minors would do a better job? The lowest rated MLB guy could still be better than the top rated AAA guy. Imagine, spending all those years in the minors to be fired and replaced by someone who might not be any better. These lifetime appointments are not just handed over but earned with many hard years in the minors. Naturally, this is an issue for the minor league umpire who wonders why he's going through all this with such a small hope of reaching that ultimate goal. I think one answer would be to create more spots by perhaps creating an extra crew, maybe another week of vacation, and alternating the minor league callups. I think some of the better AAA guys might stick around longer if their chances of working major league games increased because the first spot doesn't always go to Rob Drake or James Hoye.

Look, more pwer to them. if treating people correctly means keeping ba dumpires until they are 65, hey, go for it.
Anoher solid reason for IR

Originally Posted by GarthB

We don't need NCAA or Baseball Canada involved in saying who may or may not be qualified to be trained as a professional umpire. It is far better to let those who aspire to that level select themselves as candidates.

Hmmmmmmm...for the sake of argument, basketball and football do it this way!

It seems that college basketball ref's call a MUCH better game than the pro's. But that is a different story.

The fact is, baseball is the only major sport where amateur level experience does NOT count towards advancement to the pro ranks!

I am not sure that is either good or bad. I do know this. I have worked with many ex professional umpires. None are all that bad, but few were all that great either! I have also worked with far too many guys coming out of Evan's school who are just plain bad. The guys that improved would have done so simply with a one week camp and working another 30 games with a good mentor. Some of the best umpires I have worked with did not attend a professional umpire school!

I am not saying the current system is good or bad. I just don't agree it is for sure the best way to go about it!

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by rei

Hmmmmmmm...for the sake of argument, basketball and football do it this way!

Yes, and I have heard pro football and basketball officials say that they wish they could have the baseball model.

In fact, the NFL used NFL Europe much as baseball uses AAA baseball.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Perhaps this is a cultural difference between our societies, but we value individual initiative over group control.

Garth, YOU value individual initiative over group control. So do I. Our society certainly does not. Individual initiative only gets you in the door as a sports official now. Once you're in the room, group control is the model. You can't even get work now if you aren't part of "the group". The top goal of every association I've ever been in, from NCAA on down, has been not excellence, but uniformity. Guys who are average but conform get more and better games than guys who are good but nonconformist.

If individual initiative were so valued, there would be no "one right way" to reach the top (as in mandatory attendance at pro school for WUA umpires). We'd be graded solely on outcomes, not on methods.

If we as a people valued individual initiative in the USA, the Libertarians would beat the snot out of the Democrats and Republicans in every election.

[tiger49]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I believe the school system and PBUC are strengths, not weaknesses. Currently anyone can attend proschool and put himself in position to make it to the pros. Doing away with that and moving to the system you propose inserts politics and more hoops into the process. We don't need NCAA or Baseball Canada involved in saying who may or may not be qualified to be trained as a professional umpire. It is far better to let those who aspire to that level select themselves as candidates.

Perhaps this is a cultural difference between our societies, but we value individual initiative over group control.



All of the umpires would be paid the same? The rookies up to AAA? Regardless of performance?

Another cultural difference, I guess. I don't think a socialist model would work in a capitalist environment.



This would benefit the umpires or their craft how?

Garth I think I may have not been clear as to how MLB would recruit umpires. Local guys won't be selected by the local administration, however by ex-pro guys who have been in the system and would under my system as a part-time scout/supervisor for various regions. I would also suggest that MLB makes these guys not only accountable for their recommedations but also make them anonymous so that they face as little political pressure as possible.

I also think you may see the two schools continue to run camps open to the public as they have bills to pay as well and would hope that MLB would take a very close look at all the camps and clinics around the country.

The $40,000 I quoted as a salary is more of an average then an accross the board rate. There should be differences depending on what levels you worked and for post-season work.

The reason I would have guys move around during the season is very simple. I think working with different partners will allow things to be pointed out during the season that maybe another partner may have missed. I also think moving up and down levels during a season may help when an umpire has demonstrated that he can handle a particular level quite well and that moving him up maybe an option. However once he moves up if it becomes apparent that the jump is too big he can be dropped back down without having to wait it out a full year.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Publius

Guys who are average but conform get more and better games than guys who are good but nonconformist.

This is true and I encountered this all along my umpiring "career." You have to "play the game" or "get along to get along." The good-ol-boys club is alive and well in baseball umpire associations, where it is better to kiss as$ than to kick as$.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by Publius

Garth, YOU value individual initiative over group control. So do I. Our society certainly does not. Individual initiative only gets you in the door as a sports official now. Once you're in the room, group control is the model. You can't even get work now if you aren't part of "the group". The top goal of every association I've ever been in, from NCAA on down, has been not excellence, but uniformity. Guys who are average but conform get more and better games than guys who are good but nonconformist.

If individual initiative were so valued, there would be no "one right way" to reach the top (as in mandatory attendance at pro school for WUA umpires). We'd be graded solely on outcomes, not on methods.

Pubes, you are right on which is why Interested Ump set an org in a completely different fashion. Want to wear white shirts, wear white shirts. Want to tell the "A" slot to GTH, do so.

But your blowing smoke into the wind because umpires want conformity, they don't want performance related development. Look at this place, a perfect example of a majority of suckups who want to conform. "Put soandso on your Ignore List"; "blue shirts, black bags, etc."; on and on.

Umpires are blue collar guys, the last thing they want is white collar competitiveness. They want to get ahead in umpiring by smoozing the leaders, dumping brewskis with the Old Guard after the game. Damn near everyone here is in the upper 40s, 50s or older. Think they want to talk about mobility issues? Hell no, what they want is to fanasize how they can outrun B Deion Sanders to 2nd base from PU.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Yes, and I have heard pro football and basketball officials say that they wish they could have the baseball model.

I have never heard a single football or basketball official yearn for such a system. Not a system that makes you work on the road all the time and not have other income.

Originally Posted by GarthB

In fact, the NFL used NFL Europe much as baseball uses AAA baseball.

This is also inaccurate. NFL Europe was one way they evaluated officials. But most officials that got a shot in the NFL were selected from Division 1 rather than NFL Europe. NFL Europe was usually used to give someone an opportunity and more of a look, but it was not used as a prerequisite for being hired at the NFL. Not even close. Actually Arena Ball is used more than NFL Europe was as an evaluation tool. And now there is no longer NFL Europe. There are some current NFL officials that would work in NFL Europe. Not everyone is able to go away for 3 months in Europe and keep their jobs. Most NFL officials have a job outside of their officiating. Not something you are really allowed to do in the current baseball.

Peace

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is also inaccurate. NFL Europe was one way they evaluated officials. But most officials that got a shot in the NFL were selected from Division 1 rather than NFL Europe. NFL Europe was usually used to give someone an opportunity and more of a look, but it was not used as a prerequisite for being hired at the NFL.

Peace

Sorry Rut, but what I wrote is indeed accurate. WhenI wrote an article about NFL referee Steve Willson, #29, and spoke with the league office, they stated what I wrote. They sent D-1 officials who they were considering to NFL Europe prior to giving them a shot in "show." They did not go to Europe for three months at a time. They commuted.

From the article:

Steve: There were six Americans and one European. Each crew had a European official. In retrospect, it was great crew. There was Phil Luckett, Curt Dornan, Gary Slaughter, Steve Lindsey, Boris Cheek, me and a guy whose name I can’t pronounce from Finland. All but one made the NFL.

Officiating.com: How did the logistics work; did you fly over for each game or stay for the season?

Steve: Neither. We would leave New York, fly over and arrive in one day. We would work a game the next day then stay in Europe for five days and work another game. Then we’d come home. We would do that twice. A full season for officials was comprised of four games.

Steve did this while still working as a conference official for the PAC-10. He begin his NFL Europe work in 1995 and stayed with it for 4 years. At the end of his fourth season, Jerry Seamens called him and invited him to work in the NFL.

I will take the league statements and that of Steve's as accurate.

The league office also stated that baseball had the best training system going for officials and they wished that somehow they could replicated that system. It was league officials who made this statement, not referees.

You are correct about the Arena Leagues, Arena 1 and Arena 2. With the demise of NFL Europe the league will use the Arena Leagues as they did NFL Europe.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Sorry Rut, but what I wrote is indeed accurate. WhenI wrote an article about NFL referee Steve Willson, #29, and spoke with the league office, they stated what I wrote. They sent D-1 officials who they were considering to NFL Europe prior to giving them a shot in "show." They did not go to Europe for three months at a time. They commuted.

From the article:

Steve: There were six Americans and one European. Each crew had a European official. In retrospect, it was great crew. There was Phil Luckett, Curt Dornan, Gary Slaughter, Steve Lindsey, Boris Cheek, me and a guy whose name I can’t pronounce from Finland. All but one made the NFL.

Officiating.com: How did the logistics work; did you fly over for each game or stay for the season?

Steve: Neither. We would leave New York, fly over and arrive in one day. We would work a game the next day then stay in Europe for five days and work another game. Then we’d come home. We would do that twice. A full season for officials was comprised of four games.

Steve did this while still working as a conference official for the PAC-10. He begin his NFL Europe work in 1995 and stayed with it for 4 years. At the end of his fourth season, Jerry Seamens called him and invited him to work in the NFL.

I will take the league statements and that of Steve's as accurate.

The league office also stated that baseball had the best training system going for officials and they wished that somehow they could replicated that system. It was league officials who made this statement, not referees.

You are correct about the Arena Leagues, Arena 1 and Arena 2. With the demise of NFL Europe the league will use the Arena Leagues as they did NFL Europe.

Garth you are missing the point I was trying to make. I did not say that NFL Europe was not used to hire or evaluate officials. I said that it was by far not the only way they hired officials into the League. It was not at all used like the model of Major League Baseball that if you did not work NFL Europe you could not get an NFL position. Actually in some cases many current staff members worked NFL Europe games. Whether someone from the NFL office likes the MLB model or not does not change that they hire officials straight from D1 ball and will have to do so in similar fashion because there is no NFL Europe anymore. I am sure the NFL would love a similar system, but that is not going to happen anytime soon. And I seriously doubt that the NFL is only going to use Arena Ball as a gauge for what goes on in the NFL when the game is really not completely the same.

I am also not talking about this from what I read. I belong to an association that has 3 current NFL Officials in them and numerous NFL evaluators and one of the most famous NFL Referees in history all come back and evaluate current football officials. I have heard them talk about this in detail and it was never said these officials only got their by working NFL Europe games. And based on what you just posted, that suggest that officials are not even working many games in the first place. So I stand by my statement that NFL Europe is not like Triple A Baseball.

Peace

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Garth you are missing the point I was trying to make. I did not say that NFL Europe was not used to hire or evaluate officials. I said that it was by far not the only way they hired officials into the League. It was not at all used like the model of Major League Baseball that if you did not work NFL Europe you could not get an NFL position.

Peace

No, I didn't miss your point. It's that your point is incorrect.

According to the NFL League office, for a period of time, all new NFL Officials saw duty in what was later called NFL Europe while they were still calling college ball.