Umpire evaluations

[beachbum]

This is not meant to be a complaint about not scoring high enough on a recent evaluation, but a commentary of the process.

It's is a given that all officials strive to improve their game, and the evaluation process is a way to find out where you are.

BUT, it seems as though the evaluators look for and discuss only the things you do wrong, ignoring the positives.

I sat through an evaluation, after the game, and the evaluator spent 99% of the time picking apart all of the things I did wrong. he was accurate in his assessment and i will strive to improve in the area's mentioned.

His parting statement was, "your game is better than last year so keep up the good work". Nothing specific was mentioned.

It would seem to be better if both positives and negatives were mentioned, so, you have positive feelings about your game.

I continually hear talk that evaluators(usually the best officials in the organization), try to protect their position by downgrading the newer people.

Last year, my first, I was evaluated in the first game I did. MY uniform was brand new including the shoes and yet i received a score of 2 ( on a scale of 1 to 5), for dress. this makes you wonder of the process.

[mbyron]

Inexperienced evaluators seem to think that criticism is intrinsically negative. Remember that when you become experienced enough that somebody asked you to evaluate a newer umpire.

Evaluation is more challenging than you might think, due to how pattern recognition works: it's easy to spot deviations from a pattern, even when describing the pattern correctly is not easy. For example, you know where the furniture in your home is, right? Could you describe the exact position of every piece of furniture? Probably not, but you'd recognize instantly if someone moved something even an inch.

In the meantime, it sounds as if you're listening carefully to areas where you need to improve. Eventually, they'll become fewer: during a recent informal evaluation of my performance on the basketball court, one of our association's harshest critics could come up with only "your pants are too tight." I figured that I'd had a pretty good game... (and bought some new pants).

[CajunNewBlue]

Eval's are primarily built to be negative....process it, prioritize it and improve on it... BTW: a 2 of 5 on a uniform especially on a brand new one might have been due to wrinkles or fit (mind that it fits properly and looks cut for you) uniform is the only thing you can get 100%
at least he said you did better than last year... for some evaluators to say that, is a big thing.

good job, hang in there.

[ozzy6900]

I've given bad ratings to many umpires with new uniforms. Bad fit, wrong shade of gray on the pants - you name it! I had one guy that didn't like the fact that I gigged him because he had his shirttail sticking out for most of the game.

That being said, a good evaluator should always mention the positive because that is a "building block". The more positives that you can find in an umpire, the better they take the negatives. Also when mentioning the negatives, an evaluator should be brief and to the point. If the umpire has a question on a negative point, that is when the evaluator should expand.

[BretMan]

A couple of evaluation stories...

My association holds an annual clinic, where one of the drills is plate work in a cage with live pitching. The cage work is video recorded, then reviewed with you by different senior memebers.

One of the evaluators told me that I was setting up too high in the strike zone. A different evaluator, looking at the same tape, told me that I was setting up too low in the strike zone.

That was about the time I decided to take evaluations with a grain of salt. Listening and nodding is a good strategy! You might pick up some good pointers, but might get some bad advice. You kind of have to pick and choose and figure out which advice is worth listening to.

Back a few years ago, I had an evaluation done on the field, during a live game. One senior official recorded several innings, while my partner for the game was also an evaluator. About a week after the game, my association sent me a DVD of my performance, complete with running commentary by yet another evaluator, and a copy of my written evaluation.

The first thing that was weird was that my partner- one of the senior evaluators- caused the beginning of our game to be delayed by 45 minutes because he had forgot his base shoes! This was one of those guys who's rear of his SUV looked like a freaking umpire store. It was stocked from floor to ceiling with at least 20 different hanging shirts, 10 pairs of pants, bags of extra equipment, a dozen hats in cap holders, boxes of extra shoestrings, indicators, plate brushes and every imaginable thing an umpire might need to get through an entire season- everything except for a pair of base shoes.

I offered him a pair of mine, but he refused. Instead, he called his wife who lived over a half-hour away and delayed the start of the game until she showed up with his shoes.

I had a little shoe problem myself that day. Knowing that this would be part of the evaluation, I made sure to have a clean and pressed uniform that day. The only problem was that I had worked a game the night before and, despite knowing the emphasis on shined shoes, had forgotten to give my plate shoes a good scrubbing and shine! They had been polished just before the last game, so I did the best I could on the spot with some water and a rag. The shoes had a good shine, but there was a little dust in some of the nooks and crannies that water and a rag just weren't going to get. They looked good, but not great- at least not up to my own standard of what consitutes a freshly polished shoe.

Anyhow, I get my written evaluation back and my partner/evaluator had made the comment that my shoes were "caked in mud"! Nothing could have been further from the truth.

All I could think was, "At least I had shoes!".

Just to add to the fun, apparently the person who put the commentary on the video had absolutely no experience with the Gerry Davis plate stance. I had begun using the GD earlier that year and was getting quite comfortable with it- all of the things that are supposed to be advantageous with this stance were working well for me. But not according to the evaluator. I was setting up "too high", "too far back" and "had my hands in a vulnerable position, just asking for a hand injury". The same evaluator, during the portion of the video shot from the side, mentioned that he did not think I was properly in the slot. Then, a few minutes later, in video taken from directly behind me, he mentioned that my positioning in the slot looked "real good".

Strangely, none of these comments on my stance made it into the written report. A different person filled that out and I got good marks for my plate mechanics.

So, evaluations can be kind of goofy. I'd like to think that I kept an open mind and picked up a few things that I could work on to improve- or, at least, to appease an evaluator. I also got some bad advice and conflicting advice that I had to filter through to get to the good stuff!

[jicecone]

Just like everything in real life , there are good and bad evaluators.

Some believe that they are truley being helpful by only addressing your mistakes. Some just have no personality to begin with and some shouldn't be allowed to do what they do but, they either know someone or are the only one's to volunteer for a job no one else wants to do. You have to take this stuff in consideration when being evaluated.

I used to evaluate both Ice Hockey and Baseball officials and for every negative comment, I would try to find some positive comments to go along with them. Believe me, it is very very easy to find something wrong with just about every offiicial if you want to. Unless you are being evaluated for a career position, evaluations should be used as a tool for improvement. Ratings are generally too subjective and should be something privately discussed between the association, assignor and yourself. Unless your association assigns by the "good ole boy system." your assignments should reflect how you are progressing. Then again, I one time worked in an assoiciation that ranked you totally by the coaches ratings. Advancement was limited by the need for officials at a given level. Once you achieved Varsity status (and many times this was very questionable) you were there for life.

Best advice is to take into consideration any comments that can be used to improve your officiating skills. Don't be afraid to try new things and you should be looking to improve in every contest you work. Complacency, and not expecting the unexpected will almost always get you in trouble. Experience is the best preparation one can have to face this.

I have seen evaluators stand on the sidelines critisizing the official in front of the public, yelling at the official in the middle of the game, giving officials the same rating no matter how they performed, and yes, also performing evauations just because he was getting $5.00 for every one submitted. Take all these things in stride and if your association is not continually trying to improve the new officials and bring them up in the ranks because of personal greed, then maybe it is time to move on because the association will eventually fall apart anyway.

Good luck, and never quit trying to improve.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Evaluators and evaluations are best treated the way Bret and jicecone described. Excellent stuff. (And, Bret, I always carry two pairs of plate and base shoes in the "freakin' umpire store" in the back of my SUV ... along with everything any two umpires would need to umpire a ballgame. Usually, all four pairs are scrubbed and shiny, but at least one pair of each are always in top shape by having the back-ups around all the time. They also seem to last longer by rotating that way ... don't ask me how.)

I want to get better and I want to look as sharp as possible, no matter what level I work. I got evaluated last week by my partner and an observer who was working the next game. Both are excellent veteran umpires that I like and respect, and both were kind in their evaluation and very helpful with a few little things I could attend to. Bret's right about being open to everything, because it's the only way you'll ever hear the most helpful stuff.

I go to a lot of D-I games like Pepperdine, Loyola and mostly UCLA (which I can walk to from my office). I like to watch players that I coached on All-Star teams and travel teams play their college games. I also go to a lot of JUCO games because my son's a player there. It's one of my fondest thrills.

While I'm there, I like to watch the umpires as though I was an evaluator. Most of the umpiring is ostensibly outstanding. But I have seen some interesting stuff--even from the NCAA D-I umpires. Now, if I really was an evaluator, I would get writer's cramp with a couple of these guys.

I saw one D-I game in which the plate umpire gave the location of every single close ball call. ("Ball—low." ... "Ball—out." ... "Ball—up.") And he wasn't saying it to the catcher, either. He was calling it out. I think I tell the catcher the location of close ones five or six times a game, and never call it out like that. And I don't know many who do call it out like that. Do any of you?

I saw a base umpire at a Pepperdine game turn his head to look at college babes at least three dozen times (the volleyball team was roaming the stands selling raffle tickets). Everyone knows you're supposed to keep your head still and track them with your eyes!

And some uniform standards are relaxing: Caps without creases; untucked windbreakers ... little stuff. But the most notable is the shoes. The no-white thing has become a thing of the past: The garish new Reeboks are popping up everywhere. Also, base shoes with white linings on the outsoles, and white logos are seemingly acceptable now. I have two sets of NB 450s and both the NB 350s and 995 mids. One of the 450s has blacked-out N logos and the 995s come in all black. The 350s have the white logos as do one of the pairs of 450s. I don't mind the white marks, personally, I just want to comply with whatever the standard is.

I suppose I like watching the umpires as much as anything now. In fact, some times—especially when my son or one of my guys is pitching—I have to really work to tune the umps out. But by watching them like I would if I really was an evaluator, I learn a hell of a lot about the subtleties of umpiring. It also makes me realize that I have a pretty good standard for my own umpiring.

[Durham]

I am sorry Kevin, but they were hawt. I'll work on locking in and tracking better.

Was the swim team out that day too or the tennis team? Oh, Malibu is nice in the spring.

[Tim C]

KF noted:

"Caps without creases . . ."

I have never, nor will I ever, place the "little leage crease" in any of my caps.

At the last Evans Clinic I attended:

Eight caps with crease -- all eight were the professional umpire instructors.

87 Clinic attendees without one cap crease.

I was in the pink looking at the students. I hate creases. PAC-10 does NOT require creased caps so there would be no "ding" on an evaluation.

Creased hats deserve the "Roger Dorn Contract Treatment."

KF noted:

" . . . untucked wind breakers . . ."

Again I am a little amazed: "tucked windbreakers" look like hell in my opinion. Again in the PAC-10 you see both tucked and untucked on the same three umpire crew.

Whew, now I feel better.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Tim C

KF noted:



I have never, nor will I ever, place the "little leage crease" in any of my caps.

Again I am a little amazed: "tucked windbreakers" look like hell in my opinion.

Agreed on both points.

Of course, if either is "required" in your area, you should consider dressing as the evaluation requires.

[Klokard]

One of the things mentioned in the original post is that some evaluators will grade harsh to protect their standings. I am sure that may be the case with a select few but I doubt that is the norm. The one thing that seems to be a bit bothersome for me is the fact that few of the seasoned grizzlies get evaluated. In my JUCO and Fed association it is rare for a guy to fall down in his rating. I know the D1 guys get rated on every game but again I rarely see them dropped. I attended a D1 game last weekend and on every occasion with a R1 the U3 was in "B" with a left handed batter. This is in direct conflict with the CCA manual. I asked the PU a few days later why this mechanic was allowed on his crew. He merely replied "that's how he has always done it." It's hard to explain to an up and coming guy that it's an accepted mechanic for the tenured guys but not for anyone else.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I have never, nor will I ever, place the "little leage crease" in any of my caps.

I crease my caps. Left over from my military days when we creased our fatique cover. (Yes, I'm that old)

Again I am a little amazed: "tucked windbreakers" look like hell in my opinion. Again in the PAC-10 you see both tucked and untucked on the same three umpire crew.

I have three plate windbreakers which I tuck in. Makes it easier to get into the ball bags.

I also have three base windbreakers that I do not tuck in. More comfortable on the bases that way, I believe.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by Durham

I am sorry Kevin, but they were hawt. I'll work on locking in and tracking better.

Was the swim team out that day too or the tennis team? Oh, Malibu is nice in the spring.

Buddy, my son's 6'4'', so every time one of those Pepperdine or Loyola volleyball babes comes around, I elbow him in the ribs, like, you're gonna' need to learn ... uh, volleyball.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Klokard

One of the things mentioned in the original post is that some evaluators will grade harsh to protect their standings. I am sure that may be the case with a select few but I doubt that is the norm. The one thing that seems to be a bit bothersome for me is the fact that few of the seasoned grizzlies get evaluated. In my JUCO and Fed association it is rare for a guy to fall down in his rating. I know the D1 guys get rated on every game but again I rarely see them dropped. I attended a D1 game last weekend and on every occasion with a R1 the U3 was in "B" with a left handed batter. This is in direct conflict with the CCA manual. I asked the PU a few days later why this mechanic was allowed on his crew. He merely replied "that's how he has always done it." It's hard to explain to an up and coming guy that it's an accepted mechanic for the tenured guys but not for anyone else.

Just tell the up and coming guy, do it the CCA way and be ok or take your chances doing it his way. Ever bit of me wants to stay in B, but I look at my 1st base guy every time and ask (jokingly) if I can stay in B right before I move my butt to C.

[Kevin Finnerty]

The crease: I have never, nor did I ever even consider creasing any of my hundreds of ballcaps. But my unit says crease the umpire caps, so I crease. I have a few caps that are unused and have not yet been creased, in case it changes, but for now, we crease. I couldn't care less, really, it looks okay; but in the end, I would rather comply.

The tucked or un-tucked thing is different. There is no stated standard here. But it only seems like it would be necessary behind the plate, as mentioned. Bases should be optional. In Southern California, you bring the windbreaker to each game, but seldom actually wear it.