Just for some light reading...
 

<a href="http://hosted2.ap.org/PAGRE/bf9ace88b43a4aafaf3aca48588a6051/Article_2010-05-10-BBO-Scouting-The-Umpires/id-0bf76bebf6f843d7afe8ac2dd8aad5f1">MLB Teams Scout Umpires</a>

Questec?
 

Is game to game computer pitch tracking info available to teams?

Interesting. Maybe the front office should be doing the same, getting rid of the pretenders. I know I am far from prefect out on the field, both on the bases as well as behind the plate, however these guys are supposed to be the cream of the crop, the top officials. I have seen plenty of blown calls, some of which were just butchered. It seems as though they have it in their heads that they cant or wont be fired for poor performance. Some of them seem to think they are bigger than the game, just like some players. Having a liberal strike zone is one thing, and it can vary from umpire to umpire, however I believe that some if not most of them could use a refresher course. Just like in HS baseball, start letting the coaches rate these guys to see who really deserves to be in the playoffs.

I would rather be rated by the ushers & vendors.

No thank you. I don't wish that upon anyone.

Peer evaluation systems are worse than coach evaluation systems.

Coaches, Peers, Front Office......
 

So, what is the best way?

There is no best way. No one is going to be happy with any evaluations system totally. The ideal one I think would be to have someone that is not directly connected to the game and watch the entire game that has umpiring experience and makes evaluations based on what they see and understand. The problem is when you do that, there are those that still complain and say that they are not picking the best people or that "politics" plays a role. You will never make everyone happy in any system.

Peace

Alright, let me re-phrase
 

JRut we have your thoughts.

What is the most fair way IYO?

I do not think there is one.

Peace

I dont understand what your post has to do with the OP, its just a rant at MLB umpires- maybe start your own OP.

The article has to do with todays technology, ones tendencies, and how that info could benefit a team. I see nothing wrong with the study, or using it if you think it helps, though the question of it truly helping a team still remains.

"Future performance not guaranteed on past results"...plus too many other human variables. Why not factor in an umpires blood sugar vs time of day game is played, time of year, full moon?, day/night game, ump just had a phone argument w/wife, fill in the blank,ect, ect....

Is it fair means to an end?
 

There was a time when a contest was suppose to be decided out on the field. Take today's headlines showing a Philly's coach using binoculars during a game. I think it is cheating and the game should be forfeited. I think it is worse than an athlete taking steroids to gain a competitive edge. Does a team gain an edge with the computer data and should this allowed in a contest between gentlemen or does winning mean everything is ok?

OK, I will try.

Let's say you have an organization with over 100 umpires. Assignor can't possibly see them all work personally, multiple games on plate and base.

Let's say some of them score better than others on the annual rules quiz. This is not the only thing to consider, but it is input.

Let's say some of them are assigned high caliber games and there are never any complaints. This is data.

Let's say some of them are assigned to work high caliber games with an experienced partner, and the partner is asked for feedback. Better yet, if feedback comes unsolicited from the experienced umpire.

Let's say some are actually evaluated by someone sent out to do just that, on behalf of the assigner.

Let's say the assigner knows most of the coaches and makes a call from time to time to get some feedback.

I'm not an assigner, but I think I could determine who the best umpires were. Might not be fair, but it would be a process that makes sense and seems fair.