How about an opinion:

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

If there's to be a successful evaluation process, it must come from the umpires themselves. And since most umpires are not working and have little desire to sit through a game on a day off (we have families, after all), then the best you can do (I think) is a partner evaluation. And in many areas, umpires choose who they work with (my entire HS schedule for next season is with the same umpire, although work and other obligations will change that somewhat during the season), so I'm not sure that works in many areas either.

A peer review system is possibly even worse. The pettiness and jealousy involved in this kind of system kills any chance it has at being effective. If a superior or a small team of superiors is doing the evaluating, then it has a chance of yielding some accurate assessments and helpful results.

And that's not just in the umpire fraternity; peer reviews are similarly ineffective most everywhere else they're tried. It's the easy way out for an organization that doesn't want to take the time or make the effort at properly training and evaluating its employees.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

A peer review system is possibly even worse. The pettiness and jealousy involved in this kind of system kills any chance it has at being effective. If a superior or a small team of superiors is doing the evaluating, then it has a chance of yielding some accurate assessments and helpful results.

Are you implying that evaluators aren't able to be petty or jealous?

[Kevin Finnerty]

... No, I'm not.

But there's just a better chance that a unit's leaders will do what's better for the unit, and a unit's members will more often do what's better for themselves. And by rating a peer highly, an individual's own rating might suffer.

[Tim C]

Why does there need to be some type of nefarious reason for the OP.

I thought it was a rather mudane topic that would roll over and die quickly.

I did have a reason for asking the question:

I am currently writing an article for the NFHS publication High School Today that deals directly with this issue.

Nationally more and more coaches, at the high school level, get fired for their win/loss record. Many times these same coaches complain that their loss of employment was due to poor officials (something that they have no control over).

I wanted to get the feeling of officials. I have already talked to several assigners, several athletic directors, a number of coaches and many school board members. This was just the best way that I could get a good cross section of the people I respect: the officials that put their butts on the line for very poor wages.

T

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Nationally more and more coaches, at the high school level, get fired for their win/loss record. Many times these same coaches complain that their loss of employment was due to poor officials (something that they have no control over).

Any coach who blames his record on officiating should be fired just for that. Bad officiating doesn't even cost you a whole game, much less a season.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Nationally more and more coaches, at the high school level, get fired for their win/loss record. Many times these same coaches complain that their loss of employment was due to poor officials (something that they have no control over).

T

Fired coaches want to blame officials?

Most often, the teams that took first and second in the league had the same officials as the team who finished last.

What a crock.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Fired coaches want to blame officials?

Most often, the teams that took first and second in the league had the same officials as the team who finished last.

What a crock.

Yep, and when they lose, it wasn't because of the three errors, the walks, the bunt not executed correctly, and the absolute banger that we missed at 1B because F4 bobbled the ball twice, his throw pulled F3 off of the base, and we safe him on the swipe tag which "costed them the game"

I've seen it and heard it a million times.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Yep, and when they lose, it wasn't because of the three errors, the walks, the bunt not executed correctly, and the absolute banger that we missed at 1B because F4 bobbled the ball twice, his throw pulled F3 off of the base, and we safe him on the swipe tag which "costed them the game"

I've seen it and heard it a million times.

The last time I heard something like this was at the end of an 8-run ballgame that eliminated the team from the tournament. I couldn't help but chuckle with my partner as I ignored the coach completely while heading to the car.

[Tim C]

"If you don't want an army of umpires doing your bidding - good or evil - that's entirely up to you..."

Actually, I have NO IDEA what this statement means.

T

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Actually, I have NO IDEA what this statement means.

T

It's OK, the rest of us do.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Why does there need to be some type of nefarious reason for the OP.

I thought it was a rather mudane topic that would roll over and die quickly.

Not so much, actually.

Was just trying to inject a little levity into a topic that had gone on for a while - won't make that mistake again. If you don't want an army of umpires doing your bidding - good or evil - that's entirely up to you...

Nationally more and more coaches, at the high school level, get fired for their win/loss record. Many times these same coaches complain that their loss of employment was due to poor officials (something that they have no control over).

They have no control over it, and they generally have no way to prove it, either.

It's the way of it - coaches and players will blame the officials for their failings as their first option.

And it's all levels, not just HS. I worked an NABA game Sunday, and as I left the field a player said "Thanks for calling me out there, Blue", referring to a banger at first in the 5th or so. I didn't bother to mention his team had 20 other outs to work with, or that they'd had the lead more than once in the game, or that they went into the bottom of the 7th defending a 1 run lead, and couldn't hold it. No point to it - it was CLEARLY my fault, on that one call, in a 7-6 or 8-7 game.

That's why I said, a few pages ago, that coach input really needs to be minimized, if not outright ignored, since nearly all of their ratings will based on the emotions of winning and losing. Having evaluators from the umpire association itself is ALWAYS the better option. Sure, they might be biased - since umpires are the "third team" - but they won't have the emotional attachments a player or coach would have.

[JRutledge]

Guys,

The system that you are under might be the issue. NO system is ever perfect. But I like our system because it limits the input of coaches and even limits the peer evaluations. You have to do many other things to be successful and if you can work, someone will find you. But the reality is most of us are not honest with themselves about their abilities and cry about evaluations when they do not get where they want to. Someone is always going to have some say and someone is can is always going to decide who should or should not get opportunities. Work within your system and get over it.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

A peer review system is possibly even worse. The pettiness and jealousy involved in this kind of system kills any chance it has at being effective. If a superior or a small team of superiors is doing the evaluating, then it has a chance of yielding some accurate assessments and helpful results.

And that's not just in the umpire fraternity; peer reviews are similarly ineffective most everywhere else they're tried. It's the easy way out for an organization that doesn't want to take the time or make the effort at properly training and evaluating its employees.

Is it really? If you work a lot of games and you are evaluated fairly by most of the people you work with (assuming you're in the same peer group as your partner), you can dismiss the statistical outliers. If you're not in the same peer group as your partner, then the system can eliminate that evaluation completely -- and transparently, if the assignor or state association wishes.

Here, with coaches, they really aren't required to submit a rating. Some take the process seriously, others only rate when they want to "get even" with an official. I've never had a sport (other than football) in any season where more than 50% of the coaches even bothered submitting a rating.

In an association, peer evaluation can be made as a requirement (do it, or don't get paid). While some people will downgrade others to boost their own rankings and others will collude with regular partners to boost each other, those things can be easily spotted by those that look at the numbers.

It's better than a system where coach who gets ejected has the right to rate an umpire who's just doing his job.

[Blindguy]

We are still speaking about how to rate officials, rather than how to enhance officiating. Tee started this thread because, I believe, he has just entered the coaching ranks. I would be interested in Tee's opinion; on if he believes coach's ratings enhance officiating.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Blindguy

We are still speaking about how to rate officials, rather than how to enhance officiating. Tee started this thread because, I believe, he has just entered the coaching ranks. I would be interested in Tee's opinion; on if he believes coach's ratings enhance officiating.

Well...it's kind of a loaded question if Tee would be doing the ratings. Personally, I'd welcome a rating/evaluation from Tee...he could rip me apart and really help me improve versus getting the screws on a rating because of an ejection, one bang/bang call that could've gone either way, etc...