Tips for incorporating conflicting advice from evaluators?
 

Does anyone have any advice for what to do when you receive conflicting advice on your game?

This year I went to two NCAA camps and had the privilege of being evaluated by well-known umpires with WCWS experience. The first was in Colorado over the July 4th. The second camp was this past weekend in Phoenix, AZ. Between the two camps, I got exactly opposite feedback on my plate work. One said I was setting too low, another thought I was too high, and the third commented that my set position was erratic and inconsistent for LH batters, while great for RH batters.

How should I balance this feedback out to improve my game? Should I get a third/fourth opinion at the next camp, ask my primary assignor, or ask some of my partners who are active NCAA officials for a courtesy evaluation?

Adjust/adapt to the evaluator who is there.

Does not surprise me. One reason why I stopped playing the games played to get to higher levels of officiating. Found my niche, and stayed with the things that work for me.

[QUOTE=teebob21;967211]Does anyone have any advice for what to do when you receive conflicting advice on your game?


Did you have an opportunity to talk with these evaluators?
Not much help unless there is some further discussion.

No input throughout the evaluation in a training setting? Sounds more like a test to me.

If your set-up was the same during both then (too high/to low) doesn't make much sense and should probably be tossed out. Would a fourth eval. say, nice height on the set up or perhaps agree with one of the others?

As far as the lefty thing, what does that mean?
Are you working the slot on both sides of the plate? Should be.
Do you feel something that matches the eval with the lefties?

Yes, you should be offering/begging for fellow umpires to evaluate you and you should in turn do the same for them.
Take the info from all evals and bounce off what you are doing out there.

How's your strike zone being perceived during games? Are you getting grumblings from those low outside pitches (if your too low) these can be "tough to see."
Same if your too high the ball looks way down there (low).

And if you are getting grumbling is it from the D or the O. These are all evaluations in their own right, so you have to weigh all the information, and the more you get the better. Always talk to your partner after the game while the info is still fresh.

A very wise man once told me that I would have to decide who to listen to, and who to ignore, as I attempted to learn the skill of football officiating. His statement was that all 20 year veterans were not equal; in fact, some were first year officials for the 20th time, some second year officials for the 19th time, etc.

At some point in your career, you made a decision whose evaluation, feedback and advice on your local level was worth listening; other experienced umpires you decided weren't helpful. Unfortunately, it is true at every level; it is clear and obvious that not all WCWS veterans earned their way with the same "scale".

It is equally obvious that not all are good clinicians, evaluators, or capable of translating their success to teaching points. It's well known that star players are often poor coaches; it is reasonable to expect a similar result from "star" umpires.

My advice is to try whatever is recommended by anyone appropriately credentialed (especially if the same evaluator is seeing you again!!); and then YOU decide, along with those you trust the most, if that has made your game better, or simply changed what you are doing. I also have heard the "too high" and "too low" from different evaluators without having changed anything; I strive for my eyes set at the top of the zone, and frankly, when working the slot (aside from when we are squeezed), I keep wondering who or why we should care in the slightest how high our head is compared to the catcher that we are looking PAST, not over or though.

That said, I am a long time Fireworks guy, and believe that the majority of the evaluators there in Colorado that week, most long time friends, are HIGHLY credible. Not familiar with who the Phoenix crew may have been. I would be very interested in a PM note if you are willing to privately share names and your observations; most here know I'm not shy about sharing my opinions.

Steve, this is a great reply. Thanks for the reminder that it's up to me to decide how to best improve my game, and what feedback to incorporate/throw out in the interest of getting better.

Honestly, if the third person is correct (you were inconsistent and erratic), the first two could also both have been correct... on the pitches they were watching.

Fix the inconsistency first. THEN, if you are too high or too low, adjust.

Um...see out a 6'6" Elderly wise black man for guidance.....He will not steer you wrong.....

Or see me.

Is it possible that you overcorrected? Perhaps both were right.

This is totally possible. Without game film on both games, I have no way of knowing. That said, I'm not that worried about it (plate stance improvements) - teams don't often complain about my zone and the evaluators this week said the ball/strike calls were solid even though they had nitpicks on the stance. I was mostly curious how others have processed conflicting feedback like that...and ATLSteve's response was super helpful.

FWIW...I had one evaluator tell me I was setting up too high and another tell me I was setting up too low. The kicker was that they were both looking at the exact same video of me doing cage work!

Sometimes you just have to make eye conact, act like you're listening intently, then nod and say, "Okay"...

But, I would follow up by asking where excatly I should be lining up my head height. "Too high" or "too low" is kind of vague and doesn't really define where you're expected to be.