The top of the strike zone

[Thunderheads]

 

 

I think if I were evaluated by K-Zone I'd be fine.

 

Yes - you probably do. 

 

I'm out.

 

 

Is this really necessary?  My point was that I don't call actual strikes balls.  Why is it necessary to be such a pr__k?

 

Relax Scott, ... he's poking fun .....

[umpire_scott]

This reminds me of Evanses (I think) states of the umpire.  Does anyone else remember this?  You go from:

 

1. Concious Incompetence -- you know that your bad

2. Unconcious Incompetence -- your still bad but think your good

3. Unconcious Competence - your good but don't know it

4. Concious Competence -- your good and you know it

 

(And I might have those slightly wrong).I

 

I would say I'm a 2.75.  I know I'm not "bad".  Far too many umpires I've worked with for the first time have gone out of their way to complement my zone, completely unsolicited.  It's one thing if I ask "How was my zone".  But I've had umpires after a game just come out and say they thought my zone was exceptional.  I seldom have coaches or teams argue my zone other then the occasional "that was the same as the last pitch" or "call them both ways".  But I may go 4-5 games without a peep about my zone.  If I was "bad" I think I'd hear about it more than that.   I'm just a perfectionist and so when I have a game where I hear complaints I start to question myself.  The reason I questioned myself regarding the Legion game is because it was the first game I had ever done at that age level.

[Thunderheads]

This reminds me of Evanses (I think) states of the umpire.  Does anyone else remember this?  You go from:

 

1. Concious Incompetence -- you know that your bad

2. Unconcious Incompetence -- your still bad but think your good

3. Unconcious Competence - your good but don't know it

4. Concious Competence -- your good and you know it

 

(And I might have those slightly wrong).

 

Scott -- your a 2.

 

(Note that I didn't say you were #2, or full of #2. lol. )

Why do you have to be / fall into one of these categories?

 

Why can't you think you're a decent umpire, and be a decent umpire?!

[umpire_scott]

 

 

 

I think if I were evaluated by K-Zone I'd be fine.

 

Yes - you probably do. 

 

I'm out.

 

 

Is this really necessary?  My point was that I don't call actual strikes balls.  Why is it necessary to be such a pr__k?

 

Relax Scott, ... he's poking fun .....

 

 

I don't see it that way.  I don't think there is anything funny about mocking a fellow umpire.  Plus based on previous threads it's obvious that he doesn't think very highly of me as an umpire.  It would be different if he made the comment to someone he had a positive history with.  I took this as pretty mean spirited.

[Mike Prince]

And another thread shot to hell...

[umpire_scott]

And another thread shot to hell...

 

Lighten up.  Why is the thread shot to hell.  There are plenty of good insightful posts on here.  Of course there is the occasional one where someone feels the need to be insulting and then gets called out for it.  No biggie in my book.

[Thunderheads]

Let me guess Scott, ....Dragon had something to say about the "cleaning off bases thread"?

 

If you haven't noticed yet, this entire site is full of quips and jabs here and there ...  97% of it in fun, and USUALLY based on a prior post, or comment made somewhere .....it is what it is....

[Mike Prince]

 

And another thread shot to hell...

 

Lighten up.  Why is the thread shot to hell.  There are plenty of good insightful posts on here.  Of course there is the occasional one where someone feels the need to be insulting and then gets called out for it.  No biggie in my book.

 

 

Because you refuse to accept the answers that good, experienced umpires give you and derail the thread in the process, there are several examples of this in the past few weeks.  This in turn gets under the skin of your fellow umpires on here who then let you know about it and "insult" you.

[grayhawk]

I learned it this way (and I may be wrong):

 

Unconscious Incompetence (you suck, but don't know why)

Conscious Incompetence (you suck, but know why)

Conscious Competence (you're good, but have to think about what to do)

Unconscious Competence (you're good, and it's second nature)

[noumpere]

I learned it this way (and I may be wrong):

 

Unconscious Incompetence (you suck, but don't know why)

Conscious Incompetence (you suck, but know why)

Conscious Competence (you're good, but have to think about what to do)

Unconscious Competence (you're good, and it's second nature)

That sounds like it.  Thanks.

[blue23ll]

Scott, here is the important part of all this. You stated: "The reason I questioned myself regarding the Legion game is because it was the first game I had ever done at that age level."  Every first time will be a learning experience. The coaches will test you, the players will test you, the pace of play will test you. The key is to concentrate more than ever. You can chose to buckle under the stress or elevate your game to the pressure.

[Thunderheads]

Like I stated,....maybe there are in betweens too

 

Unconscious Incompetence (you suck, but don't know why)

Conscious Incompetence (you suck, but know why)

Semi conscious Competence ( you're decent, and only think you're decent)

Conscious Competence (you're good, but have to think about what to do)

Unconscious Competence (you're good, and it's second nature)

 

[BRUMP]

 

Unconscious Incompetence (you suck, but don't know why)

Conscious Incompetence (you suck, but know why)

Semi conscious Competence ( you're decent, and only think you're decent)

Conscious Competence (you're good, but have to think about what to do)

Unconscious Competence (you're good, and it's second nature)

A**hole (your a know it all who really just sucks)

[Mike Prince]

What about comatose incompetence - where you suck but you are so blissfully oblivious to it that everyone sees it but you (and no, I am not talking about anyone in this thread before that spirals out of control )

 

   

[umpire_scott]

 

 

And another thread shot to hell...

 

Lighten up.  Why is the thread shot to hell.  There are plenty of good insightful posts on here.  Of course there is the occasional one where someone feels the need to be insulting and then gets called out for it.  No biggie in my book.

 

 

Because you refuse to accept the answers that good, experienced umpires give you and derail the thread in the process, there are several examples of this in the past few weeks.  This in turn gets under the skin of your fellow umpires on here who then let you know about it and "insult" you.

 

 

I just don't understand why I'm "not allowed" to disagree.  I don't refuse to accept an answer, unless that answer is ingrained in "that's just how it is".  I have an opinion and they have an opinion.  Then when I question their opinion it gets under their skin?  It doesn't get under my skin when they question mine.

[flastyle727]

 

 

 

And another thread shot to hell...

 

Lighten up.  Why is the thread shot to hell.  There are plenty of good insightful posts on here.  Of course there is the occasional one where someone feels the need to be insulting and then gets called out for it.  No biggie in my book.

 

 

Because you refuse to accept the answers that good, experienced umpires give you and derail the thread in the process, there are several examples of this in the past few weeks.  This in turn gets under the skin of your fellow umpires on here who then let you know about it and "insult" you.

 

 

I just don't understand why I'm "not allowed" to disagree.  I don't refuse to accept an answer, unless that answer is ingrained in "that's just how it is".  I have an opinion and they have an opinion.  Then when I question their opinion it gets under their skin?  It doesn't get under my skin when they question mine.

 

In the military we call you the "Why for" guys.....because you ask Why on everything. Sometimes the answer is just "because I said too" or "because that's how we do it"

 

Your allowed to disagree, however just like an umpire to a coach, even if you disagree it doesn't change anything.

 

Just let things go....

[PonyUmpire]

Jeez, I can't understand all these insinuations that scott is a bad umpire.  He's on these forums trying to get better, and clearly cares about doing a good job on the field.  If he thought he was God in uniform, as some suggest, why would he be regularly asking questions about how to improve?  To be honest, I agree with lots of his comments.  If calling balls and strikes was as easy as remembering a few buzz phrases (like "if its borderline it's a strike"), then it wouldn't take years of experience to be a truly good ball/strike umpire.  Every umpire has his own unique tendencies when it comes to calling pitches, and what works for one umpire isn't always going to work for another.  What game participants care about is accuracy and consistency; they couldn't care less about what goes on in the umpires head before he calls each pitch.

[BRUMP]

Jeez, I can't understand all these insinuations that scott is a bad umpire.  He's on these forums trying to get better, and clearly cares about doing a good job on the field.  If he thought he was God in uniform, as some suggest, why would he be regularly asking questions about how to improve?  To be honest, I agree with lots of his comments.  If calling balls and strikes was as easy as remembering a few buzz phrases (like "if its borderline it's a strike"), then it wouldn't take years of experience to be a truly good ball/strike umpire.  Every umpire has his own unique tendencies when it comes to calling pitches, and what works for one umpire isn't always going to work for another.  What game participants care about is accuracy and consistency; they couldn't care less about what goes on in the umpires head before he calls each pitch.

 

+1

[blue23ll]

Anyone who tries to evaluate how good an umpire is by how he/she posts on an internet board is a fool. Nobody, especially ME ever insinuated that Scott is a bad umpire, I have never worked with him, so I couldn't say. I have worked with other's on this board and I am sure they could vouch for the kind of umpire I am. I think Scott wants to learn and improve, so I will continue to give him my thoughts. He might not like them all, but so be it.

[BRUMP]

Anyone who tries to evaluate how good an umpire is by how he/she posts on an internet board is a fool. Nobody, especially ME ever insinuated that Scott is a bad umpire, I have never worked with him, so I couldn't say. I have worked with other's on this board and I am sure they could vouch for the kind of umpire I am. I think Scott wants to learn and improve, so I will continue to give him my thoughts. He might not like them all, but so be it.

 

i think the willingness to learn shows that he cares...thats the only thing i was insinuating...obviously i have never worked with him

[HokieUmp]

 

Anyone who tries to evaluate how good an umpire is by how he/she posts on an internet board is a fool. Nobody, especially ME ever insinuated that Scott is a bad umpire, I have never worked with him, so I couldn't say. I have worked with other's on this board and I am sure they could vouch for the kind of umpire I am. I think Scott wants to learn and improve, so I will continue to give him my thoughts. He might not like them all, but so be it.

 

i think the willingness to learn shows that he cares...thats the only thing i was insinuating...obviously i have never worked with him

 

 

God bless you for your generosity, but I think if you read back over posts connected with him, the phrase "willingness to learn" doesn't come to mind.

 

Now, if you consider "yeah-but"ing an answer to death, or otherwise trying to convince the world of your solitary position, a 'willingness to learn,' then you might be correct.  I do not share your optimism.

[RichMSN]

 

 

Anyone who tries to evaluate how good an umpire is by how he/she posts on an internet board is a fool. Nobody, especially ME ever insinuated that Scott is a bad umpire, I have never worked with him, so I couldn't say. I have worked with other's on this board and I am sure they could vouch for the kind of umpire I am. I think Scott wants to learn and improve, so I will continue to give him my thoughts. He might not like them all, but so be it.

 

i think the willingness to learn shows that he cares...thats the only thing i was insinuating...obviously i have never worked with him

 

 

God bless you for your generosity, but I think if you read back over posts connected with him, the phrase "willingness to learn" doesn't come to mind.

 

Now, if you consider "yeah-but"ing an answer to death, or otherwise trying to convince the world of your solitary position, a 'willingness to learn,' then you might be correct.  I do not share your optimism.

 

 

I really don't have an opinion of Scott one way or another, except to remember something someone once said (that I really like):

 

"Everyone has an opinion, but not all opinions are equal."

[UmpJeff]

This reminds me of Evanses (I think) states of the umpire.  Does anyone else remember this?  You go from:

 

1. Concious Incompetence -- you know that your bad

2. Unconcious Incompetence -- your still bad but think your good

3. Unconcious Competence - your good but don't know it

4. Concious Competence -- your good and you know it

 

(And I might have those slightly wrong).

 

Scott -- your a 2.

 

(Note that I didn't say you were #2, or full of #2. lol. )

Don't forget TROLL... He's a 1 in that category. 

[BigUmp56]

After reading a large number of posts made by Scott I find him to be passionate about this vocation, which is a step in the right direction. What he is as an umpire, is very green and inexperienced, and by default that makes him a poor all around official. Just as the rest of us were in our first few years of calling games. And it's alright to be a poor umpire early in a career, provided the official has a solid plan to get better. Arguing points on the Internet with men who were where Scott is as an official years and years ago is an impediment to becoming better.

When I was a bit younger I ran large electrical construction projects. I always tried to work closely with the apprentices. Invariably we would have one or two impetuous apprentices who took no advice from seasoned veterans because "they knew better". It was only after being knocked on their a$$es a few times for not properly locking something out, or cutting themselves terribly while using the wrong tool that they would finally catch on and listen to what they were being told. It's an eerily similar thing to see how Scott approaches advice on this firum.

It's been often said that a wise man learns from his mistakes. I think a truly wise man learns from the mistakes of others......

Tim.

[umpire_scott]

I find it a little humorous to return to the board after a day and find I was the topic of posts back and forth.

 

The way I see this is very simple.  I could be completely wrong, but here goes:

 

Most of the experienced umpires on this board are used to being mentors.  The umpires that they mentor look up to them and never question anything they say.  They are used to their words being gospel.  The one guy with a military background even commented on "those guys" in the military.  Well obviously the  military has to be that way.  As Jack Nicholson said in A Few Good Men; "you follow orders or people die, it's that simple".  Well umpiring a baseball game lacks the gravitas of the military.  I think that quite likely the umpires that these mentors have worked with have probably been younger as well.  So the bottom line is that they do not like being questioned.  Therefore they will not like me.  I do question everything. 

 

As for my experience I have umpired for over 10 years so I'm not green.  Now I will say that during that time I did not look at is a vocation, but more as something that I enjoyed and could make some extra money at.  I've always, no matter what organization I've worked for, been considered a very good umpire.  I have not however been subject to many formal evaluations, so my mechanics, and rules knowledge are lacking.  But my hustle, positioning, and judgement I'm very confident are as good as anyone.  At least they are as good or better than most of the umpires I've worked with.

 

If you look at my posts, most of the stuff I argue with are instances where the experienced umpires want me to just bow down and except their expertise.  That's just not going to happen with me.  I don't know anyone on here.  I have no idea how experienced they are or what kind of credentials they have.  I treat them all the same.  There are plenty of instances where I asked advice and took it, when the response made logical sense.