Urgent: Reasonable to have coaches evaluate umpires?

[JHSump]

NEED QUICK FEEDBACK.

 

My association is having an election for a new association commissioner.  

 

There are two candidates.  Candidate A is the current commissioner.  Currently, coaches do not evaluate umpires.  Candidate B says he will do more training, more evaluations, do evaluations himself, and collect evaluations from coaches (through Arbiter).

 

I like the idea of more training and evaluations.  But, here is what I want feedback on from you guys: Is it common to have coaches evaluate umpires?  Is it reasonable to have coaches evaluate umpires?  Other comments?

 

We are being asked to vote by postal mail, postmarked tomorrow (June 26).

 

[BRUMP]

i wouldn't want a coach who has never umpired a day in his life evaluating me

[grayhawk]

Hmm, the word "evaluation" can be tricky.  In the traditional sense, the idea of coaches evaluating umpires is completely ludicrous.  Of course they should not "evaluate" umpires.

 

However, I believe that in the aggregate, the opinions of coaches with respect to the quality of those who umpire their games IS relevant.  Not in the sense of paying heed to an upset coach about a ruling or outcome, but in the sense that it can be useful to recognize a pattern.

 

Umpire A goes through a season of 15 games with no complaints and complimentary feedback.

Umpire B goes through a season of 15 games with several complaints that are similar in nature.

Umpire C goes through a season of 15 games with mostly complimentary feedback, with 1 scathing review by a coach that lost the game on a close play.

 

Clearly, Umpire B is someone that needs extra attention, and a full evaluation by a qualified evaluator.  Umpire C is probably fine, but it would be a good idea to go out and evaluate.

 

So, I believe it can be a good idea, but only if implemented correctly.

[Stan W.]

There is a small number of coaches in my area that could do umpire evaluations and provide actual value for the process...........another portion would take it as an opportunity to stick it to an umpire whom they dont care for.........and a sizeable portion who wouldnt have enough rules and mechanics knowledge to provide any sort of knowledgable/workable data..........

 

If coaches are included then their input would have to weighted to reflect this..........I wouldnt reccomend it....I wouldnt want any member of my assoc altering his normal game to lobby a coach to give him a positive rating...

 

However, I am all for training and evaluations...........of course this is a tough job.......starting with the evaluator.......they must be an unbiased, properly trained, and IMHO, a respected working umpire......there should be multiple evals in a season......I dont want to hang a bad eval on someone based on one game,...a peer evaluation, properly weighted, is an insight into skills and real world behavior.......an additional point credit for attending meetings, trainings and approved clinics is another thing I'd promote.......

 

Here is my thought....

 

2 in person evals........1 as an observer and one as a partner if possible. the lowest eval is 30% and the highest is 40% of the total 70%

1 credit for meetings, trainings and clinics.......10%

1 peer review......10%

1 executive board review to include assignor.......and coach input if approved........10%

 

The goal is to evaluate to get a picture of what bench strength your association has and what training needs are for next year...........and not pick new members for the good old boy club...... dont let evals become the carrot and the stick......

[GoodOldGus]

High School coaches in Wisconsin are suppose to rank each umpire using on online rating system after each game.  If a low rating is given to an experienced umpire (it depends on the Level of the umpire), the coach must enter a written explanation for the low rating.  Your average rating in addition to your Level and is taken into account when post-season assignments are made.  It is a very flawed system because of many reasons.  Coaches with "agendas" (both good and bad) can severely skew an umpire's ranking in addition to the fact that several, if not most, coaches do NOT enter rankings.  As an umpire, you can view your average rating and the schools that have ranked you.  BUT....you cannot see the score each school gave you and/or how many times each school has ranked you.  There really has to be a better way........

[LMSANS]

In our area, varsity assignments are based on the schools preferred list. Each school can submit a list of 25 umpires. #1 and 2 will do the first game and so on. If your not on list you can do fill in without being on the list. No soliciting is allowed for lists. Larry Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[mstaylor]

We do peer evauls but the coaches can rate through arbiter but most don't. Only a couple would carry any weight anyway but it does five idea the perception an umpire is presenting. I know guys that have excellent rules and mechanics knowledge but can't manage a game to save their life. If they get consistent bad evauls from coaches then obviously they need more training in game management .

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

[johnnyg08]

We get evaluated by coaches in Minnesota.  it's a joke.

[johnnyg08]

losing coaches always give lower ratings.

 

you make a call they disagree with the real pricks will automatically give you an emotional "1" (the lowest out of 7).

 

They're grading me on positioning, yet many of them know nothing about positioning.  

 

The coaches are also very paranoid, so it's completely anonymous.  You don't know who gave you what rating, but sometimes it's easy to figure out.

 

It's something, but I'd rather not have it.

[gnhbua93]

Bottom line vote for A.

[scrounge]

I would much rather have peer ratings than a coach's rating....the functionality is already in Arbiter as well.

[renegadewolf]

To answer the question plainly and to the point, no it is not reasonable to have coaches evaluate the umpires.  Even the most cursory thought on this question reveals a very poor idea at best and outright nonsensical and damaging to reputations at it's worst.  While I'm not going to say only a peer based evaluation should be used, a system that employs people who are knowledgeable about the rules, positioning and game management is what aught to be used if you want more accurate picture of how umpires are performing.  Some coaches may even fall into this category and let them evaluate during a game that they have no vested interest in (not their team or division) so that they can be more objective about their evaluations.  While one can never remove the whole personality aspect out of the evaluation, trying to limit the opertunities for abuse would be helpful

[soapbox]

I have a coach who can evaluate.  He can because as he said, "I know the game very well".  He knows where a pitch was from 3B coaching box just by seeing where F2 caught it.  He's also unbiased.  And he knows the biggest common rule that I was unaware of, but he let me know it point blank.  That rule is, give the close call to the home team that pays you, it's the right thing to do.  Did I mention he also is a college coach? 

[baseball1]

No, coaches are too subjective. Here's a scenario...last inning, home team down by 1, bases loaded, ump punches out their best hitter to end the game one coach thinks you're a hero the other thinks you're a zero.

 

I'd rather be evaluated by my peers.

[baseball1]

one more thing...as for " preferred lists"...home team has the vouchers and more likely to remember your name so if you punch out that batter in the last inning to end the game do you really think you'll get on that home teams list?

[alan2703]

I would think it MIGHT be useful if the question that are asked of the coaches are reviewed by peers, and are simple yes or no type questions. Also if both teams do not do the eval then it would not fly. As to the weight the eval would have I would say very little I believe my peers would be a more useful eval.

[johnnyg08]

Evaluations for things such as:

Was the umpire on time?

If you had to approach the umpire about a game issue was the umpire approachable?

I would open to those types of evaluations. I would also want to know who gave me what rating and if specifically low, I would like to know why. Even if they had to keep it anonymous, the comments about the ratings are important for my growth. If I don't get any feedback besides a number, it makes it tough to improve the ratings.

[GoodOldGus]

I would think it MIGHT be useful if the question that are asked of the coaches are reviewed by peers, and are simple yes or no type questions. Also if both teams do not do the eval then it would not fly. As to the weight the eval would have I would say very little I believe my peers would be a more useful eval.

 

You might be on to something.....Here's a thought:

 

In order for the evaluation to count towards the Umpire's overall rating, BOTH coaches must enter a score for each game.  The average of the two scores is the Umpire's rating for that specific game.  If the losing coach gives a 1 and the winning coach gives a 10 (hypothetical 1-10 rating system), the Umpire's rating for that game would be 5.5.  If either coach fails to enter a rating, then it's not used in the Umpire's overall rating. 

 

It's certainly not perfect, but might be a good option!

[JHSump]

Thanks, everyone, for your input.  It was very helpful.

 

I just mailed my ballot.  I'd rather not say here which candidate I chose, but if you are dying to know, PM me.

 

Meanwhile, the general thread on coach evaluations can and should of course continue, if others want to weigh in.

[JaxRolo]

I would let a coach evaluate me if I can evaluate his game management.

[James Walker]

Coaches can't evaluate positioning, mechanics etc. They have no clue what's going on. That's better suited to peer evaluation. But they can sometimes be an excellent source for game management, rules knowledge, and the like. Not taken individually, of course, but as a group. And only as a small part of the bigger evaluation process.

[HeadHunterLA]

Coaches can't evaluate positioning, mechanics etc. They have no clue what's going on. That's better suited to peer evaluation. But they can sometimes be an excellent source for game management, rules knowledge, and the like. Not taken individually, of course, but as a group. And only as a small part of the bigger evaluation process.

Like this and I have no problem being evaluated by coaches.

[hckyosgood30]

In our HS unit coaches don't "evaluate" however they do give their 2 cents to our assignor!  And this is both good and bad.  In college its common place.  In our state coaches overall scores combined with evaluators scores can get you post season.   My thought is this.  If you have a clinic where the Board can watch guys and talk with the instructors after.  And then have 2 evaluations combined with coaches overall rating then the best should rise to the top.  If you do 30 regular season games.  Then you get 60 coaches evals.  1 As2Hole shouldn't hurt a good umpires score.  B/c he's shown talent at the clinics, participating in meetings.  Good test scores.  Solid evals and thus constant high marks from the assignor via word of mouth.  Adding coaches thoughts shouldn't scare anyone that is worth their salt.  If a coach is a piece then it will show across the board to your board.  Thus, his "eval" will be taken with a grain of salt.  But if say 25 of those 60 coaches say things like bad strike zone, bad uniform, poor timing, no hustle, doesn't look like he cares.  Then it maybe time for that guy to be re-evaluated.   Just my $0.02

[johnnyg08]

hckyosgood30, on 26 Jun 2013 - 6:32 PM, said:

In our HS unit coaches don't "evaluate" however they do give their 2 cents to our assignor! And this is both good and bad. In college its common place. In our state coaches overall scores combined with evaluators scores can get you post season. My thought is this. If you have a clinic where the Board can watch guys and talk with the instructors after. And then have 2 evaluations combined with coaches overall rating then the best should rise to the top. If you do 30 regular season games. Then you get 60 coaches evals. 1 As2Hole shouldn't hurt a good umpires score. B/c he's shown talent at the clinics, participating in meetings. Good test scores. Solid evals and thus constant high marks from the assignor via word of mouth. Adding coaches thoughts shouldn't scare anyone that is worth their salt. If a coach is a piece then it will show across the board to your board. Thus, his "eval" will be taken with a grain of salt. But if say 25 of those 60 coaches say things like bad strike zone, bad uniform, poor timing, no hustle, doesn't look like he cares. Then it maybe time for that guy to be re-evaluated. Just my $0.02

This is a really good point and I've been told to not worry about it, but it still bugs me simply because they lost or they might be ticked off, he screws w/ my rating score that I bust my butt to improve every year.

[NCAAump2]

In Missouri, coaches are required to rate officials for each varsity game they have (1 being the best, 5 the worst.)  At the end of the season, we are given an average rating (2.4, for example.)  But we are never told or shown game-by-game our ratings or which coach gave us which rating and so on.  It's a joke of a system, when they have no idea what they are evaluating us on in the first place.