
Out of all the things you've heard and read regarding the poor umpiring, the one thing you haven't heard or read is to replace...or even fire...those umpires. Instead, a lot of people would rather give the umpires instant replay. Don't get better umpires...give them something that will cover up their ineptness. Don't you wish you could eff up at work, only to have some machine correct the mistake for you? And even better...when you do eff up, nobody says a single word about replacing you. Congratulations, MLB umpires! You make 6 figures, and you don't even have to be that good at your job. The American dream!
I have a part-time job as a mechanic at a bowling alley. And if I don't do my job well, do you think they will buy something that will do my job for me? Hell no. I'll get fired, and replaced by somebody that can do the job well. And unlike an MLB umpire that is making between $120,000 and $350,000 (
source), I'm making a measly $9/hr.
One of the funniest things I've read recently was
this. It turns out that MLB is not going to put the "best" umpires on the field in the World Series. No...they are going to use the "most experienced". Great!
One thing though...do you know what umpire, currently working in the ALCS, is one of the most experienced, with 26.5 years in MLB? I'll give you a hint...it's the same guy that not only missed the call at 3B in which Nick Swisher had apparently left the bag early on a tag play, but also missed the fact that both Robinson Cano and Jorge Posada were tagged out since neither one was touching a base. It was Tim McClelland. So much for the "most experienced" thing.
By the way, Phil Cuzzi and CB Bucknor, two other umpires that have made bone-headed calls/non-calls this postseason, both have 10 years experience in MLB. Which seems like a lot, especially considering that these guys umpire 10-12 years in the minors, and more than that in college and/or high school. However, I found a couple of umpires that have been in MLB for 30 (Derryl Cousins) and 32 years (Jerry Crawford). You can see the full roster of MLB umpires
here.
I just read a good interview, from The Cleveland Plain Dealer in August 2005, with MLB Vice President of Umpiring, Mike Port. You can see it for yourself
here. A few things really stood out to me.
PD: Is there a grading system for umpires?
MP: There is. It's more of a pass / fail situation. We have certain
categories where they are graded in terms of exceeded / met / did not
meet. It's not anything in terms of a numerical scale, but we do
evaluate virtually everything related to umpiring.
Pass/Fail? Really? As a college student, is there anything better than taking a pass/fail course? Where you can get a 65, but instead of having to deal with a "D" on your record, you simply get a "Pass". But we all know that real college courses don't do that. Yet, in a job that makes a person up to $350,000 a year, they don't give "real" grades. But a simple "pass" or "fail". That's ludicrous. How do you look at the grades to determine who gets a postseason spot? From memory? Memory of all 68 MLB umpires? Yeah...right.
I'm glad that the umpires do get some sort of grading throughout the year. And some even get punished for really bad calls, or whatever. But do you think there's any college that gives out their Magna *** Laude based on what the professors remember? I'm pretty sure they actually look at student's GPAs. And remember...those GPAs are established using real grades, and aren't based on how many "pass/fails" the student received.
PD: Are they graded each game?
MP: Yes - from every game that is observed firsthand, which is just
over 55 percent of them. In those games, we look not only at the
pitch-evaluation system, but missed calls, ejections, other situations.
We watch demeanor, hustle, form, concentration.
Good. But can we give them an actual grade on those things. Not simply a "pass" or "fail".
Okay...so the umpires actually get an "exceeded", "met", "did not meet". Not a "pass" or "fail". But honestly...is there really much of a difference? Out of 68 umpires, can you really see who's the best based on those 3 things? No...you can't. Moving on...
PD: Can an umpire, regardless of service time, get demoted to the
minors because of too many mistakes or consistently poor ball-strike
calls?
MP: In a word, no. The system is not set up that way. We believe the
best point of evaluation comes when the umpire is added to the staff.
These guys trained for a substantial amount of time to get where they
are. You need to hire the right people.
What!?!? Umpires have tenure? WTF? That's complete bull. Do I really need to explain how messed up that is? I mean, you do know that as you get older your reaction time, and sight, tend to get worse? Right? So it's possible that you were one of the best after 10 years in the game, but once you were around for 20 years you just weren't able to do the job well because you're body failed you. Ugh.
Look. Keep the grading system. But instead of "exceed", "met", "did not meet". Start giving out real grades. Hell, make it a 1-10 system. And then, at the end of the regular season, you can make a true list of the best umpires...and put them into the postseason. And if an umpire's final grade is low enough, say "thanks, but we're letting you go". And then, after using the same system in the minors, promote the umpire with the highest grades to MLB.
Put the best umpires on the field....period. Because by not doing so, you're opening yourselves up to major scrutiny, or worse yet...getting replaced by cameras and/or robots.