Higher pay for umpires in the minors. This is crucial. The lack of pay for minor league umpires drives a lot of skilled people out of the industry, since umpires spend a decade or more in the minors before making it to the bigs.

I think that computerized homeplate umpiring should be implemented in all parks for calling balls and strikes... They have the technology now. It's certainly more accurate and consistent that a lot of the umpires. Their game calling has been horrendous this year in all the games I've seen.

While I'm certain the union would never go for this, I'd like to see umpires get some sort of demerit point. And maybe bonus points for handling a situation particularly well.
When you get enough demerit points you're sent to the minors, and the best ump comes up.
You'd definitely have to raise minor league umpire salaries for this to work though.

What's scary is that MLB umpires are far superior to their counterparts in the NHL, NFL, and especially the NBA.

What I find disturbing is the reputation calls that a lot of umpires give to the established star hitters. I've watched a lot of Barry Bonds PAs and calls that the pitcher would routinely get against an ordinary hitter on the outside corner are called balls. In a way, the umpires are contributing to all the pitching around Bonds receives because nearly every pitcher is thinking "If I don't get the corners against him I'm not going to pitch to him", and rightly so.

This phenomenon is not unique to Bonds, but it's the most visible example of it.

The other thing I hate is when an umpire will call a 1-2 pitch a ball and then the same pitch a strike when the count is 3 and 2. This is totally unacceptable to me - the strikezone should not be a function of count.

What I find disturbing is the reputation calls that a lot of umpires give to the established star hitters.

And I hate that this is accepted. You always hear announcers saying that. Of course the star treatment isn't limited to just baseball, or even sports.

Moffatt's post is right on the money (no pun intended), although I think the problem goes beyond pay for minor league umpires. MLB does not have a proper development scheme in place for its young umpires, which means that the training is generally left to the minor leagues and to independent umpire schools, most of which are run by current or former big league umpires, like Jim Evans. The minor leagues don't have much of an incentive to spend time and money developing young umpires, since the most successful umps will just be scooped up by MLB.

I don't have any real answers, but I think MLB needs to do a top-to-bottom review of the way it selects and grooms future umpires. There are things they can do, with the strike zone technology and whatnot, to assist the major league umps, but umpires are just like players - once they've reached the majors it's too late to teach the fundamentals.

Who's a good umpire, who's not and why?

Joe Brinkman has checked his objectivity at the border for years; ask Ernie Whitt. Joe West is a confrontational blowhard. Phil Cuzzi knows he's terrible, so he's developing a thin skin to go with the trigger-happy thumb. The less said about Bruce Froemming's insensitivity, the better. He also has an annoying strike zone, if you're a control pitcher. Ron "Mea" Kulpa made some horrible calls in a Jays game last year, then gave Miguel Batista the most ridiculous warning in history the other night, on a breaking pitch down and in.

Everybody misses a pitch once in a while; everybody makes a bad call. The good umps will admit an occasional mistake, which just makes players and managers respect them more. It's the ones who compound their incompetence with arrogance that I can't stand. As evidenced above, Cuzzi is the poster boy.

Technology is not the answer. How do you determine the "strike zone," which is defined in a relative, rather than absolute way in the rule book itself?

Tennis has an absolute measure of what is "in" and what is "out." (Even then the technology can be wrong.) Imagine a scenario in which 5'4" Freddie Patek comes to the plate and crouches low, followed by 6'4" Willie Mays Aikens in a standup stance followed by Hal McRae, 6'0" in in a semi-crouch. The strike zone machine would explode.

Besides, who's willing to bet that those wacky air conditioning freaks in the Metrodome wouldn't be the only ones to find a way to just occasionally disrupt the field and get a much-needed ball or strike called? And what happens when Joe Drew figures out how to control the balls and strikes with his hiptop from the middle of the Cheer Club?

Joe Morgan: "See now, in the old days before we had this so-called techno-ump, you'd never see a great hitter like Shannon Stewart strike out looking when Bob File is attempting to issue an intentional walk ..."

Everybody misses a pitch once in a while; everybody makes a bad call. The good umps will admit an occasional mistake, which just makes players and managers respect them more. It's the ones who compound their incompetence with arrogance that I can't stand.

As an umpire, I agree entirely. Nobody's perfect out there - not the players, not the managers, and not the umps. The problem with some of these umpires though is that they refuse to admit a mistake, or at least the possibility that a mistake has been made. It's not so much their skills that are at issue, but their temperaments. The worst thing you can have as an umpire are "rabbit ears". You have to pretend not to hear certain things. But Cuzzi et al are so confrontational that every moment of tension is exacerbated, and the game suffers.

That said, the players and managers need to start showing a little more respect. I've yet to see an umpire rip into a fielder after a particularly egregious error, lip off at a batter who's struck out on a pitch way outside the zone, or kick dirt on a manager who plays Dave Berg ahead of Frank Catalanotto. There's no hope for the oldtimers like Brinkman, West and Froemming, but some of the younger guys pop off because, just like any rookie, they feel the need to show they can handle the big league heat, and not be intimidated by the first manager to come out hollering after them.

Everybody has a role to play in bringing the temperature down. The umpires aren't taught this enough, and the players and managers aren't taught this at all, from what I can tell.

Tennis has an absolute measure of what is "in" and what is "out." (Even then the technology can be wrong.) Imagine a scenario in which 5'4" Freddie Patek comes to the plate and crouches low, followed by 6'4" Willie Mays Aikens in a standup stance followed by Hal McRae, 6'0" in in a semi-crouch. The strike zone machine would explode.

I think Questec must already account for this. I imagine that for each hitter, the upper and lower parts of the strikezone are recalibrated. I'm not sure if a human does that, or if it's also handled by a machine.

As recently as a few months ago, I was against using Questec, and was siding with pitchers and umps who believe that game calling is a "dialogue" between the pitcher and the home plate umpire. Having seen massive inconsistencies this from ump to ump (and sometimes from the same ump in a single game) I no longer feel that way, and would be happy to see Questec in every park.

Has anyone got a link to what Joe West did in the Milton Bradley situation? All I've heard is that Bradley's reaction is more reasonably once West's actions are taken into account.

Throw that idiot Spagnardi into the mix, he's a rookie and twice they Jays have had to deal with his moving strike zone - I think Doc was pitching both times.

And what happens when Joe Drew figures out how to control the balls and strikes with his hiptop from the middle of the Cheer Club?

A winning streak.

What's scary is that MLB umpires are far superior to their counterparts in the NHL, NFL, and especially the NBA.

I disagree. There is more of an emphasis on development in the NHL and NFL (albeit more recent for the latter). Video replay has also brought more scrutiny to those two leagues.

I agree that the officiating in the NBA is atrocious; just ask Mark Cuban... http://www.blogmaverick.com/

As I mentioned earlier, I certainly didn't agree with whomever was the home plate umpire Tuesday, acting like Lt. Detective Frank Drebin (or Vegas Elvis) on Blue Jay strike outs. Cheers from the home crowd should not be on an umpires' "goal list" for the night.

Cuzzi and Kulpa are incompetent hacks, who think people have paid to see them work, and substitute bluster for authority.

Joe Brinkman is an odd case - I've seen him do an absolutely terrific job sometimes, but I also remember him setting up what seemed like 15 feet behind the catcher and basically just guessing the balls and strikes. Its almost as if he's experimenting sometimes.

Brinkman also has the slowest called strike in the league, although Tim McClelland comes close. This is one of my pet peeves, so indulge me! Brinkman appears to call the strike in a voice loud enough to be heard by the batter and the catcher, and then after a few seconds he gives a kind of vague point with his right hand. Although, again, he mixes it up. Sometimes the gesture is quick and emphatic. Seems to depend on how he feels that day.

The best umpire in this regard, without a doubt, is Jim Joyce. His called strike bellow can be heard loud and clear up in the 500 seats. And unlike Kulpa, Joyce delivers his call on every strike. (Not just when the home team pitcher throws one.) I always wonder how his vocal cords survive.

And that's the only thing you notice about Joyce. Are there any stories of players or managers complaining about him, having intense confrontations, getting run from games? None that I know of. And anyway, yesterday was the 100th anniversary of Bloomsday. So let us now praise Jim Joyce!

http://me.woot.net
And what happens when Joe Drew figures out how to control the balls and strikes with his hiptop from the middle of the Cheer Club?

See, you answered your question later in the same post:

Shannon Stewart strike[s] out looking when Bob File is attempting to issue an intentional walk

I agree with Moffatt - the umps need to be better paid all the way down the line. I'd go a step further and suggest that a support system be put in place for these guys. Every game is an away game for them, and each crew is stuck with each other for six months. That's got to be stressful, especially when your job performance is being judged on a daily basis by thousands, if not millions. It's a lonely and thankless job. I'd like to see more umpires in a greater rotation basis so that they get at least a week off each month, and I'd like to see more money spent on their travel and accommodations. Whatever can be done to make their lives outside the ballpark easier.

I'd like to see five-man crews - four on the field, and one in a booth to do two things: watch the instant replay and correct/judge plays IF one of the field umps asks for assistance, and the second job would be to evaluate the calls made on the field. This would also be done on a rotation basis so everybody gets a chance to rank out the other guys. :) I think a big reason why umpire egos are getting out of control is that they know they're not going to be disciplined or evaluated by anyone that matters. But if they've got one of their own watching and judging the calls they make, it might put things in better perspective, especially if they get the chance to watch and judge.

Finally, some attention has to be paid to the rulebook. In other words, look at the rules that are either being ignored, flouted, irrelevant, or vaguely worded. I think an ump's life would be much easier if some of the rules were better defined, or even tossed out (like the balk rule), because the more you leave to a human's judgment, the greater the chance of controversy or error.

I see a big problem with the five-man crews Rob proposed, namely you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. If you're going to be evaluating me tomorrow, I'm not going to want to piss you off by saying, "Hey, you missed that call at second. He slid under the tag." Even if it's done in secret or only when they ask for help, it still smells like a recipe for disaster to have umpires on the same crew evaluate one another, especially considering that they spend six months on the road together.

Thomas, the best way to deal with them backing each other up is to also rotate umpires to different crews on a regular basis. That way even if they are budy-buddy with others, there will be enough evaluations from others to balance it out.

Yeah, what IainS said. Plus, I'm a believer in appealing to a person's professionalism, especially if you don't turn around and undermine their authority. I'm sure if enough smart people worked on it, the backscratching flaw could be dealt with. Call me a deluded optimist, but I think people really do want to do the right thing; it's just that sometimes, they have to be shown what it is first.