Umpiring woes

The Cubs lost again to the Houstons today, 3-2. Yet for the second game in the series, the HP umpire was absolutely abysmal. In the second game of the series, Angel Campos was behind the plate and he brought to mind memories of the 1997 NLDS when HP umpire Gregg called pitches in the middle of opposite batters box strikes for Livan Hernandez. Chris Guccione did it again today. The strike zone had been reasonable all day long - he gave the pitchers a couple of inches off the outside corner, which is fine. However, in the 10th inning he called a FB from Lindstrom that was 6 inches off the ground a strike. On Ryan Theriot. And it changed the entire complexion of the game. If Theriot walks then there is a runner on first with 1 out with Byrd and Lee due up. I'm not saying the Cubs would have won. But the batters on both teams had spent the last 3 hours seeing things done one way and then, when the game is on the line, everything changes. Honestly, I don't give a damn what the strike zone is as long as it is consistent. If you're a MLB umpire, your entire job depends on consistency. And while I don't routinely face the challenge of determining whether or not 97 mph fastballs were strikes, these guys have trained years upon years to do so. Yet they still can't do it consistently. I used to be 100% against the idea of the K-Zone or whatever the computerized strike zone that checked the umpires' strike zone was called, but now I'm reconsidering. I used to think that human error was a compelling part of the game that distinguished baseball from the lesser sports. Umpires have a tough job, and many of them do their job very well. Yet there are still guys out there calling games and drawing MLB salaries and pensions who are embarrassments to the game. Campos and Guccione, from what I saw in the last two days, are foremost on that latter list. I'm an educator. If I do a shitty job - which I define by not being prepared and being inconsistent - I get fired. In any given term, I have around 60 college students who function academically on the (very fair) assumption that I will grade their work based on a consistent set of standards. If I don't do that - if I show favoritism, if I get lazy at the end of the papers or exams and change my grading structure, whatever it may be - then I cheat students who, in the most part, have put forth a good effort. Furthermore, I don't have the luxury of ejecting them if they argue. I have to answer their questions and answer to the professor I'm working for, the head of the graduate program, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and ultimately the dean. If this is the kind of oversight that functions in my job, then I hope to Christ in works the same way for people who make 500x the salary that I do. So, MLB: get your stuff in order. If these guys can't do the job, find people - or computers - who will.