Who Will Hate Robot Umps the Most?
Ever since Eric Byrnes used a computer to help umpire an independent-league baseball game last year, and then Brian Kenny took up the mantle of #RobotUmpsNow on the MLB Network, I’ve been fascinated with the idea that robot umpires will soon call strike zones in baseball. The more I talk to players about it, though, the more I doubt that it’s an eventuality. Because the players, well, the players are going to hate it.
I can’t speak for all players, obviously. I haven’t talked to all of them. But I’ve talked to plenty on both sides, even ones I can’t quote here, and the biggest endorsement I could get was a tepid version of “It’s going to happen.”
So instead of asking each player what they thought about robot umpires, I changed the question a bit. Instead, I asked pitchers, catchers, and hitters, “Who will hate robot umps the most?”
The short answer? Everyone. The long answer? Much more interesting.
The Catchers
Okay, maybe this one was obvious. Catchers get to frame the pitch and add value to every play right now. They’re more plugged in than anyone. They’ll lose their privileged position.
“Catchers will just be, no pun intended, robots themselves,” said A.J. Ellis. “They’ll just be blocking and catching the ball and maybe throwing a guy out. It’ll take some of the art away.”
Former Cubs (and Marlins and Padres) catcher John Baker tried to imagine what the game would look like for the catcher, as well. “Guys wouldn’t even have to catch balls unless there was two strikes or someone on base,” he thought. “Every game could start with the catcher leaning up against the back stop.”
He didn’t stop there. “Pitch clocks was the first step, next they want our umpires, then they’ll say we can have robot first-base coaches. This line of logic clearly leads to Baseball Simulator 1000 for the NES. RoboBall.”
A few other catchers agreed, but wouldn’t put their name on it. It’s political back there behind the plate. Let’s remove catchers from the pool, because they would hate it the most. Obviously.
The Pitchers
Speaking of political answers, this one from Zack Greinke should have come with an all-caps caveat. “It would be a bad idea,” he said. “I am very pro umpire, and everything they bring to the game.” Love you, Zack, but was that for me or the umpires possibly reading this post?
Some felt like they’d lose the catcher as an ally, stealing them strikes. “The zone will get smaller,” thought Giants reliever George Kontos. “My two-seam away, I get that call because it’s moving and it looks like a strike.” And his catcher, Buster Posey, agreed: “Pitchers will hate it more. From my perspective, more calls are flipped are towards the pitchers.” But that’s just because Posey is a good framer.
Giants reliever Hunter Strickland thought there was no need. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” he exclaimed. “Why change the game?” There’s been an undercurrent against change in baseball, and it hasn’t necessarily served the game wrong. Jake Peavy imagined ahead to a dystopian future: “Is there going to be a point, 15 years from now, when our kids are not able to be attentive for two or three hours so we’re suddenly playing seven-inning games?”
It’s a defensible stance, that the game doesn’t need a fix, depending on how you feel about error. “Honestly, home-plate umpiring is really hard, those guys do a pretty good job,” admitted Baker. Examining the matter of strike-calling, Scott Lindholm of Beyond the Box Score estimated that umpires got it right about 85% of the time. Is that acceptable?
Maybe it’s not when you consider bias. Brayden King of Northwestern University and Jerry Kim of Columbia Business School worked together to find that umpire bias was prevalent. The All-Star status of the pitcher, the skin color of the pitcher, the stadium, and the count all changed the likelihood of a strike call according to their 2014 study.
“I think if it were done right, all players would prefer it,” said Dan Haren. “Players get frustrated with inconsistency, bias, and the way zones change from umpire to umpire.” So certain subsets of pitchers wouldn’t mind getting a fairer shake.
Still, there’s some reticence because of the removal of the human element, a common refrain. Strickland: “I’m not trying to play a video game, I’m trying to play baseball. Anyone can sit in front of a computer.” Peavy: “I think the human element is part of the game.”
A slightly more nuanced version, from Ellis: “The back and forth between the catcher and the umpire will go away. The game takes its queues from the umpire, and you can tell when an umpire has control of the pace of a game.” And Brian Dozier said the same, highlighting the interaction between hitter, pitcher and umpire as unique to the game: “There’s a thing about baseball that sets it apart from other sports, and that’s the interaction you can have with the umpire. In football you can yell, but in basketball you get T’ed up pretty quick.”
The Hitters
Josh Donaldson had one of the more intriguing perspectives on the issue. He thought hitters would hate it more at first, and then would change their tune. “The first year or so hitters aren’t going to like it,” he said earlier this year. “You’re going to get those breaking balls that are in the dirt — big 12-to-6 curveballs that hit the plate — they’re going to be strikes. You’re going to get the high fastballs up there, they’re up, but they’ll be strikes.”
Everything he says is demonstrably true. At least it has been in previous years. Look at the map that Jon Roegele developed to show how big the strike zone was in 2014.
Yes, the strike zone has gotten really deep at the bottom. There’s still undiscovered strikes at the top of the zone that the robot would pick up if this is to be the rulebook strike zone. “You’ll be able to throw your high-90s stuff up in the zone all day!” exclaimed high-90s Giants reliever Derek Law. Fellow reliever Javier Lopez agreed, saying “Hitters aren’t used to hitting up in the zone. There will be a lot of strikes to get up in the zone.”
And the curves, nipping the zone on the way to bouncing on the plate? Yeah, that’s going to happen too. “As a guy who’s now more attentive to framing stats, I want to know how many times over my career I’ve lost a curveball because Clayton Kershaw’s 12-6 curveball is so nasty,” pointed out Ellis. “I had one the other day where I went to block it and I checked later and it was a strike. And I lost points for that.” Oakland starter Rich Hill agreed: “Pitches that enter the zone as strikes and leave as balls, and are caught past the plate will present as strikes. It would especially benefit myself a lot more than it would benefit a hitter.”
Here’s a 2012 plot from one of Jon Roegele’s early pieces on the subject. It shows curveball called strikes (left), and a marked difference down in the zone (and on the corners low) from other pitches like fastballs (right).
So we’d see more curveball strikes.
It gets worse for hitters. This great Hardball Times post from Eric Lang, which imagined the strike zone as a three-dimensional volume, showed that back-door and front-door strikes — balls that aren’t necessarily strikes at the front of the strike zone, but nip the back ends of the strike zone — are called strikes at a 30% rate compared to the 80-85% rate on other pitches.
| All Pitches | Strikes At Front Edge | Back-door Strikes |
| 80.4 | 81.8 | 31.8 |
It looks like there would be three added sources of strikes from the robot strike zone. When provided this information, some pitchers changed their tune. “I could be convinced,” said Peavy with a smile. (He throws front-door sinkers to lefties, you see.)
Of course, there could be a tweak. “I think the strike zone needs to be defined better before it’s implemented. It’s hard to describe, but I think the edges need to be expanded towards the middle of the plate, and it’s a little too high,” thought Haren. Others agreed that tweaking the amount of the ball that needed to be in the zone could help mitigate the impact of the extra strikes from bouncing breaking balls and the sweeping sinkers.
Donaldson did suggest it would come back around to the hitters’ favor eventually: “Day in and day out, our strike zones are different. I’ve been punched out two times this year at balls in my neck. I would be into it. If you could have the strike zone the same every day, you’d get used to it and have better awareness.” Ellis agreed, to an extent. “One of the biggest gripes a hitter will have is when he asks an umpire, ‘Is that as far as you will go?’ and then he goes further,” the Dodgers catcher said.
…
There’s not going to be a good way to tie this all up in a bow, and you’re always going to get very subjective answers when you ask players. “If they blow a 3-2 call, you’re suddenly into robot umps,” joked Law. “Let’s say I go out there and pitch and the umpire has a bad night and blows eight to ten calls, yeah I’m not happy and that might be a night where I say, yeah let’s do this. But I know there will be another night when four to five calls go my way,” said Hill.
Personally — and this surprises me a bit because I am a fan of accuracy and did like that replay was implemented — I’m not sure I’m a fan. It may sound ridiculous to talk about human elements and video games, but there’s some truth in there. “I love the fact that we can sit here and argue he was safe, he was out, that was a strike. That’s baseball,” said Hill, and that’s part of it for me.
But the strike zone is also currently a negotiated entity. The pitcher, the catcher, the hitter and the umpire (and sometimes even the public analyst on a free website) all come together to produce a living, breathing document. No, it’s not consistent every night, and it has holes. But that negotiated zone is a unique thing in sports, and losing it would lose something real, call it whatever you will.
If we actually push that strike zone to the rulebook edges, all the way to every border in all directions, we’ll probably see offense plummet. Hitters may find a way to adjust to plate-hitting, side-winding called strikes. They may not, though — it’s already hard enough for hitters to cover both sides of the plate. Even a plus-plus eye like the one on Joey Votto has trouble with the inside pitch. Even Bryce Harper looks past that inside pitch.
What will happen when our best hitters have to swing at curveballs headed for the plate? They can’t all be Mike Trout on those pitches. There’s no way this doesn’t lead to reduced offense and a huge spike in strikeouts… unless we change the rulebook definition of the strike zone fairly drastically. And then we’ll have changed baseball in three different ways — the rule book, the implementation, and the feel on the field — and along the way we will upset the catchers, the pitchers, the hitters, the umpires, and the traditionalists.
Is it worth it?
With a phone full of pictures of pitchers' fingers, strange beers, and his two toddler sons, Eno Sarris can be found at the ballpark or a brewery most days. Read him here, writing about the A's or Giants at The Athletic, or about beer at October. Follow him on Twitter @enosarris if you can handle the sandwiches and inanity.
red sox fans.
when you think about it, it’s pretty hilarious that we expect a human to consistently judge whether a wickedly swerving 95mph object has passed through an invisible 3 dimensional box which changes dimensions with every batter, all while every player involved is doing their best to fool you into calling it their way.
exactly and that’s just one human, let a alone a different human set by their own set of inconsistent parameters each day. how can we determine what is statistical ‘noise’ when there is so much inconsistency in the tools that measure performance?
yes. yes it is.
Calling strikes is hard, and 85% is impressive, but that’s a LOT of missed calls every game. With an average of 146 pitches per team per game, that means each team has 22 missed calls per game, and since we all know there’s a huge difference between 0-1 and 1-0, 1-1 and 2-0 and so on, that means a lot of potentially game-changing calls that are being missed. Whether or not they go to robot umps, I wish they’d get rid of the visible Pitch Trax during the broadcasts. It’s actually ruining my enjoyment of the sport when I can see how often umpires miss calls.
It’s not actually that many missed calls, since a lot of pitches have swings that don’t require an umpire to call balls or strikes. That 85% is only on called balls and strikes. I don’t know what % of pitches have swings.
Very true, didn’t think about that. League swing% this year is 46%, so that means you can cut the missed calls by about half, but that still leaves two dozen missed calls a game, which is a lot.
85% is unimpressive.
we’re here to watch the players perform and see their true skills be rewarded. we’re not here to watch umpires try their best and still fail nearly 1/6th of the time.
Personally this is something I can get behind. A consistent strike zone day in and day out would be nice. I can’t even watch a game on tv without the strike zone or balls and strikes being shown on the screen.
The best part of baseball is the cat and mouse game between hitter and pitcher. That would still be a prominent part of the game as always.
The strike zone is too important to the outcome. Why not just rely on the available technology?
It’s pretty much a non issue for me. I watch baseball to be entertained.
Hard for me to imagine the switch to robo-umps increasing my level of entertainment.
Anything to see Jose Bautista complain less would be ideal…
Comments about a specific player complaining too much are silly. Unless they are about Paul O’Neill.
IMHO, complaining would go up by *everyone*. Right now there’s an unwritten rule to not complain too loudly about bad calls, lest an umpire with a long memory seek retribution. When the final decision comes not from a person but from an unfeeling machine which doesn’t get its feelings hurt by unwanted feedback, the floodgates will open wide. Pitchers, catchers, hitters, managers, umpires, front offices, sportswriters, fans – we will need a huge increase in national cheese production to keep up with all of that whine.
I like the human side of having umpires calling strikes, but I also like having the right calls made. Maybe the two could meet in the middle. Give umpires some kind of Google Glass type thing that displays the pitch tracking info in front of them?
ok, that is called a compromise, and it is style 3. and it is not ideal..
“Maybe the two could meet in the middle.”
So, like a Futurama-esque version of Eric Gregg’s head on a robot body?
I’m only in favor of robot umps if they’re equipped with lasers.
but once the robo-umps reach the critical stage of being able to evolve themselves, we cannot predict whether their goals will be the same as ours. robotic umpiring has the potential to evolve faster than the human race. beneficially, robo-umps could co-exist with humans and augment our capabilities, but rogue robo-umps could be difficult to stop.
Robot umps had a positive effect on tennis. Less pissy wasted whining and more tennis (not that I actually like tennis). Sure, the rules would have to be updated to describe a 3D strike box that balances what is possible for hitters with what is possible for pitchers, and it might not be trivial to do, but so what? I HATE that stars get favorable treatment on both sides and that black pitchers get a slightly smaller strike zone. I hate that whining at the plate, when done well is rewarded. Like fake fouls in soccer are rewarded. Disgusts me.
Strictly speaking, what tennis has is more akin to the replay system recently implemented in MLB, but using computers to make the calls on replays. The line judges still do 95% of the work
Eno, I think the initial premise needs some clarification – are you suggesting the umps will be taken out altogether, and replaced with a robot? ‘Cause I don’t think that’s what most people are suggesting.
What I envision is just giving the umps what we have at home – real-time access to the strike-zone view we get on TV. Give him a hand-held computer/phone, let him glance at it if he thinks the call is close, and he has a tool HE can use to check himself and his calls, in RealTime. Those 22-missed-calls-a-game would mostly be gone that easily, with no major change at all in the game itself.
I was working with the Byrnes version as the premise. That PITCHf/x would basically call the balls and strikes on a rulebook 3-d version. Perhaps an umpire would stand there and deliver the call, but the call would be made by the computer.
I’m guessing that more likely will be “the ump still makes the call, aided by the PITCHf/x” – although once he has that data, it could be questioned as to “who’s REALLY making the call”.
You could also think of it the way we use replay to check close calls — replay-challenge of close calls on the bases seems to be working well – but instead of having the time-delay of “challenge, view the replay, announce the call”, an iphone in the umps’ hand giving immediate PITCHf/x data would have the benefits of replay without the drawback of “time”.
If the umps could check themselves with the technology viewers have, the need/call to replace the umps with robots would be gone.
I’ve been thinking something similar, but give the umps a small buzzer they could keep in their pocket to check if it was a strike or not. Give them 10 uses a game. If they’re unsure they can secretly check the buzzer. No one would have to know.
When my team suffers a bad call, at least, I’m all for the robots! But it could take some time to get the cited complications reasonably sorted out. You hope the product on the field isn’t borderline unwatchable for a year while that’s happening.
There’s another way to look at this, too.
Someone created Twitter bot accounts for all 30 teams that will send a tweet when the umpire misses a ball/strike call in each team’s game. Miss is defined based on the zone as called, not by the rule book. If the umpire’s call is made 40% or less of the time, the bot sends out a tweet (like this one https://twitter.com/NationalsUmp/status/748298367780945920).
The interesting thing is that I find this produces really only 5-6 tweets a game, which in a game of about 300 pitches really isn’t that many misses. It’s closer to a 95% “correct” rate than the 80-85 usually cited.
Of course, if a pitch is called a ball 54% of the time and the umpire rules it a strike, there is no tweet. But those are basically tossup situations, no? Unless there’s some prior tension, a call like that is basically going to go unnoticed by either team.
It does seem as if, regardless of the rule book, there is a decent consensus around what is a strike and what is not. It really is a “negotiated entity,” and an apparently well-negotiated one at that.
The problem, of course, is the one or two times a game that a pitch is obviously missed even by this standard. Sometimes you even get a “0% call same.” The “blatant miss” rate pretty low but you’d hate to see a playoff series decided that way. Those couple pitches per game alone may make the robots worthwhile, and perhaps after a decade no one will remember why they were so opposed to the idea, but there is still obviously a lot to figure out.
Why not try phasing in robo umps without the players knowing? Like the umps wear an ear piece and they are just announcing the call made by the computer and then we can just see how the players react during the year. Maybe you even start by just phasing it in 1 random game out of each series so that you can examine the differences in human vs robo called games.
I agree with your assessment at the end – calling the strike zone as it’s written in the rule book would CRUSH offense. Sure, hitters would get back those thigh/belt high pitches just off the plate that are now strikes, but they’d also now have to cover the high strike on the corners that is never called now and also the low strike on the corners which is only called occasionally. Pitchers would just kill the corners knowing they don’t have to flip a coin on whether an ump is going to call it or not. I think it would fundamentally change the game and end the “wait for your pitch and drive it” hitting strategy. Hitters would have to cut down very early in the AB and find something to put in play or face strike out rates in the 40% range. HRs will plummet and hitters will skew more toward high contact slap-hitters. I’m sure there are some who would love that, but it would be a very different game.
I think control guys like Kyle Hendricks would benefit the most since they could just pepper the corners continuously with command while changing speeds. I also think another side-effect would be a drop in HBP – Anthony Rizzo would lose half of his HBP because every pitch that hits him in the elbow is a strike.
Yeah, they’d have to massively rethink the strike zone, I would guess. Think of a Romo slide piece nipping the edge and flying sideways. You’d have to move up in the box and swing swing swing baby.
Seems like the owners would be in favor of this development as well. Even if I as an average fan find an 85% success rate to be unacceptable, I have to admit that it takes a decent amount of skill and experience to even be that accurate. If the umps become glorified speaker boxes for the computer, that is no longer a unique or specialized skill set for the Umpire union to tout in contract negotiations.
It’s not all that massive a rethink. The robots can use the current “as called” strike zone. You’d need to calculate a zone that wasn’t biased between left and right, or a zone that flipped based on batter handedness, but you can calibrate the “robot zone” to be fairly close to the current “as called” zone and define that as your new strike zone.
Romo already gets called nipping strikes on the edge, he even gets called strikes that don’t nip the edge. I don’t feel comfortable assuming offense would go down. I don’t think you’ve completely proven that. The robot would call zero of those that miss. A called ball in the zone and a called strike outside the zone totally screw up the batters virtual zone he has for that ump. Having a consistent zone might help offense a bit to offset the extra curve balls that drop in. (It drives me nuts when those are not called!)
“Hey, we’ve seen evidence that the race of a pitcher influences umpire bias. Let’s make sure we only ask white guys for their opinions.”
This could be another case of misleading data (or anecdotes, really) being less informative than having nothing.
How is the data misleading? I stand by the fact that there would be a massive increase in the size of the strike zone.
As for the second point, it’s a failing of mine and I promise myself to learn Spanish every year, but for me, the quotes are anecdotes anyway. And they don’t all agree anyway.
Also: there’s bias against non all-stars in that link you’re citing, and I talked to plenty of non all-stars.
I realize that getting quotes from people isn’t particularly easy, so I don’t mean to criticize too harshly, and I meant just the interviews (I should have been more clear), not any of the more serious analysis.
It might be, too, that the pitchers more likely to talk about the issue are the ones who would be hurt more by robotic umpiring (or at least who benefit more from the human element). It’s easy for someone to say that the human element is just part of the game when it works in his favor.
I think, for the interview portion, All-Star status matters a bit less, because people are more willing to admit that pitchers get calls because they are All-Stars (Tom Glavine was famous for that, wasn’t he?) and perhaps less likely to admit that race plays a role.
Do robot umps dream of electric Morgannas?
If it was just errors…..I think I could handle that. But the clear bias toward stars and veterans (and even race!)….that I can’t handle. And, it is that bias that swings me from “it’s kind of entertaining to see/discuss” to “I hate it when competition isn’t fair at all”.
I’m with you here — the errors ARE bad, and un-neccesary given how easy it’d be to give the umps realtime pitchf/x – but the veteran-vs-rookie bias is a bigger selling point to me too.
Great article Eno.
Nobody tell Enrico Palazzo; he’s gonna blow a gasket.
I would like to see two completely different robot umpires used and see how consistent they are when disagreeing with the humanoid. I watch a lot of baseball, and it just doesn’t seem right that about 1 in 6 pitches taken are called incorrectly.
Also, there would definitely be something off when a robot calls strike 3 to end the World Series. I can’t imagine anyone would disagree with that.
Why is that off? Is it bad when “robots” make good calls in tennis? I’m genuinely curious why that would be off.
Spend a month or two calibrating each ump’s strike zone, then use a robo ump only to the extent that the human ump calls an inconsistent ball/strike – the robo ump can automatically overrule a ball/strike call if it’s outside of the human ump’s strike zone. Best of both worlds – human umpires, gamesmanship possibilities as far as taking advantage of somewhat disparate strike zones, but you remove the potential that the ump just has a brain fart and makes a bad call.
I mean, in the end, isn’t what really gets people angry not so much an imperfect strike zone, but ‘hey, he’s been calling that a strike all night for the other guy!’?
Could this not be considered as a “safety issue” move as well? Umpires avoid concussion risks.
Making and enforcing a standard strike by putting robo-umps back there would take away from the game. Sure we would have a single strike zone. But, we would lose all the interactions, character, manager vs ump ‘interactions’, and others. Can you imagine Billy Martin arguing with a robo-ump? How about Earl Weaver? How would a robo-ump deal with them? Auto-toss? Stare at them as its outside the programming? Booorrrrring ! Sometimes we go to see if Cowboy Joe West will toss someone !!
It would be somewhat analogous to making all the parks identical. Each one the same dimensions, wall heights, etc. In the long run, it would become boring. Part of the charm of baseball is the individual and unique nature of each game. Different umps, different players, different parks.
In my opinion, in the long run, its the FANS that will hate it more as alot of the ‘charm’ will be taken away. We know its flawed game. We accept that. We embrace that! But, players wont have interaction, managers wont either, umps will be out of jobs, mlb brass will see more money (saved ump wages) but have a boring product. Its a No-Win for all.
Final thought – If robo-umps were in play back in the Maddux-Glavine-Smoltz era, would they have as many Cy Youngs as they do? Yes, they were talented, but they were known to get some “just a bit outside” calls as strikes. Pitches that were in the on-deck circle, or coaches box were ‘maybe its a strike’ occasionally (ok, i exaggerage, but…)
Interesting argument. I guess it depends what you value as a fan. While “celebrity umps” and manager/coach altercations can be modestly entertaining to me at times, in the case of balls and strikes I prioritize consistent adherence to the rules. It’s just too crucial to the outcome of the game. I don’t think it’s boring at all to watch the greatest players battle for baseball supremacy on an even playing field.
Also, the ballpark dimensions analogy doesn’t work for me, because the outfield walls are consistent for both teams throughout the game. And many ballpark dimensions are required to be exactly the same in every stadium. But I agree with your line of thinking, in so far as I wouldn’t outlaw outdoor baseball due to weather fluctuations during a game. That’s an example of “charm” I wouldn’t want to lose, even if it’s not fair for both teams.
Most of the answers given by pitchers and catchers actually imply that the players would be against a human umpire who made the correct call every time. So it’s not necessarily the robot that they hate, it’s the idea of not having some sort of input over the pitch call. I think that’s interesting.
Also, letting Pitchf/X call balls and strikes with its currently defined zone would increase offense. Pitchers are the beneficiaries of far more “incorrect” (according to PFX) calls than batters are.
I don’t get your last sentence. Even if you’re just talking about the 2-d zone, it’s about 1.8% difference, but then you’re just ignoring the whole 3-d aspect.
I did a project last year that simulates strikeout and walk rates based on PFX plate discipline stats. I used it to examine what would happen if we let PFX make the calls behind the plate rather than the umpire (so changing all called strike calls on pitches out of the zone to balls, and all balls called on pitches in the zone to strikes). The result was a noticeable increase in walks and a corresponding decrease in strikeouts.
However PFX deals with the 2D vs. 3D aspect of the zone is how I dealt with it. If they had a pitch in zones 10-14 it was considered a ball, and in zones 1-9 was considered a strike.
PFX does not deal with the 3d aspect.
John Baker complains that a catcher wouldn’t have to actually receive pitches until there were two strikes, or men on base. I hadn’t thought of that, but now that I am,and am of two minds on it. On one side, Baker’s being ridiculous: the catcher is still going to be in charge of calling pitches, and the pitcher is still going to need or want a target to throw to. End of discussion.
Except it’s not… I can imagine a scenario where the game evolves to catchers not being behind the plate for every pitch, and would think that at least a few catchers out there would see it as a plus, as well. Catchers taking far fewer foul-tips to the face and throwing hand and groin, plus the occasional bat-to-the-helmet, and catchers crouching less frequently, all adds up to better health and longer careers, which means, potentially, better earning power. I respect the tough-guy desire and the competitor’s desire to take all those bumps and bruises as a part of the game, but I also just saw Willson Contreras skip around the field holding his crotch after a serious ball-shot while catching. The more we learn about concussions, the more I suspect the union is going to come around to favoring a setup where the robo-zone allows catchers to receive fewer pitches. If I’m an owner or upper-management, I also would favor anything that protects my investment in my star catcher. Like it or not, the game is moving in a direction that prioritizes injury-prevention…
And when you think about it, in theory John Baker is right. If the strike zone is automated, technically couldn’t catchers act as another infielder until two strikes or runners on base? In practice, obviously pitchers often require some sort of target, but think about the possibilities of routinely having a five-man infield?
However, an automated strike zone would severely devalue the skills that a catcher adds to a team. Would teams similarly begin paying catchers less because pitch framing would be taken out of the equation? If so, what would the player’s union think about this?
I think the compromise is to leave the umps, but give the option for quick and painless appeals like in Tennis. A hitter is allowed 1 failed appeal per at bat, and the pitcher is allowed the same. The hitter/pitcher just raises his arm or makes some kind of gesture when he wants an appeal, then the result is displayed within seconds.
I don’t think this would add any time to the length of a game, because as it stands now hitters will waste time arguing with umps about a call anyway.
The question is, what is more painful to watch? Constant challenges of balls and strikes, or occasional blown calls by the ump. I think I’d rather just leave things as is and accept that some mistakes will be made.
I also wonder if challenging balls and strikes would eliminate the exaggerated strike 3 calls some umpires employ. It would look kind of silly to do an elaborate punch out motion, only for the hitter to challenge and the pitch be called a ball. What happens if he strikes out on the next pitch, do you ring him up with flair all over again? We may never know…
The immediate effect in terms of more strikeouts is sort of beside the point. Getting a consistently called zone would be the platform from which the zone itself could be tweaked to optimize the batter/hitter match-up. As it stands, we’re basically not able to change the zone because it’s such a difficult job for humans to become good at doing. Umps are simply unable to call the zone that is prescribed, nor able to adjust their biased the zone in ways which would benefit the game.
Disagree. We just changed the strike zone three times in the last 20 years and each time the umpires got better at it through coaching by the computers.
But I think he raises an interesting point. You stated that robo-umps would crush offense. But robo-umps would allow you the freedom to tailor the strike zone to boost offense (or pitching) as needed.
Too little offense? Tighten the strike zone.
Too much offense? Expand the strike zone.
And that adjustment would be announced officially. And it would be applied instantaneously, in a standard fashion, at every major league field. (and I guess eventually the minors also?)
And yes, the zone has been adjusted before…. but there is always a lag time for all the involved parties to implement and adjust to the “new zone”. Its always “ill-defined” at best. Robo-umps cure that.
Robo umps are not a bug that would kill offense….. its a feature you can tweak to boost or deflate offense, as needed.
How about use it to only limit the most influential calls per game? Both teams can mimic the amount of strikes a batter gets (3) but for the entire game, both on offense, and defense. The pitchers can get 3 called strikes that were called balls, and the batters get 3 called strikes also changed to balls. It wouldn’t slow down the game at all since no one would ever challenge a pitch that was correctly called since they can see the data right in front of them, and this way the game keeps the human element since there will still be bad calls, just less of them, while keeping some strategy aspect on when to challenge a ball or strike knowing there might be more important ones later on in the game.
At first I thought using a challenge system might work, but that would end up becoming exactly like robot umpires since teams could just challenge every incorrect call. So a limited challenge system would make both the pitchers, the hitters, and probably the umpires happy.
Thanks for writing on this topic, Eno. I think balls and strikes are just too important to be left to human judgement. As a fan, the “human element” I’m interested in watching is skill of the pitcher vs batter, not the umpire! It’s so frustrating for me when a batter is not rewarded for laying off a heater just off the outside edge. That must be so hard to do–but it’s called a strike! Or a pitcher loses a strike call, because the ump is thrown off by a catcher who is set up off the plate and reaches back over the inner half.
Of course, everyone will hate it at first; automated balls and strikes would be a huge change requiring adjustment from everyone. There will be unanticipated consequences, and the whole system would require adjustment and tweaking. It makes sense to implement it initially in the minor leagues to see how it plays in real time and iron out the inevitable problems.
However, it’s worth remembering that the “problems” might be a function of seeing baseball called with a regulation strike zone–something we’re unaccustomed to. Herein lies the beauty of using technology: The powers that be can calibrate the zone to reflect how they want the game to look, feel, play. And the calibration could be intentionally refined season-to-season relative to the regulation zone in a way that is transparent and consistently implemented.
I believe the technology exists to accurately call a three-dimensional zone in real time. If done right, I think most people would eventually come to appreciate the new system. The calling of balls and strikes should ideally become an “invisible” part of the game–much like foul lines–that enables the skills of the players to be on display in all their glory.
While I tend to lean towards robot umpires, as I think consistency among calls puts the game on a fairer playing field, I do have a concern about game watchability:
It’s largely known that the strikezone gets bigger on 2-0, 3-0, and 3-1 counts, and pitchers are often able to extend at bats due to the umpire’s generosity. What I wonder, without that anti-walk bias from the umpires, how many more walks would we see?
As much as I respect the value of the walk to the hitter, and to the game, it’s not my favorite play to watch. So my question would be, how many potential balls in play would the game be losing due to a more consistent strike zone?
For example, count goes 3-0, pitcher throws a borderline strike that gets a benefit of the doubt, then on 3-1, the hitter hits a home run. With robot umpires, it would just be another walk.
A bias toward called strikes in hitters counts (or called balls in pitchers counts) could be programmed into the automated system if that were considered desireable. While I don’t like the idea much, at least it would be consistent and fair.
25% of umpires, more or less, are very good behind the plate. Give them all an earwig and a numbering system to knew exactly where the pitch was–after the call is made. Then 75% will learn to be very good. 25% will always be Joe West.
Who would benefit most from robots? Good hitters, good pitchers, the game in general. A good umpire is one who is not noticed. Umpires who are noticed may be traditional, but good hitting and pitching are better traditions to aim for.
Great topic. Just like implementing replay to maximize the number of correct calls during a game while also reducing the number of on-field arguments, I believe the same can be said for implementing an electronic umpire to accurately and consistently call balls and strikes.
Looking at the 2016 data for MLB ejections (from CloseCallSports.com), I found that 51 of 91 ejections during 2016 have been a result of arguing over ball/strike calls (not including the six ejections associated with checked swings). Therefore, I think it’s fair to say 56% of all 2016 ejections would have been eliminated with an electronic umpire.
For me, I want to see pitches called correctly for both the batter and the pitcher, results be damned. If pitchers are throwing strikes and batters aren’t hitting them, then the batters need to adjust (or MLB will need to revise the rules as they did in 1968 with lowering the mound height to help increase offense). But to suggest we should continue to allow game results to be impacted by a human’s inability to always accurately see the orb traveling at high velocity as it moves through/past the three-dimensional volume over home plate seems asinine when the technology exists to get it right 100% of the time.
That said if there’s concern implementing an electronic umpire will dramatically impact offense, MLB could contract one of the independent leagues to use the system for an entire season so they can have hard data to assess the actual impact rather than mere speculation. There was certainly plenty of speculation that instant replay would not make the game better but I don’t expect anyone wants to return to a time when an umpire can rob a pitcher of a perfect game and baseball immortality by blowing an easy call for what should have been the 27th out.
Bottom line, people often resist change but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen.
Every player quoted here should be b*tch slapped the next time they stare down an ump or argue a strike call…
Regular, similarly replaceable and inefficient workers in various industries over the coming years and decades. It’s cool THO because pro baseball will be great again and there will be fewer hands in the pot trying to rob the owners/job creators of their hard earned profits.
I want robot umps, publicly funded stadiums, intern minor leaguers, a slot priced draft, hopefully an international draft, rising costs to attend games, and SOMETHING needs to be done about these player contracts getting too damn high.
Without being able to show current players how a robot ump strike zone would work in live game action at a higher level, I can’t imagine many of them will be in favor of it. It is just too hard to envision how a robot ump would be integrated within the current framework of baseball. What would the strike zone look like? What would the catcher really be doing? Would there be a human ump? Is there risk of glitches or system malfunctions? What is the margin for error?
You can have answers for all those questions, but until players actually see it happening with their own eyes and experience it, it’ll never go anywhere. Spring training seems like a really good opportunity to try this out. You wouldn’t need to outfit 30 some parks with the system, maybe just 10 or so and let major leaguers experience it in live, albeit meaningless, game action.
Then if it looks like something that could work, go to Robo Ump full time at the AAA level to get younger players used to it while also gathering hard data. If it works there, the next step would be to have “Robo Ump” become part of each MLB umpire crew and “rotate” behind the plate for one game in a series like any other ump would. Human umps for 2 games, Robo Ump for 1. Very slowly working Robo Ump into baseball would allow players to get used to it and decide if they like it while also giving us hard data to compare in terms of balls and strikes, pace of game, any changes to offense etc.
All that said, I’m not convinced it’ll ever happen. The traditional mindset is too big a part of baseball and like the catchers interviewed noted, it would diminish their role in the game almost completely. As stupid as the human element is, I just can’t envision it ever going away entirely.
I’d personally be happy if MLB instituted a mandatory accuracy rate for umpires calling balls and strikes. An accuracy rate that is public information and made available to all 30 clubs, the media and fans. If we say the current accuracy rate for balls and strikes is 85%, let’s make that the mandatory rate.
If an umpire fails to maintain an 85% accuracy rate over the course of a full season, he would be placed on probation. If an umpire fails to maintain an 85% accuracy rate the following year, he would be terminated. To make sure there aren’t any umpires who are exceptionally accurate for some games and awful for others yet still maintaining an 85% rate, there would be a maximum sub-85% game limit. Assuming an umpire is behind the plate for around 40 (25%) regular season games, he should be required to maintain an 85% or better accuracy rate in at least 34 of those games (85%). If an umpire falls below 85% in 7 games, he would be suspended for one series (not just relegated to a base). If he falls below 85% for an 8th or 9th game, same suspension until the 10th, at which point he would be suspended for the season.
In general, there needs to be more accountability and transparency for umpires and a mandatory accuracy rate that is publicly published would be a good place to start. In addition to weeding out the bad umpires, it would be nice to allow good umpires to be recognized and even incentivized for their performance.
Why change the rule book strike zone if robots are used? The need to use robot umps at all would indicate a corrupt product to begin with. Changing the strike zone to approximate existing results would defeat the purpose. As it stands now, true talent is not being reflected by imperfect officiating, and only a poor reflection of the intended game has been played.
I feel like the obvious answer to this question is Curt Schilling.
I used to ump intramural softball games in college. It is frikkin hard to call balls and strikes even on pitches topping out at 25-30 mph and no breaking balls. I can’t even imagine trying to call them in MLB.
I am 100% for robo-umps assuming practical implementation is possible. The “human element” thing is just a silly argument. Humans are flawed and they make mistakes. In an ideal world we could replace all umpires for all calls. I just want the calls to be correct.