After years of fans and people around the game alike advocating for it, the automated ball-strike system was implemented in big league Spring Training this year. That was widely believed to portend its arrival in the majors, which MLB commissioner Rob Manfred all but confirmed in an interview published yesterday where he suggested that the system could be in regular season games as soon as the 2026 season, pending approval from the MLBPA. With that being said, Manfred suggested that the details of how ABS is implemented into the majors could wind up being collectively bargained. If that’s the case, its implementation could be delayed until after the upcoming CBA negotiations following the 2026 season.
During Spring Training, a challenge system was used not unlike the one already utilized in the majors for instant replay on the bases. Each team started the game with two challenges available to them, and would retain their challenge after using it successfully or lose it after using it incorrectly. As noted by Ronald Blum of the Associated Press just before Opening Day, teams challenged 2.6% of called pitches during the spring with just over four challenges per game and a success rate of 52.2% overall. If those numbers were to hold, that would mean the ABS challenge system overturns just two ball-strike calls in the average regular season game.
While official reports on the accuracy of ball-strike calls from MLB umpires are not available, a report published by Boston University’s Mark T. Williams that looked at the issue back in 2019 using data from the 2018 campaign suggested that MLB umpires made 14 incorrect ball-strike calls per game that year. If that figure holds true into today, that would mean that the challenge system overturns less than 15% of incorrect ball-strike calls made. What’s more, Williams’s report suggests that umpires tend to make more mistakes in certain situations, such as calling true balls as strikes in two-strike counts. Despite that, there’s nothing in Blum’s data to suggest that more calls got overturned in those sorts of key situations than usual. While teams challenged 6.9% of full count calls, just 44% of those challenges were correct.
Given the relative lack of impact felt by the presence of the challenge system this spring, it’s easy to wonder if perhaps using a fully automated system that entirely removes umpire discretion from the equation would be preferable. It’s hard to dispute that it would lead to more accurately called games, which could have a far more significant impact on outcomes than the challenge system had during Spring Training. Manfred suggested in yesterday’s interview that umpires themselves would actually prefer a fully automated system to the challenge system currently being used, perhaps because it would avoid putting a spotlight on their mistakes.
On the other hand, it’s open for debate whether or not taking ABS to that level would be truly preferable. Incorrect calls aren’t necessarily innately bad; after all, fans, players, managers, and umpires have worked with a somewhat nebulous definition of the strike zone since the advent of baseball itself. What any individual thinks of as the strike zone is unlikely to be perfectly identical to the zone used in ABS, and that’s supported by the fact that nearly half of challenges made to umpire calls wound up being incorrect. That suggests players aren’t always more in tune with what the true strike zone looks like than umpires are, and a move to fully automated ball-strike calls could be a jarring adjustment for both pitchers and hitters as they adapt to a more accurate but wildly unfamiliar strike zone.
That could be part of why the players, according to Manfred, prefer a challenge system to fully automated ball-strike calls. Another factor in the players’ preference for a challenge system could be how full ABS would change the catcher position. Pitch framing has long been a key aspect of catcher defense behind the plate, and it’s become even more focused upon over the past decade. Players with elite framing skills like Jeff Mathis and Austin Hedges have managed to make careers out of their ability to steal strikes for their pitchers over the years, but a fully automated strike zone cannot be influenced by pitch framing.
A challenge system, meanwhile, still allows them to use their framing prowess to convince umpires (as well as a hitter considering a challenge) that a true ball was a strike. It even adds another level of intrigue to the catcher position, as Blum notes that catchers had the highest success rate when challenging ball-strike calls this spring. Catchers successfully overturned 56% of challenged ball-strike calls, compared to exactly 50% for hitters and just 41% for pitchers. Given the wide disparity between catchers and pitchers in terms of success rate at challenge ball-strike calls, it wouldn’t be a surprise to see most clubs have their catchers handle the majority of ball-strike calls when on defense under a challenge system.
How do MLBTR readers think the implementation of ABS should be handled? Should the league stick with the challenge system used in Spring Training despite its relatively low impact, or go to a fully-automated system despite potential player objections? Or perhaps you believe that ABS shouldn’t be used in the majors at all? Have your say in the poll below:
I don’t like the challenge system. If you can call the balls and strikes properly, just do that.
Perhaps umpires should learn to do their job better.
While I agree with you, I suspect that today’s umpires are better than umpires in the past. The difference is that today we can see exactly where they fall short. I’m watching the Tigers vs. the Yankees and I swear I see different pitch calling. Maybe I’m wrong, but having a computer call balls and strikes takes away any perception of bias or human error.
I agree with the accuracy of a computer. But I’m old school in that taking the human factor out of baseball changes the nostalgia of the game. Gone are the days of seeing Sparky Anderson screaming at an umpire and kicking dirt on his shoes.
But I’m also against the pitch clock and all of the other game shortening rule changes that Manfred has implemented. Don’t get me started on the ghost runner.
They also gamble. Literally fired one recently. Between that and the fact CB Bucknor and Angel Hernandez were employed as long as they were, it’s time for a change.
There will still be things for managers to get thrown out over. At least no players would be thrown out arguing over horrible ball/strike calls
For – I don’t believe today’s umpires are better. Just a few days ago at Fenway a ball that was entirely in the strike zone (not even touching the box graphic) was called a ball instead of a strike. It was a horrible call.
I think the challenge system is the way to go. If a hitter feels he got a bad call, he can challenge and have it overturned.
One thing I haven’t heard about …. if ABS determines every pitch in a game, does the umpire still yell out whether it’s a ball or strike and motion with his arms if it’s a strikeout?
If not, then we will never see a remake of Leslie Nielsen’s brilliant umpiring scene in Police Squad.
I’m not sure it really makes sense to judge the state of umpiring in MLB as compared to the past from a single pitch.
Maybe that’s just me
chief,
“They also gamble.”
One umpire gambled.
Maybe calling balls and strikes is such a hard thing that even the best 0.001% in the world can’t just “learn to do it better.”
Why can’t Pete Alonso just learn to hit .350?
He does in my copy of MLB the Show. Hell, he hit .750 with 175 home runs
You sure you’re not playing Backyard Baseball?
Iykyk
“Their job better”…That would be nice, but its probably not possible, because even the best of eyes cannot see thru a catcher who’s constantly moving.
The current umps often pi*s me off, but admittedly, I could not do it better or even as good as they do. We use technology for everything else, so why not for balls and strikes?
What about rulings on foul tips, or whether the C caught the foul before it hit the ground? What about questions of whether the batter was hit by a pitch? There will still be a need for home plate umpires. May as well let them call the game, with the appeals option.
Styme, If the ump doesn’t need to focus on balls and strikes he can make better calls on those you mentioned
Plate umpires often miss at least 5 ball-strike calls, an inning. ABS please.
The challenge system allows for an integral part of the game to remain to an extent – the dance between elite pitchers with command, top shelf catchers that know how to work the plate, and the umpire. I was a catcher for almost 40 years, and it is a big part of the game.
Those pitchers that know how to truly command the baseball deserve to be able to steal an inch off the plate as the game moves on and they prove that they are hitting their targets. And frankly, we have an evolution towards pitchers with amazing velo but little idea of how to spot the damned thing and it would be nice to credit those that are the Maddux-style pitchers again and not see them become a dinosaur in the game.
I have been to a number of minor league games now that utilized the system and it works – if anything add another challenge to each team. It is quick; it brings the crowd into it as they handle it on the scoreboard system and it actually adds a level of engagement and excitement for the fans.
I would hate to see yet another aspect of the game go away in the interest of Manfred’s Revised Rules according to lawyers and saberdudes, rather than baseball folks that appreciate some of the quirks and beauty of this great game.
Shortly after Manfred was elected, he made the comment that as long as he was Commissioner, ball-strike calls would not be automated.
Well that settles it then. Nobody loves an umpire.
I like umpires because if they slightly miss a call it can give a team a break
Also I wouldn’t want to see Aaron Boone yelling at robots
Don’t worry. Boone will find someone to yell at.
Can we also automate the pitchers and hitters?
Boggsy- let’s just start Major League Cyberball, no need to inform Manfred.
I like the challenge system, with the following changes. You get one challenge an inning, if you loose your challenge you loose the next innings challenge. And you get 2 in the ninth and each extra ending.. if you loose a challenge in any inning you give up one in the next.. it’s a quick process..
But there should be a place where fans can go to see the performance of umpires now. The technology is there, why can we see it or maybe I don’t know where to look. It can be just umpires balls and strikes call accuracy. Out of 100 pitches 15% were inaccurate ball calls, and 25% inaccurate strike calls, or how many bad calls per team. Maybe if umpires knew they were watched like pitchers spin rate or velocity they would improve and no system change is necessary
@Gibby327: like this?
umpscorecards.com/
Use it if for no other reason than to stop the incessant “umps hate MY TEAM but love WHOEVER THEY’RE PLAYING” whining
They will claim the ABS is rigged against their team.
I voted the challenge system. Not every umpire is horrible, but we still have a few times the calls were blatantly wrong.
Few things in the modern experience of baseball spectating feel as bad as a bad strike call or non-call that the broadcast clearly shows to be the opposite of what the umpire calls. Even when it’s in your team’s favor it sucks to see. Automated strike zone please. There will be growing pains and zone adjustments, but it will be so much better than groaning at bad human calls.
Just use it for every pitch. I feel like umpiring has gotten substantially worse over the past few years (behind the plate, and unnecessary ejections) with zero repercussions. Can always go back to having an ump behind the plate I guess but there needs to be a serious shake up
I don’t think it’s gotten worse. Go back and watch a Greg Maddux game. He had the widest strike zone I’ve ever seen. Not complaining about Maddux. He was just so good he could get the umps to give him that call.
Tom Glavine too.
Tom Glavine had the absolute LARGEST STRIKE ZONE in the history of baseball.
Glavine would never made the HOF without the strike zone he was given. That’s exactly why so many managers began playing LH hitters against Glavine.
Maddux was a great pitcher. Glavine wasn’t nearly that.
All pitchers with a reputation for control had a big strike zone in those days. Even as a Cardinal fan, I shook my head at some of the strike calls John Tudor received.
Even Bob Tewksbury lobbing those 87 mph “heaters” needed the wide strike zone to be successful.
Umpiring has objectively improved from before, the issue is that our technology, camera and TV quality, and our ability to pause have improved our ability to notice mistakes significantly more.
I guess that’s true. Doesn’t make the missed calls any more enjoyable though. We have the technology to make the game better so might as well use it
Q: Why use ABS? A: to get the pitch call correct.
Why only be correct some of the time? I understand both positions to be 100% umps and 100% ABS but not in between.
I think the counter argument is that the ABS is not right all the time either because of how pitches move in/out of parts of the k-zone. However, it will be consistent.
There was a k called on Jazz (iirc) the other day and it was like four inches below the bottom of the zone. It was horrible, and this would surely eliminate those terrible calls.
The egregious calls are the ones I think they need this for. There should be an opportunity to fix calls that are clearly wrong, like in your example when a ball is multiple inches out of the zone.
There is an art to framing and if an ump calls something a strike that missed the plate by like a millimeter because the catcher did a great job receiving it, thats just part of baseball to me. I think we can live with the judgment calls on the margins when pitches are borderline.
Another way to think of it is they could probably develop some sort of technology to put in bases and gloves that could measure whether a ball is caught before the runner touches the base, but I don’t think we really need it. The umps get it right most of the time and the current challenge system allows them to overturn the calls that are blatantly wrong and that’s been a big improvement
Watching the Tigers/Yankees game today there were at least 5 calls missed. Some egregious.
It’s time.
Angels have had quite a few in the last few games. A blown 3rd strike call ended up being a walk that caused the pitcher to have to throw more pitches, essentially turning the game into a loss for the team.
I’m in favor of universal ABS, although I do think the umpires generally do a good job. They’re usually 90%+ accurate based on what I see out there, and a lot of the calls they miss are still really close or involve pitchers and catchers getting crossed up or other situations where it’s hard to see. I think MLB umpires as a whole do a better job than most other sports leagues.
Taking umpires completely out of the equation would be a huge mistake.
If ABS was fully implemented, you might as well just get rid of catchers while you’re at it. Just stick a bunch of gloves on poles behind the batter to catch pitches lol
I liked the challenge system in spring training games. However I will say that even though many people were saying the speed of results wasn’t necessarily a problem I do think there should be a way to get the info instantly instead of everybody standing there for 10-15 seconds waiting for the results. (yes I realize 10-15 seconds is marginal at the end of the day)
I’m not a huge fan of it, but the challenge option I think could be great to challenge some of the calls that are clearly atrocious. Otherwise, I don’t think there’s any need for it. With no more Joe West or Angel Hernandez, there’s not so many horrendous calls as there used to be. I do believe CB Buckner is still around though. He needs a ball and strike system. He can’t call a good game to save his life
Oh, no. There are still some bad umpires.. especially the one that said he’d eject players for sarcastically tapping their helmets on blown calls.
There will definitely be umps throwing out players because they’ll feel that players are showing them up when really that’s not the case.
I would like to see the television networks that show the dimensions of box on the batter and how high off the ground the box is so we can understand the box for Aaron Judge compares to Jose Altuve for example.
I see the challenge system as a bridge to a fully automated zone, which I am 100% for.
My biggest issue with the challenge system is that you have technically two different zones being called during the game. You have the umps zone, and then the challenge zone. That doesn’t make sense to me.
But hey, the challenge system allows the egregious missed to be fixed and for that I am thankful.
If cameras and computers can’t call ball and strikes over a static plate, then why do we let them drive cars on our roads?
Corporations have the power.
I always think of the Tigers (vs White Sox?) game where our pitcher kept throwing strikes but nothing was getting called. Some pitches were right down the middle too. They definitely were not being called the same for both teams. The Tigers pitcher threw it up and in and drilled the umpire. But I still like having umpires and would keeping grading them. The bad ones get sent to the minors for less pay and the good ones get called up for more pay. (With challenges).
You can’t do away with the homeplate ump but you can correct their calls when they’re wrong.
Sweet Lou, for years I’ve insisted that umps should be “relegated” to the Minors or called up to The Show based on performance. The Umpire Union would never go for it… unfortunately.
Doesn’t This Exist?????
Or do you just mean the called down part.
Once they join the MLBUA, they never give that up until retirement.
I went to a AAA game the other day and there were three challenges. They move quick and seem pretty accurate. They should bring that into the MLB game if the standard AAA experience is what I saw the other day.
Speaking of Triple-A ball, when are the majors going to promote Jen Pawol to the Show? She’s a crew chief in Triple-A and was on the short list of umpires to fill the next MLB opening.
Have the ABS call every pitch. Umpires miss tons of calls, take no accountability, and try to draw unnecessary attention to themselves. Quite frankly, baseball would be better off without them.
Time to get rid of the boomer traditions and bring on ABS. The future is now old man, get off Facebook.
This is deep.
I’d prefer the challenge system. It keeps the human element in the game, but also gives teams the opportunity to challenge a bad call if it seems particularly egregious.
I don’t want to see a fully robot called game, though. I believe some people are underestimating how much that would change the game, and it wouldn’t all be good. For instance, I think it’d add to the already overly emphasized focus on velocity for pitchers. If nibbling on the corners becomes harder, teams will naturally develop pitchers to avoid it.
Home run post, Outlaw!
If league officials keep going down this path of the sterilization of the sport, guys like Jomboy will become instinct. Give me the human stain over this AI nonsense everytime. The Earl of Baltimore is rolling over in his grave.
*extinct*
I voted for full ABS because the umpires are incompetent. I like the challenge system because it embarrasses them which they deserve. They have been doing it this way for over 100 years time to modernize. The umpires also need to lose weight, still too many fat ones.
I thought it worked great in ST. Let’s roll with it!
Are any leagues using the Check Swing Challenge system that was tested in the Arizona Fall League?
Why not move the home plate umpire to the booth, It’s never made sense having them trying to see a baseball through the catcher and the batter, They literally can’t see what they are doing. If they were in the booth, utilizing the technology available, they could keep it human, but make considerably less mistakes.
How would plays at the plate be handled? Home plate would be the only base without a human umpire.
Keep the ump behind the plate but using a balls + strikes enhancing system wouldn’t be impossible. It would eliminate the human error element behind balls and strikes.
If you have the technology to get the balls and strikes right in real time just use it. The home plate ump can focus on foul tips, hit batters, plays at the plate and other things.
If the current system of automated balls and strikes has been proven to be more accurate behind the plate than umpires, the time has come to start using the automated system on a full time basis. The challenge system that was used during spring training doesn’t do as good a job. I watch a lot of baseball and can’t believe how bad umpiring has become behind the plate. As a result, games are not always being played on a level playing field, players and managers are being unnecessarily ejected over disputed balls and strikes calls, and television viewers have to put up with color analysts commenting on every pitch that is called a strike when it’s outside the on-screen strike zone and every pitch that is called a ball when it’s inside the on-screen strike zone. Imitations of Bob Uecker’s “that pitch is just a bit outside,” line from the movie, Major League, have gotten old quick. The days of old time baseball are over due, in large, to instant replay. Automated balls and strikes is instant replay’s logical companion, and a way to significantly improve today’s game.
Interesting that the umpires would prefer relinquishing pitch calling duties.
That may convey with increased spin, velocity and extension it’s becoming challenging to correctly call a game.
Pitch framing is a nuanced thing. Sure players appreciate it, but the casual fan would probably prefer an accurate pitch determination.
Challenge system is a nice intermediate but I’d raise the challenges to 5 or so. There are too many pitch events for such a small number- that may make only star players comfortable using the system.
They should use the ABS silently to the public and give the umps a ‘yay or nay’ beep in the ear if they got the call correct or not. Then after every inning there would be a grade displayed on the scoreboard without singling out specific instances. It will at least make the umps try harder.
I like the challenge system. To be fair to the umps we have a box on TV that shows us if it’s a strike or not, they don’t and they have to judge if this pitch coming at them at 90+ is in an imaginary box that changes height with each batter.
I think we let them keep calling the game and if something jumps out you challenge it. I really liked the spring training model.
All I know is that following games on gameday makes you realize how many awful calls there are. Sometimes it’s as if the umpires are trying to rig a game in one team’s favor.
Human error is part of the game. Leave it alone, the game is perfect as is. Lose the pitch clock, limited number of engagements for pitchers and that ridiculous 10th inning runner on 2b nonsense.
red, In my humble opinion, the game that allowed for human error and on-field arguments was a much more enjoyable game than today’s game. Unfortunately, instant replay has shown just how much human error there is in baseball, and the automated balls and strikes system is about to become the natural extension of instant replay. I would be all for losing everything that has been added to baseball over the past few decades, but not for allowing certain things and not others. Instant replay has evened the playing field, and automated balls and strikes will vastly improve one of today’s biggest weaknesses. Instant replay, by itself, is not enough. Something has to be done about today’s terrible behind the plate umpiring.
There’s a lot more to umpiring than many critics seem to realize. The physical and mental stress involved in being an umpire can be enormous and adversely affect any umpire’s performance at any given time. So, I’m not sure anyone who criticizes umpires for missing balls and strikes could do a better job themselves. That’s why the development of a fully operational, unbiased, efficient, consistent and field tested automated system of calling balls and strikes is needed in baseball today. In effect, such a system will be able to do something mere mortals have been unable to consistently do at any time in baseball’s illustrious history.
The umpires will never be perfect. If there’s a system that works better than the umpires, then use it. In every other aspect of life, we would choose that option.
If technology assisted surgery is more effective? If technology assisted driving is more safe? If technology assisted production is more efficient?
What makes baseball any different than any other part of our lives? Absolutely nothing.
As far as it being different, I’d start with it being a game.
Oh, it’s a game. And do we not use technology in the Olympics? In track? In swimming? Both sports where one person wins because they come in first. Easy. Right? And records in those events? Do we use technology for those? It’s just a game. So why get it right?
Gosh, I wonder how the Romans or Greeks managed to have games without technology. Or anybody really, until recently. I’m sure they never got it “right.”
The umpires used to be more emotionally involved in the game. Not much passion anymore..
Just bust the umpires union or institute relegation to AAA. Problem solved.
Don’t make the strike zone 2D and reinvent the definition of the strike zone to suit a computer.
Um, what?
In the Abs system, the strike zone is a two dimensional rectangle at the back two corners, not the 3D shape it’s been since the beginning. It also apparently tracks lower than what rules state.
Bust the union?
How else do you explain Angel Hernandez lasting as long as he did?
I feel no need to explain this at all. That’s how. Bust a union because you don’t like someone? Cool. Maybe the weight of explaining should be on you.
LOL
I say ditch all the umpires and stick trackers on everything—bases, shoes, gloves, you name it—so we can watch and break down every play on the field. That way, we’d get every call dead-on perfect, 100% of the time.
The umpires need to go. Keep them at home plate for calls and even those should be able to be reviewed.
Is baseball in 2025 demonstrably better than baseball in 1995, before interleague play, universal DH, reviews, pitch clock, and ABS?
I’m not sure it is.
ted, Baseball is not the same game today that it was in 1975 or 1965 or 1955, and it is certainly not more enjoyable to watch than it once was. The game has become too complicated and sophisticated. Big business has taken it over, and the game is more concerned today with rules that will speed it up than it is with rules that will preserve the integrity of the game. Speed up the game? For whom? TV networks and their scheduling, perhaps, but not for the real baseball fan. When I watch a game between two good teams, I want it to last all day.
Baseball in 1995 was rife with steroid use. By the late 90’s I hated what the game had become. I’ll take the modern game where defense and baserunning are valued. Getting rid of steroids has also made baseball a young man’s game. I enjoy the game more when it’s played by high energy athletes as opposed to aging, one dimensional, beer league softball players. I also appreciate the more consistently enforced strike zones. In 1995 the strike zone varied wildly depending on who was pitching and who was calling the game.
I am as guilty as anyone of yearning for the good ole days. But steroid era baseball was a blackeye on the sport in my opinion.
Don, Some of the greatest players in the game’s history have been linked to various forms of performance enhancing substances. Several of these guys have publicly condemned the use of PEDs by current players, even though they admitted to using PEDs themselves before PED use was formally outlawed by MLB. So, there has been a great deal of hypocrisy concerning PED use by ball players, past and present. Although I don’t condone the use of PEDs in sports or use of any unnecessary drugs by the general public, I still recognize the extraordinary skill displayed by many players formally accused of PED use. Would Bonds have hit as many home runs if he didn’t use PEDs? No, he would not have. But, how many players in MLB’s history had Bonds’ ability to hit a baseball? Not many. So, while Bonds may not have hit as many homers sans PEDs, he nevertheless would have still been one of the game’s best hitters. The same can be said of many other players, currently banned by MLB because of PED use. This brings up another salient point. When will the Hall of Fame voters begin to realize that there was only one Pete Rose, only one Shoeless Joe Jackson, only one Barry Bonds, and only one Roger Clemens? Alleged betting histories or PED use notwithstanding, these players contributed to the game well above and beyond many players whose plaques currently hang in Cooperstown. So, the argument could be made that an institution, such as the Hall of Fame, should base induction on what players contributed to the sport, rather than what they did off the diamond. An argument cold also be made that many players who used PEDs did so to make themselves the best possible player they could. Some would file such motivation under competitiveness rather than cheating. So, there are many different ways to look at PED use in MLB history, and as many opportunities to overlook human ball players behaving somewhere within the wide limits of human nature.
I don’t disagree with your points, but I wasn’t really talking about individual players as much as the style of play that pervaded the era.
I agree Barry Bonds was great. He was a HOF caliber player before he ever used PEDS. But I don’t have strong feelings about him or anyone else being excluded because of their PED use. Bottom line: They knew it was wrong and chose to do it anyway. For many of them, it extended their careers several years. Those years were mostly free agent status seasons so they were able to greatly increase their career earnings. That’s their reward. That’s what they wanted when they made their decision and they got it. Good for them. I’m not going to cry over them not being immortalized as well. They made their choices, they have to live with the consequences. There are far greater injustices in world to dwell on.
Batters didn’t take forever and a day between pitches in 1995. You couldn’t run a full Kentucky Derby in between pitches back then (youtu.be/SllRk2bByVY). The pitch clock is a beautiful thing to get the game back to where it used to be, at least in action density.
Looks like Menzin struck out showing his balls.
Not a fan of ABS, but where the challenge system was used in the spring training games I watched, it was less disruptive to the flow of play than I expected it to be. If the choice is between a challenge system and turning baseball into a video game, I’d go with the challenge.
Don’t remove the human element, no ABS
Either use the ABS for every pitch or don’t use it at all. No one wants to see a stoppage for replay in a crucial moment
Using ABS would be the one sure fire way to level the playing field. I’ve been waiting ABS for 20 years.
Never would be too soon.
I for one welcome the conquest of our robot overlord umpires. Just ask Armando Gallarraga what he thinks of “human error and nostalgia”
Umpires have been a key part of the game since forever. I can understand challenges for the more obvious plays or pitches but they cannot be made bystanders even if they do make bad calls
Enough people have lost their jobs to the robots, keep it out of baseball.
I’m ready for the fully automated ABS system. I’m tired of seeing badly missed ball/strike calls. For example, if a pitcher throws an outstanding pitchers pitch hitting any corner of the zone, a strike is rarely called. On the flipside, pitchs a ball or more off the plate are called strikes with some frequency.
Teams valuing pitch framing (that is, fooling bad umpires) to the virtual exclusion of anything else a catcher does has ruined the profession of catching. Full time ABS would return blocking pitches in the dirt, throwing out runners, calling a good game, avoiding catcher’s interference, and hitting to the expected skills for a top-flight catcher. I would hate full time ABS but it would give the game back more than it takes away.
I mostly agree, except with the “fooling bad umpires” charge. I’ve always been skeptical about whether pitch framing has a real and significant impact on ball and strike calls. Umpires are fooled by the same pitching factors that are intended to deceive batters: velocity, break, location, and sequence.
Catcher motions seem to come into play in making calls mainly when the catcher sets up on one side of the plate, but the pitcher throws it to the other. It isn’t hard to understand why this visual would induce a ball call even when the pitch clips the strike zone. The curveball that lands at the top of the zone is also a hard call for a pitcher to get because the trajectory of the pitch is mostly out of the zone. It also explains why the batter did not offer at it.
I am warming to the idea of a limited challenge system, but not because I think the umpiring is “bad.” Just watching the games tells you they don’t get a lot wrong. Correcting the biggest misses is more than enough. A full ABS system is a solution in search of a problem.
The department of baseball efficiency needs to implement full ABS like yesterday….
“Framing” is not entertaining for the fans IN ANY WAY.
The idea of fighting to keep it IN ANY WAY is utterly moronic.
It also shows (along with TTO, of course) how/why the slavish devotion to analytics has destroyed the fan experience and made the game boring.
ABS will ruin what we know now as baseball. MLB will become about as entertaining as the fat guys at the park playing slow pitch.
The uncertainty of the corners is why these guys earn the money. You take that away and you’ll have a roster full of DH level athletes.
I’ve already started to pull away, this will finish the job.
Get rid of the stupid boxes on television and the problem is solved.
“Meanwhile” has to start the sentence, not come in the middle between commas.
🙁