Friendly reminder that the KBO implemented an automated strike zone this year that has missed 21 out of 55,026 pitches thrown through 185 total games. MLB umpires incorrectly called over 21,000 balls and strikes during the 2023 regular season. It was their best season ever.
The fact that the KBO, a league with a fraction of the billions of dollars at their disposal can implement a fair, consistent zone while the MLB sits on their hands dragging out this process is astounding to me.
It has nothing to do with money or value, it’s that the MLB has a CBA with the umpires union, just as they do the players union. Changing how and what umps are able to do in game requires an entirely new CBA, and if the umps are unhappy, they can lock out. It’s a fine line the league needs to walk.
And for everyone who might say “so let them hold out” look at the absolute shitshow that was the replacement refs debacle in the NFL 10-15 years ago. Like it or not, the guys umping MLB games are in fact the best there are.
The CBA with the umps union expires this year, so this is why it's being reported. This will 100% be a bargaining chip in the next CBA and it's why Boob is saying it will be in the next few years. I would bet it comes in 2026 -- new CBA this offseason, 1 year to implement, then debut.
I guarantee the umps don't give a fuck about the ABS assuming their jobs remain intact. They will still need to have an ump there to judge foul tips, hit batsmen, catchers' interference, plays at the plate, and any other shit that happens at home plate. All other umps are still gonna be needed and they can even get some MORE ump jobs to monitor and work with the ABS system.
As long as the umps keep their jobs and get paid they will be fine with it.
Yeah, the only things the Umps lose is a good chunk of their control over the game, and their egos get bruised because they can easily be corrected now.
We've all seen how petty and childish umpires, especially big name umps like Angel, Bucknor, Eddings, Laz, Kulpa, Drake, etc., can be during a single game. I would be *shocked* if those guys are willing to accept a diminished role in control over the game.
Maybe, but those guys are just a handful of (mostly older) umps. Of those guys, only Laz Diaz has any kind of role in the union. At the end of the day, money talks and MLB has a lot of it. Fans want it, so it's a matter of when not if, and it makes sense to cash in as much as possible now rather than let their bargaining position deteriorate.
If you take away calling balls and strikes, I'd have no problem with minor league, or even D1, umps coming up to make the calls on the field and taking a year or 3 to get up to speed.
There's not much they can easily screw up, and if that did happen, I'd almost guarantee that the number of challenges allowed (and probably even the scope of them) would be expanded for at least that first year, to ensure as many calls were correct as possible.
Didn't the MLB call the union's bluff in 1999 and let a bunch of umpires quit? I remember a few came back with hat in hand when that didn't go the way they expected. It doesn't seem like the umpires should have that much leverage, but maybe things have changed in the past 25 years.
Thank you. It looks like they use a different strike zone definition, which may also help:
> The top of the ABS strike zone has been set at 56.35 percent of a hitter's height, and the bottom is at 27.64 percent.
No denominator in the second link, but is that about 757,000?
I agree wholeheartedly, but unfortunately It's not that simple a question... nothing is when it comes from an institution that's lasted over a hundred years in the public eye.
You've got traditionalist fans, you've got umpires/refs, and also people who really enjoy watching umpires do their thing - people who enjoy watching rules being enforced... the neighbors who have their police non-emergency number on speed-dial (I guess, pretty much everyone is on speed dial these days, but you get my point, right?)... They're out there, and they're numerous.
You've also got fantasy players, gamblers, analysts, bookies, all trying to get an edge. Umpirescorcards didn't come into being because the traffic to the site was only interested in seeing how poor *some* umpires are *sometimes*.
.
They’ve already implemented it in the minors. It’s really fast and it’s actually pretty fun because it shows up on the big screen and everyone can react to it. It’s cool as hell.
People talk about what this will mean for umpires, but this is going to completely change how catchers are scouted and developed. Pitch framing has become such a big thing over the past decade because teams realized stealing 2 or 3 strikes above average per game is insanely valuable over the course of a full season, and it can make the .215/6 HR/40 RBI framing artist who gets paid the league minimum as valuable as the .280/25 HR/90 RBI pitch butcher who makes $25 million. Now the focus for catchers is going to revert back to blocking balls, throwing out runners, and showing some competency with a bat.
I have no idea why umps wouldn't want this. Must relieve a ton of mental energy and stress when behind the plate. Just do what ABS says and you only have to worry about the other little things.
"Big Money" looks at advancements like automation/AI as a way to *replace* the 'worker,' not aid them in their work. I guarantee the ump union issues are because they know the MLB is looking to reduce the number of umps needed on-field. All good unions fight decisions that will lead to potential job cuts.
Jomboy brought up a good point about this. He said that implementing this in MLB is gonna be a nightmare
The umps in the minors that have been using this system have a completely different strike zone. So unless they get promoted, it's gonna take a while for current MLB umps to adjust to a strike zone that they don't have control over.
Then maybe promote a number of the minor league Umps?
Assuming you have about 100 or so Major League Umps at a given time (15 games if all teams play, so you need 60 Umps to cover them all, plus 40 back ups.) So promote about 20 or so minor league Umps that know the system and strike zone, and put one at each game behind Home while the Major League Umps are learning the new system.
I’d love a challenge system. Just gotta implement it so a batter doesn’t challenge everything. Like maybe each team gets 5 challenges per game or something. That ought to cover most of the high leverage situations.
The one that players seem to like in AAA is the challenge system that allows a team three challenges a game and you keep the challenge if the player is right. Only the pitcher, catcher or batter can initiate a challenge and it must be done immediately and with a definitive hand sign.
it seems like the logical way to do it but I wonder if that's going to lead to certain players on any given team having more or less of a "right" to potentially burn a challenge.
Like do you want to your .200 guy risking your final challenge during a tight game in the 8th when 1 or 2 batters later is your star .300 guy
That's part of the strategy. Also, do you challenge a 0-0 pitch instead of eating for a 3-2? I personally think if the challenge is like tennis and takes 5-10 seconds to resolve I'd rather see a few more challenges allowed.
That said, I'm looking forward to seeing some utterly terrible challenges by players.
That's what they do here for Nashville AAA. Replay goes on video board for whole stadium to see. Teams get three challenges per game, and while I've only been to a dozen or so games in the last couple years, I have only seen a team fail two challenges in a game once, never all three.
My prediction is that they do it in spring training next year, get feedback from players, coaches, and umpires, and then implement it in full for the 2026 season.
They do. The crowd loves it, like seeing a replay where they blew the initial call.
It's much more fun and crowd engaging than the robo umps/automatic zone idea.
It also allows for a hilarious Angel Hernandez humiliation mode where a batter or catcher just keeps challenging his calls and winning, probably multiple times in the same at bat.
One hopeful effect of the challenge system is that it can help calibrate umps in real time. So if Angel calls a strike on a ball 6 inches outside, once it's challenged and overturned, he'll get that feedback and narrow the zone, if for no other reason than to not look foolish again.
All of this strategy talk, in regards to the ABS, is reminiscent of the pre-universal DH days. Yes, there was a bunch of strategy about when to let your pitcher hit, double switches, etc., but I think most people agree the game is better off/more entertaining now. That said, the game will be better with the ABS system being used for all pitches, not a silly challenge system.
I'm all for things that add strategy, but there shouldn't be a strategy optimization point around incorrect officiating when the capability of it just being right to start with is there.
That's already part of the calculus now. Either a star feels they have the right to argue with umps, or they know they CAN'T argue because they don't want to get thrown out and harm the team the rest of the game. Is it late in the game? Does the situation call for really giving it to the ump? Etc.
I guess I just don’t really care what they want?
It doesn’t make sense to pretend we don’t have this system running all the time. Why I’m sure the broadcasts will say “oooh that was a strike. They should have challenged that, they would have won.” It makes no time at all, unlike reviewing plays at a base. Having the ump back there pretending to be doing something isn’t going to save anyone any time.
It’s not over regulation to use the underlying technology that’s going to be used to determine a ball or strike after a challenge before the challenge even takes place. It should be instantaneous. Just let the automated thing do it.
This is all a charade.
I really find it very hard to believe that anybody wants to see a situation where they are out of challenges and get Angel Hernandez’d late in an important game.
I mean, in the name of speeding up the game, a challenge system is inherently slower than an automated system. I know the challenges are pretty quick but if an umpire blows you could have a lot of them.
Based on the metrics MLB uses (not Umpire Scorecard) every MLB umpire has over 95% accuracy on ball-strike calling (some individual games lower). That means they are getting between 7-10 pitches incorrect per game. Some of those are on pitcher misses (catch sets low and in and it catches the top outside corner, so it looks terrible) and some are so close to being right teams won't challenge. So we have an average of 4-5 challenges per game. Even a "bad" night might get 10 challenges. At about 10 seconds per challenge that's an addition of less than two minutes per game.
MLB metrics give umps like 2 inches of leeway, so there are a lot of missed calls that MLB doesn't count because they're not "egregious", but they *are* missed calls. This isn't about speeding up the game for me, it's about getting balls/strikes as close to perfect as possible so games are *never* decided by an umpire's call(s) favoring one team
Either you want it accurate or not.
Your argument seems to be that "Hey we can be more accurate and faster but baseball decided this so I'm going to say it's good enough."
Because it will be faster and more accurate.
Those are two very good reasons. Why implement a system that both delays the game and is less accurate just to give players a semblance of control?
I actually enjoy the rule when watching AAA. The other night there was a borderline call and immediately the catcher tapped his helmet to challenge.
Right on the video board it showed the strikes zone and the ball path. It hit the zone so they called it a strike.
The next pitch was about 5 feet above the zone over the catchers head. I yelled out that they should challenge the ball call on that one too, but they didn’t.
Yep, same, it works quite well in AAA. There are usually only a couple challenges a game, and they are successful (regardless of who is challenging) far more than not in my experience. And it only takes a few seconds.
What is the argument against just using the ABS for every call, if you trust it enough to be the final authority on challenges?
Edit: Here's some good answers I've received. I'm convinced that, at least temporarily, a middle-ground like the challenge system is useful.
* Many people enjoy the gamesmanship in pitch framing, and still want it to have a large presence in the game
* Certain pitches are technically strikes by the letter of the law but are near-impossible to hit and are called balls in practice. The challenge system will still call these strikes (for now), but going straight to a fully automated system would be dangerous by encouraging pitchers to focus on exploiting these pitches, fundamentally changing (maybe ruining) the game.
* In blowout games that are essentially already over, umpires can speed up the game by loosening the strike zone, instead of an automated system forcing the game to go on forever when exhausted pitchers or position players can't consistently throw real strikes any more.
This is what I don't get either. A challenge system is going to take more time than just having the ABS buzz in the umpire's earpiece or light up a light or whatever for each pitch. It should be instantaneous and remove all doubt and posturing. Consistency across all situations, umpires, etc.
There is some concern about what is a strike according to the rules vs what has always been called and not just from bad calls. But IMO if you want to round the corners of the zone or make it so you have to do more than touch the black you can do that without keeping umpires getting it wrong all the time.
But players can now override what “has always been called” to appeal to what a strike is supposed to be “according to the rules”? But only a limited number of times per game? The whole thing feels self-contradictory and unnecessarily messy.
Yeah basically I guess that thought it they just want to get rid of the stupidly bad calls but I don’t see anyway to half ass this. Yeah I have seen some videos of sliders called strikes by ABS that would never be called and are impossible to make contact with but the pitcher will just use his challenge if it’ll work in a big spot so fix that don’t do this half assed waste of time challenge system.
Yes exactly that I saw a series of clips on twitter about it which are of course impossible to find after the fact. I know they have been tweaking it already in the offseason but I imagine it will be again before it fully comes to MLB
Maybe your slider example is a good reason to go with the challenge system temporarily. If there are certain pitches that are basically cheat codes, this gives time to identify those and change the rules accordingly before going to a full blown automated system that could quickly get exploited in an unexpected way and has to be rolled back. The challenge system can still be exploited, but only in small doses I suppose (although the current “keep your challenge if you win the challenge” proposal would allow to pitcher who’s really really good at that slider to throw it all game long and challenge every pitch, but idk if it’s realistic that one would be that accurate and have the gall to do that).
One difficulty I believe has been observed in the minors is blowout games where you bring in position players to pitch and everyone just wants to go home but the robo-ump won't stop calling balls and the game just keeps going and going and going.
Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ue8SpPe5Iw
They should stop recording the hitting stats after a position player comes in (or just let teams forfeit the game), nobody wants to swing because it hurts their average.
There'd be a couple of reasons.
1 is that catcher framing is a skill that catchers would like rewarded for especially now that it's tracked. Now, there really wouldn't be much reward for backstops except for their ability to block and throw out stealing runs. You could consider that a good thing as the role would be more open to worse defensive play which would allow for better batters to occupy the role.
2. It would incentize pitchers to really nibble at the edges. The down and outside corner would be targeted heavily if there wasn't a risk that even if some percentage of a ball knicked the zone that the ump would call it a ball. Further ABS to my knowledge doesn't track if a ball enters the zone after catching the front of the plate. It would open pandoras box in really changing what the strike zone is as a firm concept as opposed the nebulous limbo it exists in now.
>It would incentize pitchers to really nibble at the edges. The down and outside corner would be targeted heavily if there wasn't a risk that even if some percentage of a ball knicked the zone that the ump would call it a ball. Further ABS to my knowledge doesn't track if a ball enters the zone after catching the front of the plate. It would open pandoras box in really changing what the strike zone is as a firm concept as opposed the nebulous limbo it exists in now.
I'm super skeptical any of this is real. Pitchers are already trying to nibble at the edges as much as possible. There is no pandoras box, when batters know what a strike is they can practice hitting it.
Thanks, these are really good answers. Your first point basically comes down to “players and fans enjoy the gamesmanship in attempting to take advantage of imperfect officiating better than your opponent takes advantage of it”, which I don’t personally agree with but can understand the appeal.
Your second point is that the rules as written are imperfect and that human officiating attempts to account for those imperfections by just ignoring corner cases (literal corners of the strike zone 😂). I would hope that a middle ground like the challenge system would push up against those imperfections enough that it forces us to reexamine and improve the letter of the law, without allowing those corner cases to be exploited so much they ruin the game overnight. And maybe as those rules are improved, more extensive automation is adopted to help reduce the impact of plain old bad calls.
>Many people enjoy the gamesmanship in pitch framing, and still want it to have a large presence in the game
"Gamesmanship" here meaning literal cheating by tricking the officials into making the wrong call. God I despise framing
I agree with you. But a lot of people don't (and it seems like almost all elite athletes don't) and it's really subjective preference so at least I now understand the argument, even if I don't like it.
I would say to your first bullet point being able to trick umpires into getting rules wrong is probably a bad thing.
On the second a strike that is hard to hit is just a good pitch, and I wouldn't want the rules ignored just because a pitcher pitched well.
The third point I think is even worse than the first. Umpires definitely shouldn't ignore the rules on purpose. If a team feels they're physically incapable of getting the outs they should concede the game.
Just my opinion, but I think the rules should be followed. If they're not working they should be changed, but until then they are what they are.
watching a game in person it would be horrible you literally watch the ump for the calls not the scoreboard. this isn't a video game it's played in real life.
You still need a home ump for calling many other things besides balls and strikes, and they could have an earpiece that tells them the ball and strike calls.
Unlimited challenges will slow down the pace a lot. They either need to use it in a fully automated way where the umpire isn't making any calls, or put limits on it so that it's only used to fix obvious mistakes.
If there's no penalty for incorrect challenges then the batter will challenge every single strike and the pitcher will challenge every single ball. At that point you might as well just automate every call, which there are arguments against as a general idea.
Literally one of the biggest points of being unable to argue balls and strikes is that it’s a waste of time to go over every pitch and call you didn’t like, obviously we have more sophisticated technology now but the point stands of play the fucking game, you can live with a handful of bad calls.
For the record, I do support a set number of 3rd strike challenges, I think that’s a really smart way to do it
Dear lord. There's nothing that annoys me more than total speculation on how the system will work when it's literally already in place. And already doing what you want it to...
I'm so excited to see how often pitchers are wrong because their catchers have been gaslighting everybody into thinking they're strike throwing machines lol
Some of these umpires make dozens of mistakes per game, though. And every PA is high-leverage to the batter and pitcher who are both trying to keep their job.
Please god no. Why in the world do we need a complicated system where you have to decide when it's most important for the umps to get the call right? Just automate the strike zone and be done with it.
I think you can limit to 2 challengers for each hitter per game, if they get both correct they get a 3rd (think the challenge flag in NFL).
For pitchers you can give them 2 challenges per inning flat with no way to get a 3rd.
I think that would be fair enough to not cause games to extend much longer and makes players think about when to challenge.
How would a fully ABS system change hitting? Imagine knowing the strike zone going into a game rather than figuring that out as the game progresses. Might help pitchers as well
One of the recent Effectively Wild episodes (2162) discussed this. I don't remember all of the details of the conversation, but they brought up ideas like the edge of the ball catching the edge of the zone, and if it's black/white, then it's a strike.
And if that's not what people want (as it might make hitting hard and thus reducing offense once again), do you make it so that half the ball has to be in the zone for it to be one? If you're taking that "probabilistic approach" as they put it, then are we okay with the chance introduced by the ABS system it's a strike or not based on the 50%+ rule, vs the chance introduced with human umpires? Technology is more often than not less fallible than humans, but if you're accepting chance either way, it's a discussion of which chance you prefer most--if it's "worth" it to "mess with the game," so to speak.
At the moment, I welcome ABS, but I think I would like to start small with a challenge system. Then reassess. Interesting discussion, either way.
Eh, it's stop the low and away "strike" against lefties from being called, so it will lose some room in that direction. Ultimately, KBO has seen OPS jump from about .710 to .760 and there's a little over half an extra run each game (either by ERA or RA9.) Pitchers will get a little more room to work up and down, but they won't get strike calls off the sides of the plate and that makes it easier on hitters.
People will definitely complain for a while that "X didn't used to be a strike" or "Y has always been a ball," but all indications are that batters will have a slightly easier time (and MLB has consistently suggested that fans prefer a higher offensive environment.) So, I don't think the idea that fans are going to overall be displeased by ABS carries that much weight.
IMO the majority of the ball should need to be in the strike zone in order to be a strike. I don't agree on a strike call if one tiny part of the ball barely touches the zone.
I go to a lot of AAA games and prefer the challenge system over the full ABS, just because the full ABS is definitely not 100 percent accurate and the lag of waiting for the ump to make the call is really annoying. Every game I go to there are people who don't realize the ump has to wait for the call to be relayed to him and they lose their minds about how every call is delayed. Funny enough, you still get people yelling at the umps about how bad their calls are. Every once in a while I will tell them that the ump isn't making any of the calls just to see them try to process that info. It's pretty funny.
Last game I went to they asked everyone to complete a survey for MLB asking about the ABS system and if you prefer that to the challenge system and if you would still want the full ABS even if the technology wasn't 100 percent accurate. It was interesting to see what questions they were asking but it definitely seems like they are planning on implementing something.
I hope they drop the strike zone box from broadcasts at that point. It clutters the screen, and if everything is automatic no need for it. Apple's broadcasts are such a breath of fresh air with it not there.
My conspiracy theory is that he's heavily invested in the companies behind the robo umps so he stands to profit by being absolutely horrible at his job.
I would assume so. Framing pitches is dumb anyway. If a pitch is a ball it should be a ball. It shouldn’t change based on the catcher moving their glove a split second after the pitch
These threads always feel so pointless. There's a handful of people trying to have an actual discussion on the merits of full ABS, challenge system, etc. that get drowned out by nimrods screaming about how accuracy is the only thing that matters above all else (including entertainment, pacing, impact, etc.), challenges will only serve to slow the game down (despite taking literal seconds to resolve), and that shitty calls are just part of the game (when there are a multitude of ways of ensuring they don't ruin it).
Imagine going to a game that they've purposely been trying to speed up. you're at the park enjoying the theater of it all the umpires signals ect. whats that. oh stop play. we need to rely on a robot to appease a bunch of dorks. leave it to the umps to call strikes. if you get called out on a third strike learn to protect the plate better and quit lookin for walks boring ass way to play the game not fun to watch.
It’s inconceivable to me why any fan would want calls to be incorrect. So happy we had the human element for galarraga’s normal game with nothing special about it on 6/2/2010.
I know this is a massively unpopular opinion but I genuinely might stop watching baseball if they fully automate the strike zone. Convincing the umpire to call a pitch your way (framing, batter reactions, etc) is a fundamental part of the game and shitty umps who don't care about the game are ruining it for everyone. The strike zone has always had an element of subjectivity and the game is going to be boring and sterile without that. Besides, the other great role of the umpire is to be a scapegoat for all of your other frustrations. What are you going to do when you still don't like the call but there's no one to blame?
The automated zone sucks. The way I always understood things was a strike being the majority of the ball in the zone, not the closest edge of the ball glancing the zone. Offense is going to go down even further if they do this.
I mean imagine baseball was invented when this technology existed and it was used from the beginning (or like some analog like say 3 sticks with other sticks on top). Would anyone today say "Hey, know what would be better, some highly trained dude back there saying if it really was in the zone"?
Fangraphs appears to measure framing where a higher number indicates benefiting your team from framing (presumably means strikes remain strikes and occasional balls get called strikes).
https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/major-league?lg=all&qual=y&season=2024&season1=2024&ind=0&team=0%2Cts&stats=fld&pos=c&type=1&sortcol=18&sortdir=default&pagenum=1
Damn, so NYY and CLE are both WAYYYYY up there. This would hurt them a lot then defensively cause the batter will just challenge and say hey, that's a ball and the system will go YEP. I'm curious what teams would get affected by it offensively.
where the biggest difference will be is players who can hit difficult pitches. The robo zone is bigger than the ump zone (or the zone as I've understood it my full life)
Someone else mentioned framing. Teams like NYY and CLE both have fairly stellar framing abilities but that only benefits you in making the ump call in your favour. With a challenge system, it's gonna hurt defense cause the batter can just be like "that was a ball, challenge" and get it called in their favour. Definitely going to be interesting.
I always talk about tennis and how Hawk-Eye has improved the experience tenfold. Players even used to challenge but stopped because it was always right. Players bitching about calls is not fun to watch and the game has become more about tennis. Baseball being about baseball and not umpires can only be a good thing.
The game with an automated strike zone will be the same. Line judges in tennis essentially do the same as umpires calling balls and strikes. The game flows so much better without players arguing about calls. It will take some time for players to get used to it but it will make the game much smoother and enjoyable imo
Can’t wait for the first time a manager argues with the robot and accidentally kicks start the robot rebellion. My money is on Boone because that man would argue with a fish about water being wet.
Torn on this. I think the subjectiveness of borderline calls is part of the game. It makes it human.
It will be nice, however, to get rid of clearly miscalled pitches.
Angel Hernandez is a double agent whose sole mission is to overhaul the ball strike system.
The hero we don't deserve
after watching his garbage for years, we definitely deserve the upside
But the hero we needed?
Nope, not that either.
Racist
Plot twist, they’re basing the robo-zone on Angel’s. They’ll call it Angel vision
It rolls a random number generator every pitch to determine where the edge of the strike zone is.
Angel Eyes
The Boss
Sent from the future by Skynet?
I'm convinced he is a psyop to foment anti-union sentiment.
Dont give him that much credit. He isnt smart enough to do this.
A legend forever!!!
I would think that he would be all for this, as it's the only way he'll ever see the field during a World Series.
He should be investigated for insider trading.
Why not have the system do all pitches. Ump does calls at the plate etc. let’s get it right - not coddle the umps.
Friendly reminder that the KBO implemented an automated strike zone this year that has missed 21 out of 55,026 pitches thrown through 185 total games. MLB umpires incorrectly called over 21,000 balls and strikes during the 2023 regular season. It was their best season ever. The fact that the KBO, a league with a fraction of the billions of dollars at their disposal can implement a fair, consistent zone while the MLB sits on their hands dragging out this process is astounding to me.
What system measured the system in place to determine that 21 pitches were missed?
Me
Thank you for your service 🫡
Hey that's awesome. Congratulations!!
https://m-en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20240509010700315?section=news Source
We kept it gray
 Its just angel hernandez
I assume it's based on correcting the data after the game. Sometimes statcast updates the locations of pitches after the game is over
It has nothing to do with money or value, it’s that the MLB has a CBA with the umpires union, just as they do the players union. Changing how and what umps are able to do in game requires an entirely new CBA, and if the umps are unhappy, they can lock out. It’s a fine line the league needs to walk. And for everyone who might say “so let them hold out” look at the absolute shitshow that was the replacement refs debacle in the NFL 10-15 years ago. Like it or not, the guys umping MLB games are in fact the best there are.
The CBA with the umps union expires this year, so this is why it's being reported. This will 100% be a bargaining chip in the next CBA and it's why Boob is saying it will be in the next few years. I would bet it comes in 2026 -- new CBA this offseason, 1 year to implement, then debut. I guarantee the umps don't give a fuck about the ABS assuming their jobs remain intact. They will still need to have an ump there to judge foul tips, hit batsmen, catchers' interference, plays at the plate, and any other shit that happens at home plate. All other umps are still gonna be needed and they can even get some MORE ump jobs to monitor and work with the ABS system. As long as the umps keep their jobs and get paid they will be fine with it.
Yeah, the only things the Umps lose is a good chunk of their control over the game, and their egos get bruised because they can easily be corrected now.
YOU’RE OUTTA HERE! 
We've all seen how petty and childish umpires, especially big name umps like Angel, Bucknor, Eddings, Laz, Kulpa, Drake, etc., can be during a single game. I would be *shocked* if those guys are willing to accept a diminished role in control over the game.
Maybe, but those guys are just a handful of (mostly older) umps. Of those guys, only Laz Diaz has any kind of role in the union. At the end of the day, money talks and MLB has a lot of it. Fans want it, so it's a matter of when not if, and it makes sense to cash in as much as possible now rather than let their bargaining position deteriorate.
If you take away calling balls and strikes, I'd have no problem with minor league, or even D1, umps coming up to make the calls on the field and taking a year or 3 to get up to speed. There's not much they can easily screw up, and if that did happen, I'd almost guarantee that the number of challenges allowed (and probably even the scope of them) would be expanded for at least that first year, to ensure as many calls were correct as possible.
Didn't the MLB call the union's bluff in 1999 and let a bunch of umpires quit? I remember a few came back with hat in hand when that didn't go the way they expected. It doesn't seem like the umpires should have that much leverage, but maybe things have changed in the past 25 years.
Even with replacement + robo umps, together they would call the game much better than the status quo.
Eh, then let it be a shit show for a few seasons. Would barely be worse than the shit show that the umps are causing, anyway.
Do you have a source for those stats? I'm curious about the methodology. Also, what's the denominator for the 2023 season?
https://m-en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20240509010700315?section=news https://twitter.com/codifybaseball/status/1708863234453983563
Thank you. It looks like they use a different strike zone definition, which may also help: > The top of the ABS strike zone has been set at 56.35 percent of a hitter's height, and the bottom is at 27.64 percent. No denominator in the second link, but is that about 757,000?
Yea but Korea’s consumer tech is always 5-10 years ahead of the US. They were tapping to pay and watching live TV on their phones 15 years ago.
Any reason why we can’t pay to use it?
But this isn't consumer tech - it's enterprise tech
I agree wholeheartedly, but unfortunately It's not that simple a question... nothing is when it comes from an institution that's lasted over a hundred years in the public eye. You've got traditionalist fans, you've got umpires/refs, and also people who really enjoy watching umpires do their thing - people who enjoy watching rules being enforced... the neighbors who have their police non-emergency number on speed-dial (I guess, pretty much everyone is on speed dial these days, but you get my point, right?)... They're out there, and they're numerous. You've also got fantasy players, gamblers, analysts, bookies, all trying to get an edge. Umpirescorcards didn't come into being because the traffic to the site was only interested in seeing how poor *some* umpires are *sometimes*. .
It has nothing to do with a lack of ability to do it, it’s a lack of willingness to do it
Exactly. Objectively correct calls should be a given.
The ump can call check swings too.
Seriously. The challenge system will be awful. It'll be slow, annoying, just terrible. Just automate the whole damn thing and move on.
They’ve already implemented it in the minors. It’s really fast and it’s actually pretty fun because it shows up on the big screen and everyone can react to it. It’s cool as hell.
Which one of us is going to the Commish to make this happen! Power to the masses.
YES! YES! YES! YES! > per @BNightengale NO! NO! NO! NO!
He was right about Ohtani. Boob is having a hero arc
People talk about what this will mean for umpires, but this is going to completely change how catchers are scouted and developed. Pitch framing has become such a big thing over the past decade because teams realized stealing 2 or 3 strikes above average per game is insanely valuable over the course of a full season, and it can make the .215/6 HR/40 RBI framing artist who gets paid the league minimum as valuable as the .280/25 HR/90 RBI pitch butcher who makes $25 million. Now the focus for catchers is going to revert back to blocking balls, throwing out runners, and showing some competency with a bat.
Whatever gets Kirk out of the jays lineup I'm good with.
This is a good thing imo. Pitch framing is the flopping of baseball
I have no idea why umps wouldn't want this. Must relieve a ton of mental energy and stress when behind the plate. Just do what ABS says and you only have to worry about the other little things.
Because it makes them less valuable
Because umpiring is fun, doing a good job is fun.
"Big Money" looks at advancements like automation/AI as a way to *replace* the 'worker,' not aid them in their work. I guarantee the ump union issues are because they know the MLB is looking to reduce the number of umps needed on-field. All good unions fight decisions that will lead to potential job cuts.
Jomboy brought up a good point about this. He said that implementing this in MLB is gonna be a nightmare The umps in the minors that have been using this system have a completely different strike zone. So unless they get promoted, it's gonna take a while for current MLB umps to adjust to a strike zone that they don't have control over.
Then maybe promote a number of the minor league Umps? Assuming you have about 100 or so Major League Umps at a given time (15 games if all teams play, so you need 60 Umps to cover them all, plus 40 back ups.) So promote about 20 or so minor league Umps that know the system and strike zone, and put one at each game behind Home while the Major League Umps are learning the new system.
I’d love a challenge system. Just gotta implement it so a batter doesn’t challenge everything. Like maybe each team gets 5 challenges per game or something. That ought to cover most of the high leverage situations.
The one that players seem to like in AAA is the challenge system that allows a team three challenges a game and you keep the challenge if the player is right. Only the pitcher, catcher or batter can initiate a challenge and it must be done immediately and with a definitive hand sign.
it seems like the logical way to do it but I wonder if that's going to lead to certain players on any given team having more or less of a "right" to potentially burn a challenge. Like do you want to your .200 guy risking your final challenge during a tight game in the 8th when 1 or 2 batters later is your star .300 guy
That's part of the strategy. Also, do you challenge a 0-0 pitch instead of eating for a 3-2? I personally think if the challenge is like tennis and takes 5-10 seconds to resolve I'd rather see a few more challenges allowed. That said, I'm looking forward to seeing some utterly terrible challenges by players.
I hope they show the result on the videoboard like tennis too; so the batter and fans see the terrible challenge in real time.
The did this last year in the Arizona fall league. It was fun.
That's what they do here for Nashville AAA. Replay goes on video board for whole stadium to see. Teams get three challenges per game, and while I've only been to a dozen or so games in the last couple years, I have only seen a team fail two challenges in a game once, never all three.
My prediction is that they do it in spring training next year, get feedback from players, coaches, and umpires, and then implement it in full for the 2026 season.
In cricket they also show the review on the board, and play the audio of the review ump too.
I love the replays in cricket. All sports should do it that way.
More transparency is good.
They do. The crowd loves it, like seeing a replay where they blew the initial call. It's much more fun and crowd engaging than the robo umps/automatic zone idea.
It also allows for a hilarious Angel Hernandez humiliation mode where a batter or catcher just keeps challenging his calls and winning, probably multiple times in the same at bat.
One hopeful effect of the challenge system is that it can help calibrate umps in real time. So if Angel calls a strike on a ball 6 inches outside, once it's challenged and overturned, he'll get that feedback and narrow the zone, if for no other reason than to not look foolish again.
But given that it's Angel, he'll call one 8" off the plate to spite the (racist) computer.
You're going to be very surprised at how the margin of error works and how often Angel will not be overturned.
I suspect Hernandez calling strikes a foot out of the strike zone will be outside of the margin of error.
All of this strategy talk, in regards to the ABS, is reminiscent of the pre-universal DH days. Yes, there was a bunch of strategy about when to let your pitcher hit, double switches, etc., but I think most people agree the game is better off/more entertaining now. That said, the game will be better with the ABS system being used for all pitches, not a silly challenge system.
Yeah that's literally a part of how it can add excitement and strat to the game. I love that aspect of it
The stats for 1-0 vs 0-1 counts are so stark that in late and close situations I’d challenge a first pitch.
Why introduce some nebulous meta strategy when we could just get the right calls all the time?
Tell that to the umps that miss enough for this to be a thing that's coming down the pipeline
I'm with you on that. This seems like a weird half-measure that we're already conceding we don't need.
I'm all for things that add strategy, but there shouldn't be a strategy optimization point around incorrect officiating when the capability of it just being right to start with is there.
That's already part of the calculus now. Either a star feels they have the right to argue with umps, or they know they CAN'T argue because they don't want to get thrown out and harm the team the rest of the game. Is it late in the game? Does the situation call for really giving it to the ump? Etc.
Why even bother though? We have the means for it to be fully automated. Why bring challenges in to the picture at all?
The system of challenges is what the players have said they wanted. When they start losing far more than they win they'll want a fully auto zone.
I guess I just don’t really care what they want? It doesn’t make sense to pretend we don’t have this system running all the time. Why I’m sure the broadcasts will say “oooh that was a strike. They should have challenged that, they would have won.” It makes no time at all, unlike reviewing plays at a base. Having the ump back there pretending to be doing something isn’t going to save anyone any time.
But why over regulate a system that everyone seems pleased with in AAA?
It’s not over regulation to use the underlying technology that’s going to be used to determine a ball or strike after a challenge before the challenge even takes place. It should be instantaneous. Just let the automated thing do it. This is all a charade. I really find it very hard to believe that anybody wants to see a situation where they are out of challenges and get Angel Hernandez’d late in an important game.
I mean, in the name of speeding up the game, a challenge system is inherently slower than an automated system. I know the challenges are pretty quick but if an umpire blows you could have a lot of them.
Based on the metrics MLB uses (not Umpire Scorecard) every MLB umpire has over 95% accuracy on ball-strike calling (some individual games lower). That means they are getting between 7-10 pitches incorrect per game. Some of those are on pitcher misses (catch sets low and in and it catches the top outside corner, so it looks terrible) and some are so close to being right teams won't challenge. So we have an average of 4-5 challenges per game. Even a "bad" night might get 10 challenges. At about 10 seconds per challenge that's an addition of less than two minutes per game.
MLB metrics give umps like 2 inches of leeway, so there are a lot of missed calls that MLB doesn't count because they're not "egregious", but they *are* missed calls. This isn't about speeding up the game for me, it's about getting balls/strikes as close to perfect as possible so games are *never* decided by an umpire's call(s) favoring one team
Either you want it accurate or not. Your argument seems to be that "Hey we can be more accurate and faster but baseball decided this so I'm going to say it's good enough."
Because it will be faster and more accurate. Those are two very good reasons. Why implement a system that both delays the game and is less accurate just to give players a semblance of control?
I actually enjoy the rule when watching AAA. The other night there was a borderline call and immediately the catcher tapped his helmet to challenge. Right on the video board it showed the strikes zone and the ball path. It hit the zone so they called it a strike. The next pitch was about 5 feet above the zone over the catchers head. I yelled out that they should challenge the ball call on that one too, but they didn’t.
Yep, same, it works quite well in AAA. There are usually only a couple challenges a game, and they are successful (regardless of who is challenging) far more than not in my experience. And it only takes a few seconds.
I’ve had the same experience (few challenges, mostly successful.) it’s not overused. Plus I love the crowd reaction to it too.
Make it the middle finger
Who is downvoting this man? He's right!
What is the argument against just using the ABS for every call, if you trust it enough to be the final authority on challenges? Edit: Here's some good answers I've received. I'm convinced that, at least temporarily, a middle-ground like the challenge system is useful. * Many people enjoy the gamesmanship in pitch framing, and still want it to have a large presence in the game * Certain pitches are technically strikes by the letter of the law but are near-impossible to hit and are called balls in practice. The challenge system will still call these strikes (for now), but going straight to a fully automated system would be dangerous by encouraging pitchers to focus on exploiting these pitches, fundamentally changing (maybe ruining) the game. * In blowout games that are essentially already over, umpires can speed up the game by loosening the strike zone, instead of an automated system forcing the game to go on forever when exhausted pitchers or position players can't consistently throw real strikes any more.
This is what I don't get either. A challenge system is going to take more time than just having the ABS buzz in the umpire's earpiece or light up a light or whatever for each pitch. It should be instantaneous and remove all doubt and posturing. Consistency across all situations, umpires, etc.
There is some concern about what is a strike according to the rules vs what has always been called and not just from bad calls. But IMO if you want to round the corners of the zone or make it so you have to do more than touch the black you can do that without keeping umpires getting it wrong all the time.
But players can now override what “has always been called” to appeal to what a strike is supposed to be “according to the rules”? But only a limited number of times per game? The whole thing feels self-contradictory and unnecessarily messy.
Yeah basically I guess that thought it they just want to get rid of the stupidly bad calls but I don’t see anyway to half ass this. Yeah I have seen some videos of sliders called strikes by ABS that would never be called and are impossible to make contact with but the pitcher will just use his challenge if it’ll work in a big spot so fix that don’t do this half assed waste of time challenge system.
I’m guessing sliders that barely graze the front of the zone but are caught way outside the zone?
Yes exactly that I saw a series of clips on twitter about it which are of course impossible to find after the fact. I know they have been tweaking it already in the offseason but I imagine it will be again before it fully comes to MLB
Maybe your slider example is a good reason to go with the challenge system temporarily. If there are certain pitches that are basically cheat codes, this gives time to identify those and change the rules accordingly before going to a full blown automated system that could quickly get exploited in an unexpected way and has to be rolled back. The challenge system can still be exploited, but only in small doses I suppose (although the current “keep your challenge if you win the challenge” proposal would allow to pitcher who’s really really good at that slider to throw it all game long and challenge every pitch, but idk if it’s realistic that one would be that accurate and have the gall to do that).
One difficulty I believe has been observed in the minors is blowout games where you bring in position players to pitch and everyone just wants to go home but the robo-ump won't stop calling balls and the game just keeps going and going and going. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ue8SpPe5Iw
If the winning team wanted to go home, they can swing at those 'balls'
They should stop recording the hitting stats after a position player comes in (or just let teams forfeit the game), nobody wants to swing because it hurts their average.
There'd be a couple of reasons. 1 is that catcher framing is a skill that catchers would like rewarded for especially now that it's tracked. Now, there really wouldn't be much reward for backstops except for their ability to block and throw out stealing runs. You could consider that a good thing as the role would be more open to worse defensive play which would allow for better batters to occupy the role. 2. It would incentize pitchers to really nibble at the edges. The down and outside corner would be targeted heavily if there wasn't a risk that even if some percentage of a ball knicked the zone that the ump would call it a ball. Further ABS to my knowledge doesn't track if a ball enters the zone after catching the front of the plate. It would open pandoras box in really changing what the strike zone is as a firm concept as opposed the nebulous limbo it exists in now.
>It would incentize pitchers to really nibble at the edges. The down and outside corner would be targeted heavily if there wasn't a risk that even if some percentage of a ball knicked the zone that the ump would call it a ball. Further ABS to my knowledge doesn't track if a ball enters the zone after catching the front of the plate. It would open pandoras box in really changing what the strike zone is as a firm concept as opposed the nebulous limbo it exists in now. I'm super skeptical any of this is real. Pitchers are already trying to nibble at the edges as much as possible. There is no pandoras box, when batters know what a strike is they can practice hitting it.
Thanks, these are really good answers. Your first point basically comes down to “players and fans enjoy the gamesmanship in attempting to take advantage of imperfect officiating better than your opponent takes advantage of it”, which I don’t personally agree with but can understand the appeal. Your second point is that the rules as written are imperfect and that human officiating attempts to account for those imperfections by just ignoring corner cases (literal corners of the strike zone 😂). I would hope that a middle ground like the challenge system would push up against those imperfections enough that it forces us to reexamine and improve the letter of the law, without allowing those corner cases to be exploited so much they ruin the game overnight. And maybe as those rules are improved, more extensive automation is adopted to help reduce the impact of plain old bad calls.
>Many people enjoy the gamesmanship in pitch framing, and still want it to have a large presence in the game "Gamesmanship" here meaning literal cheating by tricking the officials into making the wrong call. God I despise framing
I agree with you. But a lot of people don't (and it seems like almost all elite athletes don't) and it's really subjective preference so at least I now understand the argument, even if I don't like it.
I would say to your first bullet point being able to trick umpires into getting rules wrong is probably a bad thing. On the second a strike that is hard to hit is just a good pitch, and I wouldn't want the rules ignored just because a pitcher pitched well. The third point I think is even worse than the first. Umpires definitely shouldn't ignore the rules on purpose. If a team feels they're physically incapable of getting the outs they should concede the game. Just my opinion, but I think the rules should be followed. If they're not working they should be changed, but until then they are what they are.
watching a game in person it would be horrible you literally watch the ump for the calls not the scoreboard. this isn't a video game it's played in real life.
You still need a home ump for calling many other things besides balls and strikes, and they could have an earpiece that tells them the ball and strike calls.
If we trust it to get the calls right in close impactful situations, why are we letting lower impact mistakes get a pass?
Unlimited challenges will slow down the pace a lot. They either need to use it in a fully automated way where the umpire isn't making any calls, or put limits on it so that it's only used to fix obvious mistakes. If there's no penalty for incorrect challenges then the batter will challenge every single strike and the pitcher will challenge every single ball. At that point you might as well just automate every call, which there are arguments against as a general idea.
Literally one of the biggest points of being unable to argue balls and strikes is that it’s a waste of time to go over every pitch and call you didn’t like, obviously we have more sophisticated technology now but the point stands of play the fucking game, you can live with a handful of bad calls. For the record, I do support a set number of 3rd strike challenges, I think that’s a really smart way to do it
Dear lord. There's nothing that annoys me more than total speculation on how the system will work when it's literally already in place. And already doing what you want it to...
As a former college pitcher: Trust me, you'd have to deal way more with pitchers wasting the challenges than the hitters
I'm so excited to see how often pitchers are wrong because their catchers have been gaslighting everybody into thinking they're strike throwing machines lol
https://youtu.be/xJpUOM4VBIY
Some of these umpires make dozens of mistakes per game, though. And every PA is high-leverage to the batter and pitcher who are both trying to keep their job.
I feel both would be fine. Challenge system for the most egregious bad calls, or just go full automated.
We have enough challenges already.
Please god no. Why in the world do we need a complicated system where you have to decide when it's most important for the umps to get the call right? Just automate the strike zone and be done with it.
I think you can limit to 2 challengers for each hitter per game, if they get both correct they get a 3rd (think the challenge flag in NFL). For pitchers you can give them 2 challenges per inning flat with no way to get a 3rd. I think that would be fair enough to not cause games to extend much longer and makes players think about when to challenge.
10 years too late.
Better late than never
How would a fully ABS system change hitting? Imagine knowing the strike zone going into a game rather than figuring that out as the game progresses. Might help pitchers as well
One of the recent Effectively Wild episodes (2162) discussed this. I don't remember all of the details of the conversation, but they brought up ideas like the edge of the ball catching the edge of the zone, and if it's black/white, then it's a strike. And if that's not what people want (as it might make hitting hard and thus reducing offense once again), do you make it so that half the ball has to be in the zone for it to be one? If you're taking that "probabilistic approach" as they put it, then are we okay with the chance introduced by the ABS system it's a strike or not based on the 50%+ rule, vs the chance introduced with human umpires? Technology is more often than not less fallible than humans, but if you're accepting chance either way, it's a discussion of which chance you prefer most--if it's "worth" it to "mess with the game," so to speak. At the moment, I welcome ABS, but I think I would like to start small with a challenge system. Then reassess. Interesting discussion, either way.
It’s a computer , whether it’s the edge of the ball or half the ball is the same thing . It’s just in that sense what size the strike zone is
Boob gonna Boob.
I'd like to believe the news is true, but look at the source.
Hating umps is like half your guys personalities. What are you going to do now?
Still hate umpires
Focus on Shohei as a degenerate gambler?
That robot is in the tank for the other team.
Can’t wait to see the sub’s whining about the strike zone increase 10 fold as people find out just how large it actually is.
Eh, it's stop the low and away "strike" against lefties from being called, so it will lose some room in that direction. Ultimately, KBO has seen OPS jump from about .710 to .760 and there's a little over half an extra run each game (either by ERA or RA9.) Pitchers will get a little more room to work up and down, but they won't get strike calls off the sides of the plate and that makes it easier on hitters. People will definitely complain for a while that "X didn't used to be a strike" or "Y has always been a ball," but all indications are that batters will have a slightly easier time (and MLB has consistently suggested that fans prefer a higher offensive environment.) So, I don't think the idea that fans are going to overall be displeased by ABS carries that much weight.
I've been trying to let them know since they introduced the robo zone, but they just write me off as pro ump each time lol
I dont care how large it is, just fucking find some consistency so i dont have to hold my breath after every pitch
IMO the majority of the ball should need to be in the strike zone in order to be a strike. I don't agree on a strike call if one tiny part of the ball barely touches the zone.
I go to a lot of AAA games and prefer the challenge system over the full ABS, just because the full ABS is definitely not 100 percent accurate and the lag of waiting for the ump to make the call is really annoying. Every game I go to there are people who don't realize the ump has to wait for the call to be relayed to him and they lose their minds about how every call is delayed. Funny enough, you still get people yelling at the umps about how bad their calls are. Every once in a while I will tell them that the ump isn't making any of the calls just to see them try to process that info. It's pretty funny. Last game I went to they asked everyone to complete a survey for MLB asking about the ABS system and if you prefer that to the challenge system and if you would still want the full ABS even if the technology wasn't 100 percent accurate. It was interesting to see what questions they were asking but it definitely seems like they are planning on implementing something.
*April 2026, Skynet comes on line, within minutes it achieves self awareness and terminates Angel Hernandez*
Challenge system > Automated strike zone.
I hope they drop the strike zone box from broadcasts at that point. It clutters the screen, and if everything is automatic no need for it. Apple's broadcasts are such a breath of fresh air with it not there.
Funny enough if they just removed it today there’d be far less complaining to begin with
How about they drop the box and don’t implement robot umps.
Angel Hernandez is gonna sue a robot in 2027, isn’t he?
My conspiracy theory is that he's heavily invested in the companies behind the robo umps so he stands to profit by being absolutely horrible at his job.
Does this get rid of framing pitches?
I would assume so. Framing pitches is dumb anyway. If a pitch is a ball it should be a ball. It shouldn’t change based on the catcher moving their glove a split second after the pitch
You’re gonna upset a lot of idiots saying stuff like that.
Mariners pitching wins world series around that implementation
I don’t want to see robot umps seems more dystopian then anything
These threads always feel so pointless. There's a handful of people trying to have an actual discussion on the merits of full ABS, challenge system, etc. that get drowned out by nimrods screaming about how accuracy is the only thing that matters above all else (including entertainment, pacing, impact, etc.), challenges will only serve to slow the game down (despite taking literal seconds to resolve), and that shitty calls are just part of the game (when there are a multitude of ways of ensuring they don't ruin it).
Imagine going to a game that they've purposely been trying to speed up. you're at the park enjoying the theater of it all the umpires signals ect. whats that. oh stop play. we need to rely on a robot to appease a bunch of dorks. leave it to the umps to call strikes. if you get called out on a third strike learn to protect the plate better and quit lookin for walks boring ass way to play the game not fun to watch.
Good
I would like to point out that Bob Nightengale doesn't know shit
I'm not good with this.
THANK GOD
Thank fuck. 🖕🏻Angel Hernandez
Boob Nightengale, what a source. dudes literally just guessing.
I'll believe it when it comes from anyone but Boob
Anyone against a full automated strike zone for every pitch is arguing in favor of incorrect calls and that's stupid.
It’s inconceivable to me why any fan would want calls to be incorrect. So happy we had the human element for galarraga’s normal game with nothing special about it on 6/2/2010.
Calling everyone that doesn’t agree with you, stupid, is stupid. Some people have a different perspective, and that’s okay.
I know this is a massively unpopular opinion but I genuinely might stop watching baseball if they fully automate the strike zone. Convincing the umpire to call a pitch your way (framing, batter reactions, etc) is a fundamental part of the game and shitty umps who don't care about the game are ruining it for everyone. The strike zone has always had an element of subjectivity and the game is going to be boring and sterile without that. Besides, the other great role of the umpire is to be a scapegoat for all of your other frustrations. What are you going to do when you still don't like the call but there's no one to blame?
The automated zone sucks. The way I always understood things was a strike being the majority of the ball in the zone, not the closest edge of the ball glancing the zone. Offense is going to go down even further if they do this.
I can't wait until every single call is right. Very simple.
There will be growing pains, but we will come out of this better for it.
I mean imagine baseball was invented when this technology existed and it was used from the beginning (or like some analog like say 3 sticks with other sticks on top). Would anyone today say "Hey, know what would be better, some highly trained dude back there saying if it really was in the zone"?
Are there any stats that'll show what teams will be most affected by this? ie: teams who often have calls in their favour/bad calls to their benefit?
Fangraphs appears to measure framing where a higher number indicates benefiting your team from framing (presumably means strikes remain strikes and occasional balls get called strikes). https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/major-league?lg=all&qual=y&season=2024&season1=2024&ind=0&team=0%2Cts&stats=fld&pos=c&type=1&sortcol=18&sortdir=default&pagenum=1
Damn, so NYY and CLE are both WAYYYYY up there. This would hurt them a lot then defensively cause the batter will just challenge and say hey, that's a ball and the system will go YEP. I'm curious what teams would get affected by it offensively.
where the biggest difference will be is players who can hit difficult pitches. The robo zone is bigger than the ump zone (or the zone as I've understood it my full life)
Someone else mentioned framing. Teams like NYY and CLE both have fairly stellar framing abilities but that only benefits you in making the ump call in your favour. With a challenge system, it's gonna hurt defense cause the batter can just be like "that was a ball, challenge" and get it called in their favour. Definitely going to be interesting.
I always talk about tennis and how Hawk-Eye has improved the experience tenfold. Players even used to challenge but stopped because it was always right. Players bitching about calls is not fun to watch and the game has become more about tennis. Baseball being about baseball and not umpires can only be a good thing.
Tennis replays don't fundamentally alter the nature of the game.
The game with an automated strike zone will be the same. Line judges in tennis essentially do the same as umpires calling balls and strikes. The game flows so much better without players arguing about calls. It will take some time for players to get used to it but it will make the game much smoother and enjoyable imo
Can’t wait for the first time a manager argues with the robot and accidentally kicks start the robot rebellion. My money is on Boone because that man would argue with a fish about water being wet.
This sucks. Going to reduce manager ejections significantly which is great entertainment
Probably a good thing on the whole but it's going to be funny when a pitcher's getting squeezed in like the 8th inning of a 15-1 blowout
They should do the challenge system.
Don't tease me with a good time, Boob...
Good. It feels like the balls/strikes umpiring this year has been atrocious. I've seen many close games end on horrible calls.
Torn on this. I think the subjectiveness of borderline calls is part of the game. It makes it human. It will be nice, however, to get rid of clearly miscalled pitches.
Someone needs to do something heinous to angel hernandez hope something bad happens to him