Why Implementing Robotic Umpires Might Not Be Such a Ball
Its Game 7, bases are loaded when your favorite batter steps up to the plate. The count is three balls, two strikes. The pitch comes inside and low. The batter doesn’t even flinch. Yet, the umpire rings him up on strikes. The crowd is in uproar. After the game, the league publishes a review of that umpire’s calls- it was, in fact, a ball. With all the technology available to us- why does this still happen? According to a statistic by Draft Kings only 88.2% of ball-strike calls are accurate. Potentially more concerning is that is the highest percentage of correct calls the MLB has had in years. The low in the past ten years was 2016 at 83.6%. Draft Kings. In lower-level leagues, such as Triple A, steps have been taken to correct this. Batters are allowed to “challenge” a pitch. The league has gone back and forth between allowing teams two and three challenges per team per game. MLB. Fans certainly seem to think that they would be happier with the correct call 100% of the team- but would they? What are the implications of robotic umpires that got the “correct” call every pitch?
You’d see less swings. When your fate is in the hands of an entity that is objectively correct- it makes less sense to swing the bat. If its close and the batter is in a favorable count, it wouldn’t make much sense to swing. Secondly, any disgruntlement towards batter held by umpires would be removed entirely. Fans would love this. Too often if umpires and batters have “history” batters find themselves on the wrong side of a pitch that often isn’t close. It’s incredibly frustrating as a fan when an umpire seems to make a game about themselves. Next, ace/strikeout pitchers would not be rewarded. This is the biggest issue, pitching is an art. Implementation of a system that gets the correct call all the time hurts these pitchers. Fooling the batter is an art. Fooling the umpire is an art. Do fans really want to see devilish sliders with incredible movement called a ball? It’d be the correct call- but strikeouts, K/9, and pitchers considered to be aces would be in sharp decline. With this implementation, contact pitchers value would rise.
Next, the value of catchers who are able to “frame” pitchers would be a thing of the past. Pitch framing is also an art, depending on where the catcher mitts the ball and presents it has a huge effect on the current umpire’s determination. Pop time, awareness, and hitting would be the main metrics to evaluate the “new catcher.” Lastly, the MLB would have to determine when during the pitch should the automatic determination be made. Would it depend on the pitcher, the velocity, the type of pitch? Those are all factors that need to be considered, tested, and determined. That process would have some serious growing pains that would likely frustrate the modern fan.
I think robotic umpires would hurt America’s game irreparably. As referenced earlier, in the past ten years, umpires’ accurate calls are trending upward. I think the challenge system is worth exploring. I’m unwilling to devalue ace pitchers and framing catchers to get the right call every time. I don’t think the lack of offense that would result is worth the price that would be paid. As a fan I understand how frustrating umpires can be, but the malignant effects of robotic umpires are not currently worth the 11.8% missed calls that the league currently faces.
