Major League Baseball Finally Begins Experimenting With Robot Umpires (espn.com)

"Baseball's potential future will be showcased in the independent Atlantic League this year, and it includes robot umpires..." reports ESPN, calling it part of "a wide variety of experiments that the Atlantic League will run this season as part of its new partnership with Major League Baseball." While MLB has long tested potential rule changes in the minor leagues, its three-year partnership with the Atlantic League -- an eight-team league that features former major leaguers trying to return to affiliated ball -- offers the ability to try more radical rules. MLB has chafed at using technology to replace ball-and-strike-calling duties for umpires, fearful that it's not yet consistent enough to warrant implementation... [W]ith the TrackMan system installed at Atlantic League stadiums, MLB will have a trove of data to analyze and see the effect of doing so.
Other changes aim to speed up the game, including bans on visits to the pitcher's mound and shortening the amount of time between innings.

Comments

Sounds like something from Robocop

[jfdavis668]

Strike 3! Please put down your bat. You have 30 seconds to comply.

Interesting, but balls called for holding runners

[mykepredko]

The rule changes are interesting, I think adding the radar system for helping call balls and strikes will probably cause more problems than it will solve.

Many of the changes will result in a faster game, but they don't address what I see as the real time waster and energy drag - the throw from the pitching mound to hold a runner at first.

How about calling a ball on the batter each time that's done? It will mean that if the runner is a slug will stay close to the base but if the runner is fast, knowing that the pitcher will give up a ball throwing to first, will probably be more aggressive about getting ready to steal second. This will add tension to the game and eliminate the endless throwing balls to the first basemen, destroying the rhythm of the game.

Oh, if you're adding robots, don't forget the blackjack - and hookers!

Doesn't have to be all or nothing

[Solandri]

Most of the sports which have implemented automatic or instant replay review have made it part of a challenge system. The umpire or referee makes calls as before, but if the player or coach feels the call was wrong they can challenge it. Only then does it it get reviewed. Each side has a certain number of challenges they're allowed per game. If their challenge overturns the umpire's call, they get the challenge back. If it confirms the umpire's call, they lose the challenge (have one fewer for the rest of the game).

The system used in tennis is probably the closest analogue to how it might work in baseball. It's quick, so doesn't delay the game much. It adds drama to the game as everyone (players, refs, fans) gets to watch the replay together (not like the terrible system in football where only one guy in a hidden room somewhere watches it, and radios his decision to the field). And the result has been accepted by players and refs as definitive, so it actually cuts down on the amount of time wasted arguing over calls.

It also provides objective evidence if there's a ref or ump who's clearly doing a bad job. Which baseball badly needs since there are some umpires who have a reputation for calling a small strike zone, some for calling a large strike zone.

Re:Doesn't have to be all or nothing

[sjames]

On the other hand, expanding the strike zone (for the pitcher) and shrinking it (for the batter) are currently legitimate strategies.

Re:Doesn't have to be all or nothing

[rmdingler]

It also provides objective evidence if there's a ref or ump who's clearly doing a bad job. Which baseball badly needs since there are some umpires who have a reputation for calling a small strike zone, some for calling a large strike zone.

I rather enjoy the additional variables the different strike zones add to the gamesmanship. Savvy, seasoned players, and pitchers especially, consider it an instrumental part of their preparation to learn the different umpire crews' tendencies.

First, let's stipulate you will never remove all the inaccurate calls, so then it follows that "bad" calls are part of the game. Unless you're a hopelessly biased fan, you would also observe that these egregious travesties of justice go against all teams. It's fair in that everyone takes a fracking, every now and then.

I’m sorry, could you repeat that?

[93 Escort Wagon]

”MLB has chafed at using technology to replace ball-and-strike-calling duties for umpires, fearful that it's not yet consistent enough to warrant implementation...”

Has anyone claiming this ever actually watched an MLB game?

Look, if they want to argue something else - e.g. how the human element is part of baseball - sure, I can understand that. But let’s not pretend that even the older Pitch f/x system wasn’t significantly more consistent at identifying balls and strikes than major league umpires like C.B. Bucknor. Heck, Jeff Sullivan used to run a semi-regular series of posts on FanGraphs where he would identify (with video) the five most egregious ball / strike calls of the week.

Re:I’m sorry, could you repeat that?

[edwdig]

You're forgetting that FanGraphs also ran posts showing the times Pitch FX screwed up the most.

The mistake posts were generated by looking at when the Pitch FX data and the calls disagreed. The mistakes go both ways, and you can see some pretty big mistakes in each direction.

Didn't baseball avoid this for decades?

[rsilvergun]

Umpires could have been replaced with reviewing footage back in the 70s but they didn't because bad calls are part of the sport. Why do this now? Are they just trying to save money? An Umpire can't cost that much can they? And the last thing the blue collar folks who watch baseball are gonna want is to see robots on the field.

Re:Interesting, but balls called for holding runne

[Rolgar]

I think it's several factors driving the increase in game time, but I actually think holding runners on first is probably less of a concern. Stolen bases last year were down 15% compared to 40 years ago, and most teams have analytics that tell them that losing runners from stolen bases ends up costing runs when they aren't on base when the next home run happens.

Bigger problems are that batters are less likely to swing, driving up pitch counts, which results in more pitcher changes, walks and strike outs. Conversely, you have pitchers that have gotten so good that hitters averages are down although home runs are up.

There has been talk of lowering the mound which would hopefully help hitters get the ball in play more, but it remains to be seen.