Throughout the offseason, the CBS Sports MLB experts will bring you a weekly Batting Around roundtable breaking down pretty much anything. The latest news, a historical question, thoughts about the future of baseball, all sorts of stuff. Last week we picked our own walk-up music. This week we’re going to tackle the automated strike zone challenge system.
Do you like the ABS challenge system? Do you prefer full robo-umps?
Dayn Perry: I do like it, but I see it as a half-measure on the way to full ABS, which is what I really want. The human eye is simply incapable of judging borderline pitches with contemporary velocity and movement profiles with anything approaching acceptable levels of accuracy. This goes even for the highly trained eyes of major-league umpires. The human element is for players on the field, not the fair adjudication of the game. The challenge system is far better than the alternative of 100% human calls, but it’s still not making full and proper use of the technology. I guess my one hope is that the ABS challenge system helps “re-train” umps on what a ball/strike on the edge is and that leads to some improvement, but full ABS is a much better path toward getting a fair and accurate strike zone in place.
Matt Snyder: I love this system and would much rather do it this way than a full-on automated balls/strikes system. I realize that so many people believe the home-plate umpires are bad, but they are actually incredibly adept, generally speaking, at getting the balls and strikes right for the most part. There will be missed calls, obviously, given the level of difficulty in doing that job, and this system creates an avenue to fix any egregious misses that could change the game. I also like that this system is so streamlined. The dugout isn’t involved at all and there’s hardly any delay. It’s just an immediate decision from the batter, catcher or pitcher and then it takes about five extra seconds. It’s outstanding.
R.J. Anderson: I like the challenge system. I think it’s a fine compromise between the two extremes. I’m not fond of the fully automated zone, so I see this as a way to get the most egregious misses correct without abandoning how the game is and has been throughout history. I do worry about potential unintended consequences; for example, the equivalent to when instant replay introduced those annoying “came off the bag for a trivial amount of time” calls. The limited number of challenges might suppress that becoming a widespread issue, but it is something to keep in mind if/when MLB institutes the challenge system for regular and postseason play.
Mike Axisa: I’ve softened up over the years. I used to be a hardcore robo-umps guy. After seeing full ABS in action in the minors, and seeing just how different the shape of the ABS zone is compared to human umpires, I’m off the train. It’s tighter along the edges, which led to more walks in every minor league it was used, and who wants more walks? The challenge system is a good compromise. It’s a way to correct the most egregious mistakes, and it does it quickly. MLB’s umpires are very good — they’re the best in the world at what they do — and they’re getting better too. The data shows they miss fewer calls with each passing year. The challenge system is a good compromise between full human umps and full ABS. I’m a fan.
Read the full article here
