Beware the Invasion of Robo-Umps
Last week, I wrote about playing catch with my seven year-old son. In one part, I mentioned how having him pitch to me and barking out balls and strikes as an umpire would capture his attention. It is so critical to engage our youth in baseball in as many ways as possible given the increasing number of distractions. It may seem like a stretch, but robo-umps are a serious risk to the long-term popularity of our national pastime.
The automated ball strike (ABS) system uses a set of cameras to triangulate the location of the pitch along the path to the plate. It has sub-inch precision and can return a ball strike call nearly instantaneously. How cool!?
The obvious benefit of robo-umps is we end up with a consistent strike zone and get almost all ball-strike calls correct, maybe even perfect. That seems like a good thing on the surface, but what are the costs of perfection?
The first thing would be the demise of the animated umpire. In some of the system testing, they have broadcast the ball-strike calls over the PA system at the ballpark. A more likely option would equip the home plate umpire with an earpiece that would alert him to the ball strike call. The ump would then perform the normal signal behind the plate. The second option is better, but how animated would an umpire get when ringing up a hitter because his ear beeped?
Additionally, we’ve watched hitters and managers complain to umps for a century. We’ve yelled at our TVs. Isn’t a game where they just walk back to the dugout more boring? Isn’t a heated nose-to-nose argument fun to watch? I’m not asking for terrible umpiring, but a little controversy can be good for the game.
Another drawback will be reduced demands on the catcher. One area where catchers can differentiate themselves is their ability to receive balls and make them look like strikes, sometimes referred to as catcher framing. While there is some deception in this, this is one of the beautiful nuances of the game. According to BaseballSavant (stats through 9/12), Sean Murphy has saved his team 9 runs with his framing ability compared to Sal Perez costing the Royals 17 runs.
If a pitcher and catcher know an ump has a consistently wide strike zone, shouldn’t they try to exploit that? Shouldn’t the hitter know he has to protect in that situation? We should want the players to have to display as much skill and gamesmanship as possible. Doesn’t that make the game more interesting and unique?
A further issue could arise with inaccuracies in the system. While MLB will have a back-up set of cameras, most systems have unanticipated points of failure. If a computer server malfunctions, how will we fill in? If a camera gets bumped or the vibrations from a raucous crowd throw the system out of calibration, we could see skewed inaccuracies in the results.
Altogether, robo-umps are bad for baseball. They will remove some of the more interesting nuances of the game and will reduce the long-term interest in the sport.
