“Robo Umps” Coming to all AAA Ballparks in 2023

[Melissa Berman]

No, this is not a dystopian movie where robots take over the world, it’s baseball in 2023, and robot umpires are coming to CHS Field and all AAA ballparks this season.

Image courtesy of Melissa Berman

This year, two versions of an Automatic Balls and Strikes system (ABS), otherwise known as "robot umpires" or "robo umps," will be used in all 30 Triple-A ballparks, according to a report from ESPN. If this expanded experiment is deemed successful, the next stop could be its use at the major-league level. 

Half of the Triple-A games will be played with all the calls determined by an electronic strike zone (with each team receiving three challenges), and the other half will be played with an ABS challenge system. 

The ABS has continued to expand over the years, and 2023 will be its most widespread use yet.

In 2019, the independent Atlantic League used the electronic strike zone in an all-star game, and that same year, the Arizona Fall League played with the ABS. In 2021, some Class A parks used ABS. Last season, the full ABS was used for some Class AAA games, including some games in the Pacific Coast League and all International League games played in Charlotte. The St. Paul Saints did not play in any games using the ABS in 2022, but that will change in 2023. The Saints acknowledged the change by posting a link to the ESPN report on its Twitter account.  

MLB tried out the ABS challenge system last year at the Low-A Southeast level during designated “Challenge Games.” During these games, human umpires still made balls and strike calls, but the pitcher, catcher, and batter could appeal the umpire’s call to the ABS. Each team received three appeals in Challenge Games, with successful appeals retained for future use. ESPN reports that this challenge system seemed to create an entire new “layer of in-game strategy” with managers “guiding players on the best manner to use the challenges -- avoiding frivolous challenges and protecting the team from egregious ball-strike call mistakes in pivotal moments.”

The expanded ABS comes at a time when MLB is making a host of sweeping changes to make the game safer and stimulate offense. On September 9, 2022, MLB's Joint Competition Committee, which evaluates and ratifies proposed rule changes, officially approved a pitch clock, shift ban, and larger bases for use in the majors beginning in 2023. All of these changes were tested out in Triple-A in 2022. However, a formal rule change proposal related to the robot umpires was not made to the committee at the time, so there will be no use of the ABS in the majors in 2023. Though MLB robo umps are not a sure thing yet, if these changes are any indication, robo umps might not be too far away. 

My Take
I am looking forward to seeing which form of ABS MLB uses at CHS Field, and if the change is even noticeable to fans (an article by the Athletic featured a player quote stating that it appeared the umpire in an ABS game was relaying the calls as quickly as if he were making them himself). I am a bit of a baseball purist, so I gravitate more toward the ABS challenge system, which, to me, seems to be the best of both worlds: umpires will still be used to call balls and strikes, but we can challenge, review, and possibly overturn questionable and egregious calls, just like in the NFL, NBA, and NHL. I am ok with there being some variation in strike zone from umpire to umpire, within reason. I think completely eliminating umpires calling balls and strikes is unnecessary and takes away one of the human elements that makes baseball unique, but we can and should use the technology we have at our disposal to make it more accurate. 

It is evident MLB needs to keep up with the times and do something to eliminate egregious, high-profile missed ball and strike calls, some of which can have substantial impacts on game outcomes, even in the postseason. Baseball is America's favorite pastime, but complaining about bad calls is a close second- just look at the myriad of Youtube video compilations of missed ball and strike calls. With both systems of ABS, these calls would likely be eliminated 

The need for change is also evidenced by the continued growth of @UmpScorecards. Umpire Scorecards is a popular Twitter account that provides an accuracy percentage, consistency percentage, and a list of the top 3 most impactful calls for every umpire after every MLB game. After umpire performances that users consider to be poor, they flood the replies imploring MLB to bring on the robots. 

My gut feeling is that some type of ABS will be introduced at the major league level sometime soon: the Triple-A, as we have seen, is the last stop on the bus for rule changes, a final testing ground, before arriving at MLB. If ABS gets positive reviews this year, like that of Kris Bryant, who played using ABS while on a Rockies minor league rehab assignment last year, I have no doubt MLB will be next. 

View full article

[dxpavelka]

Watch a game on television where they show the "strike zone" and then go read the rule book and see where the strike zone actually is.  This will solve little.  Umpires get the call right about 93% of the time.  Ball players get out about 70% of the time.  Maybe we need robo players........

[theBOMisthebomb]

I was against replay reviews when it was first introduced. I am still against replay reviews, at least in principle. However, I have grown used to replay reviews and can see the benefits. That being said, I am completely in favor of the robot umpires for balls and strikes. The annoyance of watching a home plate umpire have a bad day is off the charts. Then, the floating strike zone for veterans or guys with pinpoint control or batters with the reputation for a good eye is beyond aggravating. It's time to put that all away and have the automated strike zone. Also, no more ridiculous pitch framing. 

[adjacent]

I don't see this as something against the umpires. I see this as a helpful tool to do an almost impossible job better. Welcome.

[PDX Twin]

I am in favor of robo umps, but I dislike the challenge system because it embarrasses the umpire, takes time, and requires the challenging team to ration its challenges, which isn't really fair if there are lots of mistakes.

When it's feasible, let's get the call correct the first time and not embarrass the umpire by overturning it. The umpire has an earpiece (or buzzer or something) that gives him the call from the automated system. He or she can then make the call on the field just as always. If there is a glitch in the automated system (which is bound to happen occasionally, maybe in strange weather or if piece of equipment gets near the strike zone), the umpire simply ignores the machine and gives the correct call.

[h2oface]

10 years overdue. The challenge option is just cowardly. Use the best option, and it is not humans guessing, and catchers moving their glove.

[Fred]

3 hours ago, PDX Twin said:

I am in favor of robo umps, but I dislike the challenge system because it embarrasses the umpire, takes time, and requires the challenging team to ration its challenges, which isn't really fair if there are lots of mistakes.

When it's feasible, let's get the call correct the first time and not embarrass the umpire by overturning it. The umpire has an earpiece (or buzzer or something) that gives him the call from the automated system. He or she can then make the call on the field just as always. If there is a glitch in the automated system (which is bound to happen occasionally, maybe in strange weather or if piece of equipment gets near the strike zone), the umpire simply ignores the machine and gives the correct call.

Maybe Angel Hernandez should be embarrassed.  With enough evidence, even the Umpires Union couldn't save his job.

[Joey Self]

4 hours ago, theBOMisthebomb said:

I was against replay reviews when it was first introduced. I am still against replay reviews, at least in principle. However, I have grown used to replay reviews and can see the benefits. That being said, I am completely in favor of the robot umpires for balls and strikes. The annoyance of watching a home plate umpire have a bad day is off the charts. Then, the floating strike zone for veterans or guys with pinpoint control or batters with the reputation for a good eye is beyond aggravating. It's time to put that all away and have the automated strike zone. Also, no more ridiculous pitch framing. 

For me, the question isn't "Is the technology perfected yet?" but rather "Is it better than we have now?"

I think that answer is "yes." 

JcS

[BuxtonBonanza]

Agree with many on the thread, bring on the roboumps but not the challenges. Once we accepted replay potentially overturning human decisions on the field, then the strike zone became the logical next step and a necessary one. This coupled with the pitch clock and the game is much more mechanistic than it was in 1901 upon the founding of the American League but its still the same basic game which we all have fun watching, just changing in subtle ways for the better,  

Still though, screw the challenges. 

[Karbo]

I'm all in on Robo umps, but not the challenge system. I can see the challenge system slowing the game down.

[Melissa Berman]

2 hours ago, Karbo said:

I'm all in on Robo umps, but not the challenge system. I can see the challenge system slowing the game down.

That's definitely possible, though being limited to 3 challenges would hopefully help that 

[Melissa Berman]

23 hours ago, adjacent said:

I don't see this as something against the umpires. I see this as a helpful tool to do an almost impossible job better. Welcome.

Super well-said

[tony&rodney]

The adoption of ABS is inevitable and we should expect to see it in 2025. No doubt there will be some form of a challenge as well.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

I think robo umps will make the hitters better. Hear me out. If batters learn the strike zone by repetition, and I contend they do, then it stands to reason that the more consistently accurate the ball/strike calls are, then the more likely this accurate strike zone will be imprinted on the batters' brains, thus making it more likely that the batters will be able to discern which pitch will be called a ball and which will be a called strike. A batter will not have to adjust his brain to allow for an ump who calls strikes on high pitches out of the strike zone. The batter can use the same consistent information, which, by repetition, is imprinted on his brain, and not have to daily make adjustments for different umps, who shift daily from calling balls and strikes to umping at first base or third base, and a new ump is behind the plate. The umps are human and call balls and strikes differently behind the plate, say 10 per cent of the time.  (A Boston University study in 2018 showed the most accurate umps still were wrong on called pitches 7.5% of the time and the worst umps were wrong over 11% of the time. The better umps tended to be younger. The older, less accurate umps, were the ones selected for playoff and world series games.) I have often compared inconsistent judges in court to baseball umpires and have used an analogy about inconsistent judges, comparing them to inconsistent umpires. "Call them high or call them low, just be consistent." 

[Joey Self]

6 hours ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

I have often compared inconsistent judges in court to baseball umpires and have used an analogy about inconsistent judges, comparing them to inconsistent umpires. "Call them high or call them low, just be consistent." 

And as a trial attorney for 38 years, I too compared judges to umpires or referees--I too wanted consistency on evidentiary rulings. I've even told more than one:  "If it's a foul for the visitors, it's a foul for the home team.  If it's a strike three inches off the plate for their pitcher, then it needs to be the same for mine.  Give me consistency, and I'll adjust."

Now that I'm a judge in workers' compensation matters, I try to apply the same standard for the claimants and the respondents.  (I am not bound by the rules of evidence or civil procedure, but having practiced under both for so long, those are my guide in many rulings.)

JcS

[Nine of twelve]

On 1/14/2023 at 2:56 PM, Joey Self said:

For me, the question isn't "Is the technology perfected yet?" but rather "Is it better than we have now?"

I think that answer is "yes." 

JcS

This.

One of the arguments against implementing ABS has been that the systems aren't perfect yet. Well, guess what--they will never be perfect. However, they are significantly better at calling pitches than humans are and have been for many years. Moreover, continued improvement in ABS performance is not only possible but expected. By contrast, improvement in human performance is not possible and will never occur.

The whole idea is to get calls correct as often as possible, not just balls and strikes but all calls. That way the outcome of the game is decided by the performance of the players, not by the performance of the umpires.

[Joey Self]

1 minute ago, Nine of twelve said:

This.

One of the arguments against implementing ABS has been that the systems aren't perfect yet. Well, guess what--they will never be perfect. However, they are significantly better at calling pitches than humans are and have been for many years. Moreover, continued improvement in ABS performance is not only possible but expected. By contrast, improvement in human performance is not possible and will never occur.

The whole idea is to get calls correct as often as possible, not just balls and strikes but all calls. That way the outcome of the game is decided by the performance of the players, not by the performance of the umpires.

And even if it isn't perfect, the pitchers and the batters will soon figure out where the ABS is CONSISTENTLY wrong.  It's the umps that have a moving zone over the course of the game, get fooled by catchers yanking the ball into the zone or give the vets calls the rookies aren't getting that are the biggest problem.  The computer won't care what the score is, who is at the plate or what the catcher does after the ball crosses the strike zone.  

I'm more than ready for it. 

JcS

[Nine of twelve]

8 minutes ago, Joey Self said:

And even if it isn't perfect, the pitchers and the batters will soon figure out where the ABS is CONSISTENTLY wrong.  

And MLB will also figure that out and make corrections.

[Craig Arko]

18 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

This.

One of the arguments against implementing ABS has been that the systems aren't perfect yet. Well, guess what--they will never be perfect. However, they are significantly better at calling pitches than humans are and have been for many years. Moreover, continued improvement in ABS performance is not only possible but expected. By contrast, improvement in human performance is not possible and will never occur.

The whole idea is to get calls correct as often as possible, not just balls and strikes but all calls. That way the outcome of the game is decided by the performance of the players, not by the performance of the umpires.

I’m actually less concerned with perfection and much more so about hackability. This will become a thing once there is real money at stake.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

30 minutes ago, Joey Self said:

And as a trial attorney for 38 years, I too compared judges to umpires or referees--I too wanted consistency on evidentiary rulings. I've even told more than one:  "If it's a foul for the visitors, it's a foul for the home team.  If it's a strike three inches off the plate for their pitcher, then it needs to be the same for mine.  Give me consistency, and I'll adjust."

Now that I'm a judge in workers' compensation matters, I try to apply the same standard for the claimants and the respondents.  (I am not bound by the rules of evidence or civil procedure, but having practiced under both for so long, those are my guide in many rulings.)

JcS

Joe, I too am a trial attorney. I just celebrated 50 years of practicing law in North Carolina. It is a privilege to help people with some of life's most difficult problems.

[dxpavelka]

On 1/14/2023 at 10:15 AM, theBOMisthebomb said:

I was against replay reviews when it was first introduced. I am still against replay reviews, at least in principle. However, I have grown used to replay reviews and can see the benefits. That being said, I am completely in favor of the robot umpires for balls and strikes. The annoyance of watching a home plate umpire have a bad day is off the charts. Then, the floating strike zone for veterans or guys with pinpoint control or batters with the reputation for a good eye is beyond aggravating. It's time to put that all away and have the automated strike zone. Also, no more ridiculous pitch framing. 

Will be no less controversy.

[jrod23]

Sorry I can't remember the exact interview.  I listen to too many podcasts.  However, there was an interview of an AFL ball player, may have been Royce Lewis even, and further more, could've been a Seth Stoh's interview.  They were speaking honestly about the strike zone of robo umps.  It wasn't all to positive.  They recalled the pitches where they "KNEW" it wasn't a strike that were called strikes.  Then there was the delay.  Batters thinking there was a walk isn't anything new, but waiting for the actual call was an inconvenience.  Hopefully they fixed the delay. 

[theBOMisthebomb]

1 hour ago, dxpavelka said:

Will be no less controversy.

How will there no less controversy, pray tell? 

[dxpavelka]

28 minutes ago, theBOMisthebomb said:

How will there no less controversy, pray tell?

Why, yes.  I'm 100% certain that instead getting 93% of all calls right, robo umps will get 100%.  Yeah, right.

[bighat]

Thanks for this article. Like many of a certain age, I was initially against allowing robot umps into the game. 

But over the past few years I've done a 180 and can't wait to see this technology in action. Personally I can't WAIT to see what guys do when they get called out on a 3rd strike and instinctively turn back to complain to the ump. What are they going to do now? 

I'd actually like to see more technology in sports. For example, football could get sensors in the ball that would give refs a more accurate idea where the ball should be marked. Refs and umps everywhere should be embracing this technology as opposed to pushing back!

I'd also like to see All-Star teams picked by an agreed-upon computer algorithm. The fan voting for the MLB ASG is perhaps the biggest joke in all of professional sports and I hope to be alive when it's banned! 

[Karbo]

20 hours ago, Melissa Berman said:

That's definitely possible, though being limited to 3 challenges would hopefully help that 

as I understand it you don't lose the challenge if you are correct.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

9 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

Why, yes.  I'm 100% certain that instead getting 93% of all calls right, robo umps will get 100%.  Yeah, right.

Why do you believe this? I assume you were sarcastic in your answer.

[theBOMisthebomb]

10 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

Why, yes.  I'm 100% certain that instead getting 93% of all calls right, robo umps will get 100%.  Yeah, right.

Ok, well after I've been savaging the pathetic Minnesota Vikings since their embarrassing loss yesterday, I do agree that baseless rants are fun. I'm just wondering what you think the details are that are going to be the problems with robot umps. Beyond the league adjusting to a new strike zone and potential technological issues, what are the objections? If the robot ump stops working, you still have the human ump behind the plate to make the calls. I don't think anyone believes it will be a 100 percent seamless transition. There never is with new technology and new projects such as this. It has to be better than what we have and the errors are only highlighted with the strike zone right there on the screen. Pitch framing is a ridiculous "talent" which I'll be happy to see disappear. 

[Trov]

Eventually we will get to full robo umps.  I think it will start with the challenge system, mainly to ease the change in for both players and fans.  The younger fans want the right calls, it is the older fans, generally not all, that will say we need to keep the human error as part of the game.  They will point to 94% percent accurate, but ignore that they get 2 inches on the edge of the zone that can go either way as accurate.  Meaning, they could have much less than 94% but the grading is only based on way off calls.  

I read an article years ago, which I cannot find now, but it showed that umps in clear calls, meaning not close to edge of zone, they are almost always right.  But when it was on the edge of the zone, within those 2 inches, they were 50/50 according to the data the article used.  Further, it showed that if count was 3-0 the strike was called at much higher rate if it was in that 50/50 zone.  Hunter use to say automatic call when he was commentating.  The reverse was true, if 0-2, the ump would more often than not call it a ball if in that 50/50 zone.  

Then it looked at that an ump was less likely to call a repeated strike in the same area on back to back pitches, if in the 50/50 zone.  Pitchers are trained to pitch to the edges of the zone, but calls on balls or strikes are basically a coin flip when they do. I would love to see the full robo ump sooner than later, but I expect the challenge system first, then the full system a few years after that. 

[Joey Self]

16 hours ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

Joe, I too am a trial attorney. I just celebrated 50 years of practicing law in North Carolina. It is a privilege to help people with some of life's most difficult problems.

It is, but (and I don't have to tell you this), it is a grind.  I didn't realize how much I enjoyed NOT listening to people tell me how they have screwed up, or how much someone else had harmed them, until I got to stop doing it.  I am 64, and would have gotten out of the representation game as soon as I thought I could; I may continue the ALJ gig until I die! :)

JcS