All season long, in discussions among broadcasters, ex-players and sportswriters about whether Major League Baseball should computerize ball and strike calls as they easily can, I kept hearing the fatuous argument that human error was “part of the game.” The point is ridiculous, and thank you, NFL, for graphically illustrating why. In a sports competition, the team that has played the best and deserves to win after all the vicissitudes of the game—the bad bounces and lucky breaks—have taken their toll should triumph, and fans of the game should be able to trust that it will. For the wrong team to win because a non-player makes an error of omission or commission that is obvious to everyone cannot be tolerated by a sports organization with any respect for its sport or its followers. Allowing a championship to be wrongly decided because of an official’s error isn’t charming, it’s horrible. If it can be prevented, and it can, then it is unethical not to.
In 2024, as MLB began testing the ABS system, I wrote in part,
Almost as infuriating as seeing at-bats and games ruined by bad strike calls are the rationalizations for them offered by ex-players and old school announcers. “It’s part of the game!” Moronic: that’s like saying that fatal car crashes are part of driving, and convicting innocent people of crimes is part of the jury system. The objective is to eliminate such “parts” as much as possible. “As long as the umpire is consistent, it’s fine.” This literally means that an umpire not calling the strike zone correctly is acceptable as long as he makes the same mistake repeatedly and everyone is ready for it. “It’s the human factor!” Yeah, so is cheating. That doesn’t mean game-altering mistakes should be tolerated.
Major League Baseball sent a memo to all 30 teams this week updating them on the progress of its testing. It has been experimenting with two approaches in Triple-A since last season: a challenge system, in which a bad call by live umpires can be challenged by the batter and resolved instantly by the electronic pitch-tracking, and fully automated balls and strikes. The research so far shows a strong preference by fans and players for the challenge system, with a set number of challenges per game, over an automated strike zone or the old-fashioned method, with umpires making calls without technology.
Well, that would be an improvement, at least. It would still allow bad calls that go unchallenged to alter the course of games in unknown ways, but apparently the fully automated system has some kinks in it that haven’t been solved, like setting the top and bottom of the strike zone for each player.
A key principle in the Ethics Alarms pantheon is “Fix the problem.” A challenge system—apparently the challenges are resolved in seconds—would prevent the nightmare scenario of no-hitters, exciting 9th inning rallies, historic hitting streaks and championship games being wrecked by an obviously erroneous pitch call.
Hurry up..
Now it is here. The new system works like this: the ABS technology will track all pitches within a strike zone fit to each batter’s height and batting stance. The home plate ump will still call balls and strikes, but each team gets at least two challenges to ball and strike calls per game. If the team succeeds with a challenge, it keeps it. If a team gets that challenge wrong, it loses a challenge.
Only hitters, catchers and pitchers have the power to challenge. They need to do that within two seconds of the umpire’s call by tapping their heads and verbally saying, “Challenge! ” A screen in the ballpark will show where the challenged pitch was within seconds, and the count will be changed or remain the same accordingly. Only the pitcher, batter or catcher can challenge a call: if a manager does it, the challenge is disallowed. Already most managers have told their pitchers to shut up to prevent confusion, and allow the catchers to decide, since they are in a better position to see the pitches anyway.
I’m sure there will be kinks to iron out in the first season with the ABS challenge system, but no matter how I look at it, this is an ethical development that embraces competence, integrity, fairness, and responsibility. In this case, the Unabomber was wrong. Technology is a blessing, and if it makes baseball better, all is forgiven.
Ethics Alarms 
The challenge system will be a disaster. Teams will run out of challenges in the first inning. There’s simply no reason whatsoever not to go to ABS on all pitches. I’m guessing ABS will call every pitch starting next year, or maybe by this year’s all-star break.
Imagine what that “umpire called” graphic would look like if Angel Hernandez was still behind the plate. In fact, I blame much of this switch to computers for balls and strikes on his abysmal ability to call them correctly.
I agree about the use of technology to improve the game.
That said, I do not like this challenge system. You could have 10 different people initiating challenges (pitcher, DH and every other batter on the team). I can see a dumb prima donna burning through the challenges on a single trip to the plate.
It is also unclear whether there is a limit on challenges. “If the team succeeds with a challenge, it keeps it.” Does this mean you could have a dozen challenges if they are all correct, whereas the NFL limits it to one additional challenge if the first two are successful.
And, the NFL limits it because it is a timed game where challenges could be used as a time-out. Here, it sounds like there will be little delay so more challenges should be allowed. The NFL has turned challenges into a strategy. For MLB, there is no real strategy to the challenges. (Which if fine.) But, if the whole point of adding challenges is to improve the game, the limit on the number of challenges just means that the MLB is still willing to tolerate a degree of error when it could be prevented.
The better way would be to make all calls automated. We already see it on the TV. It could be so easy to implement, as opposed to the NFL, where there are more moving pieces in a game. Adopting an NFL-style challenge system is stupid.
I suspect that it is not being fully implemented because of pushback from the umpires. They don’t want their duties diminished. And, once the technology reaches a certain point, all calls could be automated. You would only need one umpire to handle the whole game. The umpires would not be happy about that.
And, if that was at all a part of the consideration, its implementation is not ethical.
-Jut
Remember, in every at bat, only the batter and the catcher (now that it looks like pitchers will be muzzled) can challenge. Any egregious miscall will always be challenged. Teams are going to use Spring Training to figure out when to risk losing challenges on close calls. If teams win 50 challenges against a sigle umpire, I’d say that would raise issues about that umpire.
The data shows that literally any bad call can be game changing. The relative batting averages and OBA on even 1-0 counts cs 0-1 counts, or 1-2 counts vs 2-1, are huge. Also the biases against generally wild pitchers vs. control pitchers, where confirmation bias can lead to bad calls. I think the system has been well-vetted, but players will need to pay attention.