Technical Issues' Stall MLB's Adoption of Robots to Call Balls and Strikes (cbssports.com) 39
Will Major League Baseball games use "automated" umpires next year to watch pitches from home plate and call balls and strikes?
"We still have some technical issues," baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred said Thursday. NBC News reports: "We haven't made as much progress in the minor leagues this year as we sort of hoped at this point. I think it's becoming more and more likely that this will not be a go for '25."
Major League Baseball has been experimenting with the automated ball-strike system in minor leagues since 2019. It is being used at all Triple-A parks this year for the second straight season, the robot alone for the first three games of each series and a human with a [robot-assisted] challenge system in the final three.
In "challenge-system" games, robo-umpires are only used for quickly ruling on challenges to calls from human umpires. (As demonstrated in this 11-second video.)
CBS Sports explains: Each team is given a limited number of "incorrect" challenges per game, which incentivizes judicious use of challenges... In some ways, the challenge system is a compromise between the traditional method of making ball-strike calls and the fully automated approach. That middle ground may make approval by the various stakeholders more likely to happen and may lay the foundation for full automation at some future point.
Manfred cites "a growing consensus in large part" from Major League players that that's how they'd want to see robo-umpiring implemented, according to a post on X.com from The Athletic's Evan Drellich. (NBC notes one concern is eliminating the artful way catchers "frame" caught pitches to convince umpires a pitch passed through the strike zone.)
But umpires face greater challenges today, adds CBS Sports: The strong trend, stretching across years, of increased pitch velocity in the big leagues has complicated the calling of balls and strikes, as has the emphasis on high-spin breaking pitches. Discerning balls from strikes has always been challenging, and the stuff of the contemporary major-league pitcher has made anything like perfect accuracy beyond the capabilities of the human eye. Big-league umpires are highly skilled, but the move toward ball-strike automation and thus a higher tier of accuracy is likely inevitable. Manfred's Wednesday remarks reinforce that perception.
"We still have some technical issues," baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred said Thursday. NBC News reports: "We haven't made as much progress in the minor leagues this year as we sort of hoped at this point. I think it's becoming more and more likely that this will not be a go for '25."
Major League Baseball has been experimenting with the automated ball-strike system in minor leagues since 2019. It is being used at all Triple-A parks this year for the second straight season, the robot alone for the first three games of each series and a human with a [robot-assisted] challenge system in the final three.
In "challenge-system" games, robo-umpires are only used for quickly ruling on challenges to calls from human umpires. (As demonstrated in this 11-second video.)
CBS Sports explains: Each team is given a limited number of "incorrect" challenges per game, which incentivizes judicious use of challenges... In some ways, the challenge system is a compromise between the traditional method of making ball-strike calls and the fully automated approach. That middle ground may make approval by the various stakeholders more likely to happen and may lay the foundation for full automation at some future point.
Manfred cites "a growing consensus in large part" from Major League players that that's how they'd want to see robo-umpiring implemented, according to a post on X.com from The Athletic's Evan Drellich. (NBC notes one concern is eliminating the artful way catchers "frame" caught pitches to convince umpires a pitch passed through the strike zone.)
But umpires face greater challenges today, adds CBS Sports: The strong trend, stretching across years, of increased pitch velocity in the big leagues has complicated the calling of balls and strikes, as has the emphasis on high-spin breaking pitches. Discerning balls from strikes has always been challenging, and the stuff of the contemporary major-league pitcher has made anything like perfect accuracy beyond the capabilities of the human eye. Big-league umpires are highly skilled, but the move toward ball-strike automation and thus a higher tier of accuracy is likely inevitable. Manfred's Wednesday remarks reinforce that perception.
Technical Issues' what? (Score:3)
What do these Technical Issues possess?
Re: (Score:3)
What do these Technical Issues possess?
CB Bucknor's and Angel Hernandez's paychecks.
Re: (Score:3)
Why did you mention those two?
I have watched a couple of games in 2024 where Mike Estabrook was at HP and felt that he was a wet dream for a pitcher with control issues. One was this week and a player was ejected for voicing his opinion on some of those calls. The next day Charlie Ramos appeared to be intentionally screwing with the player who had been ejected with some shocking calls, this time a trainer was ejected.
Rob Drake was at HP for a game where there w
Re: (Score:2)
Why did you mention those two?
CB Bucknor is consistently picked as the worst umpire by the MLB players themselves.
Angel Hernandez and CB Bucknor are frequently identified as the worst two umpires according to the baseball analytics crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Angel Hernandez has agreed a deal with MLB and has retired with immediate effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Umpires can go on strike, because if they did there'd be nobody to call the strike.
Ball! (Score:2)
Robot players (Score:2)
Use robot players and automate the whole thing. You know what, you can simulate the robots in software. Just have a software program play the game. And you know what, to make it more engaging, you can have it so an audience member can simulate a baseball player and make player and team decisions for things like how to respond to a ball and what simulated players ought to be one each side. Why hasn't someone done that before?
Re: (Score:2)
Someone doesn't understand (Score:2)
>one concern is eliminating the artful way catchers "frame" caught pitches to convince umpires a pitch passed through the strike zone.
The pitcher doesn't touch the ball until after it's passed the plate, and physics dictates there will be no sudden changes in direction. Long curves, sure, but it's not going to jump a foot to the right.
If the computer vision system can see the ball and plot its position in three dimensions... it doesn't even have to see it all the way to the plate in order to know with m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's me being a complete idiot. Please re-read my post substituteing 'catcher' everywhere I wrote 'pitcher'.
Re: (Score:2)
rats.
I'd been looking forward to the articles explaining telekinetic pitching!
Re: (Score:3)
I think fooling the batsman AND the ump is all part of it. But it's a skill, not something random. It also sometimes backfires. If the catcher is trying to frame the pitch and it goes too far from where he actually expected it, it ends in a passed ball and possibly runs scored.
Re: (Score:2)
If your sampling rate is high enough, with absolutely no AI, you can take a minimum of 3 samples of the ball in flight from a single camera and make a simple partial differential equation, and with a very high degree of certainty propagate the polynomial to identify the flight path from start to end.
The same is true for the bat. No AI needed, the bat is found using motion vectors.
BTW, more cameras and higher frame rate is of course better.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt that works very well. A baseball isn't in a ballistic trajectory. Pitchers purposely put spin on the ball and the ball itself is desgined to produce aerodynamic lift. You can absolutely take pictures of it and triangulate its position as it passes over the plate though.
And that's the problem. The players want to keep the cheating that human umpires allow and machines don't.
Kill -9 the umpire! (Score:4, Funny)
Manfred's logic and argument are moronic (Score:3)
The whole article reads like someone desperately grasping for reasons to continue to allow a human umpire to call balls and strikes. In no other sport is adopting proven technology looked upon as jumping off a bridge. This is a clear indication that Manfred has been bought off
https://apnews.com/article/man... [apnews.com]
His talk also suggested that catchers who are skilled at framing should be rewarded with called strikes and that can only happen with a human umpire. Failure to reward catchers for their ‘art’ has impacts on people's lives. He stopped just short of involving an adverse impact on children.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Back in little league, did you ever get called out on strikes on obviously bad pitches? Why would anyone be against more accurate calls? No more catchers framing pitches to get a called 3rd strike (or the opposite if the catcher moves his glove to catch a pitch in the zone, sometimes an ump will call it a ball). No more guys squatting like Phil Plantier to manipulate the height of the letters. No more pitchers having to figure out where this umpires strike zone is.
Well, if I learned one thing from youth sports, it is that whining and moaning and physical attacks provide a way for the losers to salve their booboo feelings.
Just gives them an excuse - "we would have won the game except for that asshole umpire - they've always had it in for our team.
I coached than then lead a youth hockey association some years back, and that is exactly how parents react, and the same for fans. It became pretty amusing when our parents demanded we shift to a differren league. When
Re: (Score:2)
And the youth sports are (probably) never going to be able to afford to implement any kind of automation technology that could help take the heat off of people like a 12yr old ref.
Re:Manfred's logic and argument are moronic (Score:4)
The whole article reads like someone desperately grasping for reasons to continue to allow a human umpire to call balls and strikes. In no other sport is adopting proven technology looked upon as jumping off a bridge. This is a clear indication that Manfred has been bought off
The OP mentions "technical issues" but doesn't say what they are. In a forum of geeks, the discussion of these technical issues is the most interesting thing. Is the data from the cameras insufficient, or is there a problem with data processing. What are rates of false positives and negatives?
Then there's the strict rules aspect. The area over the plate is well-defined, but the vertical zone, defined as between the midpoint of the top of the shoulders and the belt down to the lower part of the kneecap when the batter is in his batting stance, is fuzzy. This vertical zone is hard to determine for someone standing to the side of home plate and super hard with the umpire's point of view. It would be almost impossible for a human to determine this vertical zone consistently, especially for those batters with squatting stances that stand straight at the last moment.
In everyone's heart of hearts, they know that the machines are already more accurate than the human umpires. If the machines are biased, they are at least consistently biased, in contrast to humans that are biased differently everyday, not to mention during those times that they feel upstaged by players.
In reality, the issue is not really technical but mostly human. The umpires obviously don't want to be replaced. The catchers don't want their advantage of going outside of the "rules" to go way. The batters, well, they want someone to argue with. Umpires have been a historical part of the game forever. MLB in a way wants this ambiguity, and it's "part of the game." If they wanted consistent accuracy, they could use lasers to outline the 3-D strike zone in a way that is obvious to everyone. But that's not what they want.
Re:Manfred's logic and argument are moronic (Score:4)
I saw a quote by a player who had recently been called up to the majors to the effect that the strike zone is somewhat higher when robots are calling it.
For my part, I'm somewhat more tolerant of bad calls if they are a bit to high or too low, it's the ones which are well to the left or right which annoy me. A recent (April) called strike I saw was well down and away, at that point I would have liked to have seen the data on betting patterns.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw a quote by a player who had recently been called up to the majors to the effect that the strike zone is somewhat higher when robots are calling it. For my part, I'm somewhat more tolerant of bad calls if they are a bit to high or too low, it's the ones which are well to the left or right which annoy me. A recent (April) called strike I saw was well down and away, at that point I would have liked to have seen the data on betting patterns.
I hope everyone realizes the whining about umpires isn't going to stop - human or robotic. It will just shift to claims that the robots mad a mistake, or that nefarious people will make the calls against their teams "different". "Someone is getting paid to keep us from winning, and they have robotic calls different."
"Maybe even have AI changes to the video to keep our team from winning!"
Nope, the bitching and moaning will just shift to a new place.
Re: (Score:2)
Bought off by who? Big Umpire? The Cheating Catchers Union?
Re: (Score:2)
Bots calling balls and strikes is just another attack of the accountants to mechanize the hell out of life so there is no enjoyment left. Their idea of a well-run organization is one where everything works like clockwork, and falls over at the least unexpected "shit happens".
Re: (Score:2)
The whole article reads like someone desperately grasping for reasons to continue to allow a human umpire to call balls and strikes. In no other sport is adopting proven technology looked upon as jumping off a bridge. This is a clear indication that Manfred has been bought off
I used to be a huge MLB fan, but I'm not any more for a variety of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with Manfred. But that means that unlike most Slashdotters, I actually used to play Little League baseball as a kid and I do know something about the sport that is more than just playing it on some computer game. For over 20 years now, the MLBUA (Major League Baseball Umpires Association) has been in control of MLB. They actually tell MLB what they are going to do instead of the other way around
Perfect calls would destroy the game. (Score:3)
Point taken (Score:2)
I get that we need to keep sport human, but what's happening is umpires sometimes make blatantly wrong calls and while that may be "part of the game", it turns people away from the sport. Therefore we should have robot umpires, but restricted in some way.
Re: (Score:3)
Umpires are worthless. The "part of the game" argument is a bullshit and meaningless argument. People used the same argument for pitchers batting instead of using a designated hitter. Nowadays, the DH makes waaaaaay more sense than having your pitcher at-bat and, luckily, MLB forced the National League into using DHs.
The on-screen pitch tracker they give those watching the game on TV is way more accurate than anything the umpire is seeing. And showing the fans a clear ball/strike get called the opposite is
Re: (Score:2)
I get that we need to keep sport human, but what's happening is umpires sometimes make blatantly wrong calls and while that may be "part of the game", it turns people away from the sport. Therefore we should have robot umpires, but restricted in some way.
You do realize that a robotic call can be manipulated I hope?
Thye whiners and bitchers and moaners who leave because "We wuz screwed" aren't much of a loss. And if they stay fans, then the constant complaining is just part of their fun.
Robot? (Score:4, Informative)
Since when is a camera connected to a computer considered a "robot"? In that case every security camera on the planet, every Ring doorbell, every cell phone, laptop with a camera, etc is also a "robot". I would think the device would have to have at least one moving part to be considered a robot.
In case anyone is curious how this works, it is the same Hawk-Eye tracking system that is already used in MLB games to show the trajectory, speed and location within the batting box of each pitch when watching on TV. With the actual "robot" calls, there is still an umpire behind the plate, but they have an earpiece that the system tells them whether it was a ball or strike, and then they say and gesture the call as if they made the decision themselves.
If anything it's more of a "cyborg" system.
Finally (Score:3)
At last, there is something that will make the average American hate AI.
I don't follow sports, but... (Score:2)
..I have an observation
It appears that one of the important social functions of sports is to give people something to talk about
A bad call can be a great topic for discussion
Re: (Score:2)
..I have an observation It appears that one of the important social functions of sports is to give people something to talk about A bad call can be a great topic for discussion
And.... exactly.
The discussion will go on, and if people think that the discussion of how "we wuz robbed" will go away if all the human judging is eliminated - it won't. It will shift to claims that the software was rigged, that someone was paid to rig it, or that AI was being used to make certain a player struck out, or didn't make a first down or touchdown. That you can bank on.
strike zone? (Score:2)
How is the strike zone defined? If it has to do with shoulders/underarms and knees, that's a lot of AI to reliably determine where those are, and also to be able to say where they were after the fact.