I Don't Like ABS

[metirish]

To me it takes some of the human element out of the game , some umpires are known for calling the low strike , some high, Glavine could never expand the zone these days. I just don't care for it 

[duan]

I don't mind. 
I think it is good to eliminate the terrible call when it's easy and the times I've seen it so far have shown me it hasn't felt too intrusive. 
 

[metirish]

I hear you, I'm also thinking of how VAR has been implemented in soccer and I don't care for it either 

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

I'm not comfortable with it. The players are the best in the world and make mistakes all the time, there's no reason the umpires wouldn't too. Also, you know this is setting the stage for no umpires at all, which I'd miss.

That said there's a Jomboy video from this weekend in Cincinnati showing that CB Bucknor called 20 pitches strikes that weren't strikes by ABS (just 5 were challenged and overturned)

[seawolf17]

We've had it here in AAA for a few seasons now, and I enjoy it. It takes away a little bit of the human element, yeah, but it's not intrusive.

[metirish]

The MFY overturned five in the first four innings last night,  I get it is good to get calls right but to me individual umps are part of the fabric of baseball 

[Brock Beauchamp]

I like it, but I don't love it. Umpires missing terrible calls really puts a damper on a game; on the other hand, most of the worst umpires are old umpires, more of whom retire every season. Pretty much all the new umpires are acceptable or better. Most of the best umpires are umps with just a handful of years of MLB experience.

[Edgy MD]

I'm down with it.  Tentatively, anyhow.  Human element?  Sure, but I want to see that from the players.  We need to aspire to perfection when it comes to what system arbitrates our differences.

Will I miss umps?  I guess I'll miss any element of baseball that disappears, but they will find something for humans to do.

[Edgy MD]

Also, I keep misreading this topic as "I Don't Like ABNS."

Poor Seo!

[duan]

On 3/22/2026 at 3:29 PM, Marshmallowmilkshake said:

2 hours ago, metirish said:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, metirish said:

I hear you, I'm also thinking of how VAR has been implemented in soccer and I don't care for it either 

I'm not sure how this quoting thing has worked but I only meant to quote metirish once! Anyway I hate the way VAR is currently working in football. Trying to freeze frame tackles to definite intent, looking at handballs in minute detail and so on. However this is a straightforward yes no being produced within a prompt period and could/should stop all the arguing. 
 

[whippoorwill]

3 hours ago, metirish said:

The MFY overturned five in the first four innings last night,  I get it is good to get calls right but to me individual umps are part of the fabric of baseball 

I agree. 
im okay with a really blatant bad call being overruled but geez oh man showing up the umpires several times a game can’t be helping their self esteem 

[metsmarathon]

Nobody is out there asking for the human element when they’re out there timing Olympic sprinters.   

“ooh, lane 6 has Jenkins, notorious for his slow stopwatch.  Tough draw that one. Timing lane three is McNurtle, who always times off the shoulders not the chest - the runner’ll be wise to use his lean to proper advantage!”

 

could you imagine how outrageous that would be?  The umpires are there to get the calls correct - to accurately adjudicate the outcome of the play, not to offer their subjective interpretation of the rules. 

[metirish]

Surely the strike zone is baseball is subjective though

[Frayed Knot]

Seeing as how I was the guy doing the most flag-waving for full-on Robo-Ump (which I'm still convinced is coming, it's merely a matter of when) I'm not the one to complain here. And once you've got the technology to determine B vs S down to fractions of an inch it becomes impossible to say that it'll only be used to overturn truly rotten calls but not the somewhat rotten or even slightly rotten ones.

I like that the challenge has to be instant and can only come from one of the three principal sources -- no dugout 'time-out', no eye-in-the-sky, no replay coordinator -- and then that the verdict is rendered in a matter of seconds.  Plus the challenges themselves have limits (low ones) that can only be augmented by being consistently correct and not  by whining and pleading your case for a 'crew chief review' that somehow doesn't count against the inventory of the team doing the asking (aka: The Mattingly Exception*)

What has long ticked me off about video replay challenges is that it's always sold under the notion that it will be quick, decisive, and only for obvious mistakes but frequently it's not any of those. ABS, on the other hand, at least lives up to its billing.

 

 

 

* one of Robert Ludlum's more poorly received efforts

[metirish]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7163482/2026/04/01/mlb-umpires-abs-system/

 

What is a strike?

The answer to that question has traditionally been easy for MLB umpires: A strike is whatever I say it is.

However, amid the introduction of the automated ball-strike challenge system, highly experienced former MLB umps are critical of baseball’s newest technology.

Citing their own observations and conversations with those currently still in the job, the consistent criticism has been simple: What’s a ball and what’s a strike has changed, and they don’t know how, exactly, to call it.

“The strike zone has never been an exact science,” said longtime former umpire Gary Darling. “They’re flipping pitches that are missing by a tenth of an inch, in a system that’s not exact anyway. … As much as baseball wants to define the strike zone, it’s still not defined.

[Ceetar]

8 hours ago, metirish said:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7163482/2026/04/01/mlb-umpires-abs-system/

 

What is a strike?

The answer to that question has traditionally been easy for MLB umpires: A strike is whatever I say it is.

However, amid the introduction of the automated ball-strike challenge system, highly experienced former MLB umps are critical of baseball’s newest technology.

Citing their own observations and conversations with those currently still in the job, the consistent criticism has been simple: What’s a ball and what’s a strike has changed, and they don’t know how, exactly, to call it.

“The strike zone has never been an exact science,” said longtime former umpire Gary Darling. “They’re flipping pitches that are missing by a tenth of an inch, in a system that’s not exact anyway. … As much as baseball wants to define the strike zone, it’s still not defined.

 

Umpires might want to familiarize themselves with this obscure document called "the rule book" which defines this nebulous and elusive zone. 

Oh, you can't expand it for 3-0 pitches and contract it for 0-2? So sad. Just get it right, it's not a performance piece. 

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, the notion that a strike has never been clearly defined is (clearly) false.

Confusing the notion that it has been inconsistently observed with the assertion that it has never been clearly defined is just stubborn (forced) ignorance.  Of course it has.

[Edgy MD]

The ABS system is designed to tell you the number of inches a ball missed the strike zone by.

Sometimes, the umpire misses the zone by so much, the system doesn't have a long enough ruler to measure with.

Dan Bellino: "STRIKE THREE!"

ABS: "I cannot begin to tell you how wrong you are."

Ron Darling: "Oh, wow."
 

 

[Edgy MD]

Here's to ABS stopping catchers from sneaking up closer to steal strikes and getting themselves pummeled the way Alvarez just did.

[Fman99]

Like Seawolf, I'm well seasoned on this after watching it live for the last few years in my AAA hometown games.