It seems like one idea was that it may lead to more balls in play, with fewer walks and strikeouts. (In my opinion, strikeouts are exciting, and walks aren't a negative.) In the AAA trial so for, it seems like there have been more walks than before, and no significant decrease in strikeouts.

I'm curious that the opinions would be on robo umps if the primary result would be more walks. I get that if a computerized enforcement of the strike zone lead to more talks, pitchers would adapt, and that could then lead to more balls in play. But is the concern about umpire error really about the quality of the game -- that we're not seeing enough offense or at least balls in play? Or is it really just that people get upset about bad calls that only occasionally impact the results but that don't impact anything otherwise? And don't we also like to get upset about bad calls and watch managers and players argue with the umps?

If the real issue is just the occasional bad call that might impact the result, as opposed to more "exciting" play, then perhaps only use robo umps for a limited number of challenges -- say three per team per game. Since it should only take a few seconds to respond to a challenge, there shouldn't be any adverse consequence other than you've used up one of your challenges.

If the league went with robo umps even just to call balls and strikes and it led to more walk, that might get me more interested in watching again. I use to love baseball but it became brutal to watch over the years between the ridiculous shift, the length of games, and every batter trying to hit a HR.

Obviously some measures have already been put in place to fix some of my complaints... But having more base runners I think might bring back more of a strategic element to the game vs just swinging for the fences on what seems like every at bat.

WWBCD?

One side effect of the Robo Ump is that they could more easily adjust the size of the strike zone to get the kind of play they wanted.

For it and don't care, lost interest in baseball decades ago.

A friend who is big into MLB is totally against it, its the human element and part of the game. We discussed it a few times at work, instead of you know working.

Given all the graphics and everything else these days, at least use it to review / rate umps and remove the bad ones.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

Against it, as much as it sucks to get bad calls you can't remove the human element, that would make the game mundane and boring.

The shift has effectively been done away with. The length of games is significantly down to level it hasn’t been at in the modern era. The perception that everyone is swinging for home runs is just that — an inaccurate perception. Stolen bases are to the 80s level.

It certainly sounds like you haven’t followed much recently.

I’m aware they made those changes in the last few seasons, but think they lost me for good before they made them. I tried to get back into it at the beginning of this season and the game just has a different feel from what I grew up and loved. I hate all the analytics and what the Ricketts turned Wrigley and the area into.

But on second thought I doubt robo umps and more base runners would move the needle much if at all for me.

As long as it is fully automated.

In soccer, they are using a semi-automated process to determine off-sides. In the past, a tie went to the attacker which is important in low scoring games. Now they are pausing film and drawing lines that are one pixel wide and then comparing them to other thin lines that they made, forgetting that there is error in how they stop the film to identify when the pass is played. I'd be ok with the process if the lines they drew width reflected the variability in the measurement process and if they lines overlapped it would go to the attacker. But any time I mention that on twitter, it appears I am an idiot. Maybe I am, but just because you can measure something to an mm doesn't mean you are accurate.

Soccer can be fully automated in terms of ball location and it benefits immensely by taking the human error out of the equation. No room for interpretation or skewed perspectives.

Baseball is America's sport, so preserving stupid and detrimental aspects of the game for the sake of tradition is kind of essential. Think if the home plate umpire as the human embodiment of the Second Amendment, or SCOTUS in polyester pants.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I also think there's a difference between, for instance, using VAR to determine if a player was offsides 20, 30, or 40yds away from the passer (where the official can't really see the pass and the position of the player simultaneously) and determining if a baseball passes through a strike zone 2ft in front of an umpire.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

100% for it!! "The human element" is a useless metaphor for bad calls. Get rid of it.

I hate the use of subjectivity in determining the outcome of any athletic competition and, as such, should be avoided if at all possible.

Put me in the sentimentalist camp that prefers we retain the potential for mistakes. I'm ok with compromises that permit a limited number of challenges. But unlike tennis, I'd rather see that limit being upheld regardless of whether it was correct or not. Delays to games (such as score reviews in our AFL) have become frustrating.

We are human. We make mistakes. Errors have been part of all sports for eternity and become talking points for years to come. This lust for perfection will end in boring matches of two robots hitting tennis balls back and forth indefinitely.

There's too much tech in our lives already.