The BDN Editorial Board operates independently from the newsroom, and does not set policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com.
The Boston Red Sox had a surprisingly great season. And it’s no stretch to wonder whether, had a blown call from a home plate umpire gone the other way, the team might have been playing in the World Series.
Flashback to Oct. 19. The Sox were leading the American League Championship Series against the Houston Astros two games to one. It was game four, tied at two in the top of the ninth inning, with two runners for the Astros on base and two outs. Red Sox pitcher Nathan Eovaldi had two strikes on batter Jason Castro, with a chance to get out of the inning unscathed. Eovaldi threw what should have been called strike three, but umpire Laz Diaz called it a ball. Castro later singled to start an onslaught of scoring by the Astros, who went on to win that game and, eventually, the entire series.
It’s fair to say that this pivotal play provides some evidence in favor of robot umpires calling balls and strikes. This idea, which Major League Baseball has been trying out in the minor leagues, sounded appealing to us after game four of the Astros series. But the more we think about it, the less we like it.
The system being tested in the minor leagues uses technology called the “Automatic Ball-Strike System,” which determines whether a pitch is a ball or a strike, and then the human ump (a spooky phrase to write, frankly) announces that determination.
It has us thinking more broadly: Do we really have to automate everything?
Instant replay and an increasing reliance on analytics are part of baseball now. There’s nothing wrong with trying to get calls right or using data to help your team win. The use of robot umps, however, feels like a step too far in the context of a societal slide toward automation.
What’s next, robot dogs? Oh wait, those already exist — and they’re even starting to put guns on them. There may not be a direct link between this kind of technology and robot umpires, but we can’t help feeling like they’re in the same ballpark when it comes to technology replacing people (and pets). Maybe we’ve been watching too much “Squid Game.”
If people want to play a perfectly exact game controlled by technology and devoid of human drama, invent something called Zuckerball and play it in the metaverse. Fenway Park isn’t Silicon Valley. Keep baseball human.
As former Yankees manager Joe Torre said in the New Yorker, “It’s an imperfect game and has always felt perfect to me.” Torre now works in the MLB commissioner’s office.
Compare that to a statement from former Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein, who is now an MLB consultant and has been “charged with overseeing the experiments” for the league, as ESPN put it.
“The game on the field is constantly evolving, and MLB must be thoughtful and intentional about progressing toward the very best version of baseball – a version that is true to its essence and has enough consistent action and athleticism on display to entertain fans of all ages,” Epstein said earlier this year, as reported by NPR.
Even this statement sounds robotic.
We never thought we’d be siding with Joe Torre instead of Theo Epstein. But here we are. If Major League Baseball wants a perfectly efficient game, just play the entire game with robots. How’s that for a dystopian dugout?
Baseball, like humanity, has its imperfections. We don’t want to see blown calls make or break a season, but we also don’t want to see Major League Baseball trade a part of the game’s soul for efficiency and predictability. In that scenario, everyone would lose.
