Bye-Bye, Blue?

Beginning in the 2026 season, Major League Baseball implemented a revolutionary technology: the Automated Ball-Strike system. Instead of umpires exerting full control over what constitutes a ball or strike, players can now challenge calls for a real-time, accurate ruling. The ABS ruling is precise to a sixth of an inch. With some umpires renowned for their sketchy strike zone calls, many question the need for these umpires at all anymore.

The modern game of professional baseball has undergone significant changes. To the chagrin of purists, rule changes have focused on reducing game length, which has increased to around three hours over the past decades. With the introduction of the pitch clock, ghost runners, and much more, the average length is back down to two hours and 45 minutes. The goal of these changes is to make baseball more appealing to younger audiences less willing to spend three hours on a slower-paced game.

Despite its advances, challenging an umpire’s calls takes time. Arguments between players or coaches and umpires, while providing entertainment, also derail the pace of the game. The suspect strike zones and unwritten rules can be confusing (or even infuriating) to newer fans. So why not replace the umpires? The technology is there. What would we really be losing?

To answer this, we first must establish why we are drawn to sports. Naturally, fans are attracted to skill. Watching elite players compete on the biggest stage showcases the limits of athleticism and human capability. Maybe I can’t do a scorpion kick in soccer, but watching a professional perform the impressive act cultivates respect for the player and provides entertainment for the crowd. After all, that is the (supposed) appeal of All-Star Games: the best competing against the best.

Aside from skill, competition is a necessary component for fans to be engaged and entertained. Few fans enjoy a blowout instead of a tight, contested game. All-Star Games have seen declining fan interest because they are not seen as competitive showcases but rather as trivial exhibition matches. Despite the increasing accessibility of streaming for All-Star Games, viewership has noticeably decreased. 

Umpires and unwritten rules also bring an enhanced level of competition extending beyond the outlined rules and official zones of technology.

While ABS promises a consistent strike zone, umpires often have slightly different perspectives: what one umpire calls a strike might be called a ball by another. Some may argue that this inconsistency is frustrating; these differences prompt skilled pitchers, catchers, and batters to adjust from game to game. This variability allows for an extremely high level of skill, with the best pitchers able to acclimate to any umpire’s strike zone. If we are interested in highlighting these athletes’ best proficiency, this variability is essential to showcasing the mental aspect of the game.

Moreover, while strikeouts are fun to watch, there’s much more intensity with longer at-bats, and umpires understand this. If a pitcher falls behind in the count (nearing four balls), umpires often “expand” the strike zone to extend the at-bat. ABS cannot replicate these subtle adjustments that create high-leverage situations between pitchers and batters.

The addition of ABS alongside umpires, on the other hand, reinforces sport as an exercise in and a showcase of talent. Winning a crucial challenge can jump-start a crowd and fuel a comeback. Removing umpires eliminates this suspense in favor of regulated calls of “STRIKE” and “BALL.” 

Using ABS exclusively in the MLB also removes an element of skill demonstration for players. A player challenging a call is taking a gamble that requires enormous skill and plate vision. ABS challenges succeed about 50 percent of the time. Thus, players who are better at determining where the ball crosses relative to the strike zone are more likely to succeed on challenges. Replacing umpires entirely means these players lose this advantage.

These competitive advantages make sports entertaining: players have different strengths and weaknesses, and the most skilled players use their talents to overcome their weaknesses. Players like Jose Altuve or Isiah Thomas are so entertaining because they are so adept despite being much shorter than the average baseball or basketball player. They have found ways to make up for their “disadvantages” by being even stronger and smarter in other areas.

Aside from entertainment or competitive reasons, umpires shouldn’t be replaced solely for safety reasons. When baseballs are getting hurled at speeds in the high 90s miles per hour, people can fear that they might get hurt. It is not uncommon for batters to physically respond when seemingly endangered by the associated pitcher. Umpires are responsible for defusing these often-heated situations. No computer system has the human capacity to calm these emotions in the same way.

Sure, detractors will argue that the rules are rules and the subjectivity that umpires introduce diminishes the prestige of the sport. However, the definition of the strike zone is completely dependent on the batter. How ABS measures a batter’s strike zone does not take into account slight differences in the batter’s stance or any shifts made before the swing. An umpire is better equipped to notice these quick changes.

Unfortunately, umpires can be horrendous. They can miss blatant calls or let their ego get in the way of the game. But that’s what ABS challenges are for: to keep the umpires in check. Despite their inherent flaws, umpires are still necessary to the game. For baseball to be entertaining, competitive, and safe, while still honoring a fan’s time, a happy medium between ABS and umpires is required.

Truly, there is no easy solution to this debate. Purists will vouch for umpires, while modernists will argue for more technology. To remain relevant, baseball must adapt to technological changes, but it should not sacrifice its identity.

Tyler Dang ’28 (tylerdang@college.harvard.edu) is the Sports Editor of the “Harvard Independent.”