Bring on the Tennis Hawk-Eye in Baseball!
If you’ve been watching any of the thrilling tennis of the U.S. Open this year, you may have noticed the absence of lines people dressed in blue shirts with massive polo players. In their place is optical technology that can tell if a ball struck is “in” or “out” to a fraction of a millimeter. (The remarkable process involves six computer-linked television cameras situated around the court, each of which tracks the path of the tennis ball. The separate views are then instantaneously combined to produce an accurate 3D representation of the path of the ball.)
The calls are announced by pre-recorded human voices that can vary by gender and accent for each match to add a human touch. The volume is even altered based on how close the ball is to the line to add a bit of drama (the closer the ball the louder the voice). And miraculously, the voice is programmed to speak simultaneously with the ball missing the line.
As a result we no longer have to witness the whiny and often lengthy complaints of John McEnroe-types insisting that a ball was “in” and that “you can’t be serious” or watch players decide (often incorrectly) whether to use one of their limited number of challenges to find out if the initial call was correct. That’s because it’s futile to argue – the technology is 100% accurate! The only mistake that can occur is if there is human error – if, for example, the people who run this technology inadvertently fail to set the correct service box before a player serves then naturally the machine will get that call wrong (although there is also a system in place to override even that error if it should occur).
Naturally the use of hawk-eye doesn’t eliminate all complaints on the tennis court- high strung, uber-competitive athletes have to find something to complain about when things are going badly for them (i.e. the opposing player took too much time to serve or to come back from a “bathroom break” between sets and the most laughable complaint I have ever heard by the most laughable competitor, Nick Krygios, that he smelled marijuana in the stands! (What did the crazy Australian expect the Chair Umpire to do about that? Make a citizen’s arrest? Perhaps Nick just wanted a toke?) But it’s nice to focus more attention on the actual great tennis that is occurring and the incredible athleticism of these players than the folks who merely serve to monitor the game to attempt to achieve an accurate and fair result. (Incidentally, in no other sport does an athlete run, sprint, dive and do splits for 5 hours and until nearly 3 a.m like Carlos Alcatraz did the other night- hail to professional tennis players!).
Most importantly, this technology ensures that after all the insane effort that these players put forth that the player who deserves to win (and who actually won) is awarded the point and the victory. The truth is that it’s impossible for even the most highly trained human eye to tell whether a 130-mph serve hits or misses the line every time, especially when the issue is defined by millimeters. Even the best lines people are only right about 75% on these really close calls.
So if we have this incredible technology why aren’t we using it in the most comparable sports situation – that of the home plate baseball umpire? Most home plate umpires are pretty darn good compared to the rest of us at deciphering a ball from a strike; despite the triple digit speed and absurd movement of many pitches, often partially obscured by a catcher, they get the vast majority of calls correct. That said, they also miss a heck of a lot over the course of a game and season. And a few umpires are particularly bad. Moreover, every umpire has his own unique strike zone (some tend to give more of the inside or outside of the plate or high or low pitches or are known as a “pitchers” or “hitters” umpire). So the strike zone literally changes every game, and for some umpires from pitch to pitch, the game circumstances or who is at the plate (there’s no doubt that the Albert Pujols and Adam Wainwrights get more favorable calls than rookies do).
The failure to make the correct call on a ball or strike has an enormous impact on the outcome of the game. It’s not just whether a 3-2 pitch is a strike or ball and thus whether that player walks or strikes out; every pitch has a significant statistical impact on the probability of a player reaching base. The difference between a call of a ball vs a strike on merely a 1-1 pitch, for example, is typically a differential of nearly 100 points on the average batting average. Indeed, once the average major league player has two strikes on him the chances of delivering a hit are only a little more than 1 in 10 (not to mention the sizeable decline in home runs, slugging % and OPS)!
And miscalled balls and strikes can even have a major impact on a player’s career- no more so perhaps than a young call-up from the minor leagues who is not as highly regarded and may have only a limited time to prove that he belongs in the majors. For these folks, who likely devoted years working to develop their craft just to get an opportunity, a key strike out, walk or hit can monumentally affect their chances of staying in the bigs. (During the Houston Astros’ sign-stealing, trash-can banging scandal an opposing Toronto Blue Jay pitcher Mike Bolsinger claimed, in a lawsuit no less, that his career was ruined by a single particularly bad performance aided by this cheating. He was demoted to the minors shortly thereafter and never got another opportunity at the big league level. It’s no stretch to suggest that other players have similarly been adversely impacted by bad umpire calls.)
The arguments for maintaining the current arbitrary and flawed balls and strikes system are absurd.
Some argue that close calls by umpires adds to the drama of the game. Most people attend or watch a game to see the greatest players in the sport perform against each other in order to find out who deserves to prevail that day, not to observe the big men in blue randomly decide the outcome. And I can’t understand how anyone would think it’s better to have a debate about whether a pitch is a ball or a strike when there is a technological way to know that fact with certainty. The folks who advocate for maintaining the status quo for home plate umpiring often embrace the label of being a “traditionalist” (though I bet they don’t still drive a Model T or use a landline phone). And we already use technology that did not exist in the Babe Ruth era to override bad calls by umpires at other bases, if challenged. Yet, we have decided that achieving accuracy somehow is less important when it comes to balls and strikes.
Others say that they like the look and feel of an umpire that stands behind home plate in his armored outfit and mask barking out calls. They relish the different styles of umpires for calling strikes, especially when punching a player out for strike three in a critical situation. All of that can still continue if desired – let the home plate umpire stand there and gesticulate to his heart’s desire but with the aid of the correct call in his ear. Alternatively, with the latest hawk-eye technology, a loud speaker can simply deliver the call with a real umpire’s voice.
Then there are those who complain that the system will make errors. What happens, for example, if the ball bounces before the plate and then jumps up into the strike zone- a clear ball that the technology will see as a strike? I have seen literally millions of pitches in my career as a baseball fan and don’t think I’ve ever seen that happen. But if that extremely rare scenario were to occur the call could simply be overruled.
There are naturally some technological issues that need to be worked out based on the varying sizes of the strike zone for different players: A strike to Aaron Judge at 6 foot 7 is considerably different than one to Jose Altuve at 5 foot 6. And there are some players who have an exaggerated bent-over stance to attempt to make the strike zone smaller- no one did this better than Ricky Henderson. But I am confident that the technology can be formatted to account for these differences for each player based on their actual physical measurements. In any case, there is no question that this system will deliver a far more consistent and accurate result than even the most well-trained umpire’s opinion of a pitch.
The only legitimate beef in my view with the use of technology in sport, such as instant replay review, is the time it often takes to decide such matters, which can clearly ruin the flow of the game. There are numerous examples of excessive review delays in football, basketball and even baseball where technology may not be able to achieve accuracy quickly (such as whether a fielder tagged a runner on the thigh before his foot touched the base). But calling balls and strikes is NOT one of these scenarios. The hawk-eye in tennis has shown that ball and strikes calls can be made instantaneously.
So with all the changes recently adopted for major league baseball next year (preventing shifts, enforcing pitch clock, limiting throws to first base, and enlarging bases) let’s improve the fairness and accuracy of the game and add the automated home plate umpire!
