Is it time to replace professional baseball umpires with technology?

I know we are in the height of basketball season and baseball and summer seem far away. However, as the days are getting longer, the time for spring training and the start of another season of baseball is just around the corner.  

I’m certain we’ve all seen broadcasts where technology shows the pitch was clearly a ball, yet the umpire calls it a strike. There are even statistical services that “rate” the accuracy of baseball umpires on calling balls and strikes versus new technology.  

In a world where innovations are continually changing business and the way we live, it should be no surprise that even traditionally human-dominated fields, like sports officiating, are beginning to feel the pressure for technology and automation. Imagine if today bowling alleys still had human pin setters, or the phone company still had human switchboard operators. In short, I think we can all agree that technology has and will continue to make our lives better.  

The potential for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and other advanced technologies to replace human roles in professional settings is both an opportunity and a challenge. Doctors are utilizing robots to assist with complex operations, and dentists are using 3D printing in their offices to mold new replacement teeth.  

In the world of Major League Baseball, the idea of replacing umpires with technology has started a discussion. On the one hand, technology promises significantly increased accuracy and efficiency, but on the other, it threatens to eliminate the human element that makes the game not only competitive but also entertaining. It begs the question: Is accuracy ultimately and singularly important in the role of an umpire, or do umpires play an irreplaceable role in the fans’ experience of the game of baseball? Would it be unwise to eliminate umpires because technology could do a “better” job?

The human touch

At its core, baseball is a game of nuance and judgment. An umpire is not merely a neutral figure standing at the plate; they serve the role of human decision-making and rule interpretation. Occasionally, the calls or judgments made by umpires may not align with expectations, or, in some cases, will unfairly influence the result of a game.

Baseball umpires make calls that require not only an understanding of the game but also an ability to read the moment, the players, and the context of that moment in the game. This includes judging the trajectory of pitches, determining safe or out calls, and evaluating the conduct of players on the field. An umpire must interpret and apply a myriad of rules, but they also need to understand the atmosphere of a game. A ball might not just be a strike; it could also be a game-changer in the bottom of the ninth inning with two outs and the bases loaded, or the one pitch that spoils a no-hitter.

Technology, on the other hand, lacks this intuitive grasp of context. While technology like the automated strike zone can certainly measure the position of a pitch and consistently give a correct call, it is incapable of interpreting the game’s emotional flow or its unique circumstances. The decision-making required for an umpire to call a pitch too “high and inside” that results in the ejection of the pitcher, isn’t just about being accurate: it’s about interpreting a moment in time where technology may miss the emotional or strategic undercurrents of a game.  

Moreover, an umpire’s role extends beyond calling balls and strikes. They are often key in managing conflicts, whether it’s defusing a tense situation between players or dealing with a manager’s complaint. 

Umpires provide a human presence that connects the players, coaches, and fans to the game. Removing them and replacing them with technology would take away the “human touch” that has been a core part of baseball since its creation over a century ago. The unfairness of this replacement stems not only from the loss of human interaction but from the fact that such a move fails to acknowledge the complexities of human judgment. Besides all that, imagine a manager arguing with a computer rather than a human umpire – would he kick dirt on a keyboard instead of home plate to show his disagreement?  

Technology’s ability to do a better job

Still, there seems to be a compelling argument in favor of technology replacing umpires. Advances in technology, particularly AI, machine learning, and high-definition cameras, have enabled unprecedented accuracy. The emergence of systems like SwingVision, used in tennis, soccer, and other sports to track ball trajectories, and the automatic ball-strike system (ABS) in baseball, demonstrates that technology can match and even exceed human capabilities in some areas.

As an example, the accuracy of pitch tracking systems can determine the exact location of a pitch relative to the strike zone with unparalleled, regardless of the speed, something that even the best umpires cannot consistently achieve. Human umpires also rely on their visual and mental perception, which is subject to fatigue, physical limitations, and occasionally, that dreaded word, bias. 

While an umpire’s judgment is valuable, it can also be inconsistent, leading to calls that may not reflect the true nature of the play. In contrast, a machine can be programmed to make precise decisions based purely on data, ensuring accuracy across every game, regardless of the umpire’s skill level or emotional state. Never again would a “bad call” for a pitch change the outcome of a game.

Moreover, technology can eliminate human error in situations like checking a player’s position, evaluating a play at the plate, or determining whether a ball is fair or foul. These issues, which could be subjective when left to human discretion, can be resolved more definitively, consistently and accurately through technology. This consistency would make the game more “fair” by ensuring that calls are based on data-driven decisions rather than human determination and subjectivity. As a result, fans and players could trust that the outcomes of games are determined by the game itself, not by the potentially flawed decisions of umpires.

The irony of replacing appraisers with technology

This debate of human versus technological performance in baseball umpires has an ironic parallel in another professional field – real estate appraisals. Some of us are old enough to remember Polaroid film, typing appraisals using typewriters and buying stamps to mail the reports to clients. Technology has made appraisers more efficient over the years, by streamlining processes and reducing costs. Automated valuation models (AVMs), and more recently artificial intelligence, have started to encroach on the role and need for human appraisers.  

AVMs analyze vast amounts of data – including recent sales, property features, and market trends – to generate property valuations that are as quick and, in some cases, more accurate than traditional human developed appraisals. Emerging technologies such as computer vision are powering AVMs with the ability to “see” inside the subject and its comparables, their ability to produce accurate estimates.

Just like baseball umpires, real estate appraisers face increasing pressure from technology. AVMs, powered by artificial intelligence, can process data much faster than humans, and they can eliminate the biases that may creep into human judgment, particularly in cases where the appraiser’s background, experience, or even subconscious biases may influence their valuation. In theory, this should result in a more consistent and accurate system of property valuation.

However, the irony emerges when we consider the flaws that human appraisers have been accused of – errors that technology promises to fix. Most recently, the PAVE committee has pointed to the inconsistency and subjectivity of appraisals. 

Admittedly, appraisers sometimes struggle to statistically account for nuances in local markets or rely on “local market expertise” rather than statistical data alone. They may not appropriately consider condition and quality in their selection of comparables or use non-data driven adjustments in the Market Comparison Approach. Human appraisers have, at times, failed to do their jobs effectively, leading to a situation where it is reasonable for some people to believe that technology could do a better job.

The ethical dilemma

The narrative of both major league baseball umpires and real estate appraisers highlights the injustice of replacing skilled professionals with technology, even if the technology might perform the task more accurately. It’s not that umpires or appraisers are incapable of doing their jobs; rather, it’s that their jobs require subjective human interpretation that cannot today be easily replicated by a machine. 

For example, an umpire can call a pitch a ball, not just because of its location but because of the circumstances of the game. Similarly, an appraiser might factor in somewhat intangible qualities like a home’s unique curb appeal. These human elements, which may not be known to a machine, can make a significant difference in the accuracy and fairness of an umpire’s call or the accuracy of an appraiser’s opinion of value. Ultimately, while technology may offer better precision, speed, and consistency at scale, it also lacks the richness of human experience and understanding that makes sports like baseball or professions like real estate appraising truly dynamic. 

Certainly, appraisers need to be more data driven and employ more statistical analysis in their appraisals. But just as in baseball, the replacement of appraisers with technology would lead to a loss of the human touch – the intuitive understanding, empathy, and context that machines today cannot replicate, especially when considering a complex or unique property. 

Striking a balance?

The use of technology to replace professionals like umpires or appraisers is a double-edged and controversial sword. While it might offer a higher level of precision and eliminate some human flaws, it would also strip away the adaptive human element that makes these professions unique.

The nature of a baseball game isn’t just about accurate calls; it’s also about the human judgment and personality that umpires bring to their work. Similarly, AVMs might be more accurate than appraisers in many cases, but they currently lack the nuance, experience, and context that appraisers can provide when necessary. 

Having the human element along with technology means 1 + 1 = 3. An umpire or an appraiser using AI and other new technologies would be even more accurate than either one alone.  The synergies when combining the human element with technology would most certainly produce superior results

The irony is that both industries face the challenge of being replaced by technology that could potentially do a better job – but in doing so, they risk losing something irreplaceable: the humanity at the heart of the work.  

In the end, it doesn’t have to be black or white, or all or nothing. Can’t the right solution be providing the best technology to appraisers to get results superior to an appraiser or AI alone?