Fact-Finding in Baseball

-- By JoshLerner - 26 Feb 2010

Baseball's Judicial System

Introduction to the System

Baseball has a judicial system that operates as a two stage process in many ways similar to our criminal justice system.

In the first step the umpires find the facts that have occurred. This may be finding simple facts: that a pitch is a ball or strike, a hit is fair or foul, or a batter reached first base before or after the ball did. There are also more complicated facts to find: whether a pitcher had the intent to throw a pitch at a batter’s head, or whether a ball would have been caught by an outfielder had a fan not interfered with it.

The second step is for the umpire to apply his factual findings to the rules of baseball as codified by Major League Baseball. The umpire will apply the finding of three strikes as an out and a pitch intentionally thrown at a batter’s head as an ejection of the pitcher. There are mathematical formulas supplied by the rules and in this stage of the inquiry the umpire only needs to apply the facts scientifically to the formula provided by the rules. There is no human judgment at this stage of the inquiry.

As technology has evolved baseball, as well as many other professional sports, is faced with the question of whether it wants to continue to allow umpires to find the facts or whether it wants to turn that responsibility over to machines.

Human Fact-Finding in Baseball

Up to this point the role of fact-finding in baseball has been left to human umpires. There is an oft-told parable of three umpires’ explanations for how they call balls and strikes. The Young Umpire calls them as he sees them, the Middle-Aged Umpire calls them as they are, and the Veteran Umpire says they aren’t even balls or strikes until he calls them.

Major League Baseball favors the Young Umpire’s view (evidenced by introduction of Questec, see below). It also is the one that most fans agree with. We don’t view umpires as infallible (Middle-Aged view) and we don’t view facts as determined by the umpire’s call (Veteran view).

If we aren’t in the Young Umpire’s world then there would be no reason to try and improve our fact-finding. For a discussion of automated fact-finding it’s important we adopt the Young Umpire's view.

Automated Fact-Finding in Baseball

In 2001 Major League Baseball installed the Questec system in some of their ballparks in order to evaluate umpires. Umpires are judged by what percentage of pitches they called correctly (correctly measured by what Questec calls a ball or strike). Questec finds the fact of a ball or strike and the umpires finding of fact is compared to Questec’s to determine if the Umpire was correct or not.

Although the system has been used only as an evaluation tool, there is no reason it can’t be applied as a method for finding facts. In order to do so humans will have to give over the power of fact-finding to Questec and accept whatever facts it finds, completely removing the element of human judgment.

If we turn fact-finding over to Questec it makes the umpire’s job a scientific, one-step process. The umpire now solely takes the facts as given and applies them to the mathematical formula provided by baseball’s rules.

The Advantages of Automated Fact-Finding

Machines don’t have biases

Questec does not have a like or dislike for a specific pitcher or team, Questec does not prefer white players to black players, and there is no risk that Questec will become the next Tim Donaghy.

We Perceive Machines As Being More Accurate

Machines are fallible just like humans, but we acknowledge that they have the capability of being more accurate. The human eye has limitations that computers can improve on. As long as we are in the world of the Young Umpire then we should strive to see the balls and strikes as best as we can.

Outrage over missed calls has become a part of sports that can be alleviated if we turn fact-finding to machines. We trust instant replays, Questec and Hawk-eye more than we trust our own abilities to view facts.

The Concerns of Automated Fact-Finding

Part of the Game

The most common argument against automating fact finding is that human error in umpiring is a part of the game. Try telling that to a disgruntled fan, or to a player being discriminated against. The argument has no more merit than those who advocate a law solely for historical purposes. Just because human error and bias was a part of baseball before is no reason for it to continue to be a part of the game today. When we have the ability to minimize human error and bias we should do it.

This whole premise results from the undemanding, human scale of baseball, which is a game of inches and minutes rather than millimeters and thousandths of seconds. In the racing disciplines, machinery for fact-finding has been employed for decades, and currently routinely measures intervals in space and time too small for human cognition to approach.

A gross exaggeration and mischaracterization of the game of baseball. I'm going to go out on a ruler sized limb here and say that you haven't watched much baseball recently since you don't own a TV. More accurately stated, baseball is sometimes a game of inches and minutes but is frequently a game of centimeters and tenths of seconds (for example, the difference between a successful or unsuccessful steal attempt is in the .05-.2 second range). Just like racing is sometimes a game of yards and seconds but is frequently a game of millimeters and thousandths of seconds. Even more important, even if we accept Eben's characterization of the game, even the "best" umpires routinely botch these inches and minutes--just ask Brian Gorman.

I think the point here, which is obscured by Eben's comment, is that baseball is an extremely conservative institution that concocts reasons to resist change and preserve inaccuracies or idiotic statistics. Everytime the Baseball Writers give the Cy Young to the league leader in wins (but less deserving pitcher) or Derek Jeter wins a gold glove I cringe. But, I would also argue that accuracy is not the ultimate goal of baseball--selling seats and keeping a strong fan base is. The fact is that people have come to know and love baseball as it is now and have a strong status quo bias. Handing the game over to machines would certainly hurt MLB's bottom line.

I agree that in some areas and systems we should aspire to minimize human error and bias--I'm just not sure baseball is one of those systems. Baseball is not about fairness or efficiency--it is just a game trying to produce enjoyment (not accurate criminal justice). Getting calls wrong and seeing Lou Pinella ejected is part of the enjoyment. In some institutions, inefficiencies, inaccuracies, and waste persist because they produce greater human happiness than their rational utility maximizing opposites simply because humans aren't rational maximizers to begin with.

Science Fiction

What if those programming or operating the machines go mad with power and alter the fact-finding? What if machines somehow get into our brains and overthrow mankind?

Gee, I don't know. Have horse-racing photofinish cameras tried yet?

It’s important that we evaluate each decision to turn fact-finding over to machines on its own merits and monitor both the machines and those who oversee them. We can always judge using the human eye and if errors are obvious we can make alterations. And there is always John Connor.

I take it this is a "popular" culture allusion. Is it funny?

Conclusion

If we can eliminate human bias and human error from fact-finding in baseball then we should. While currently we may only be able to find simple facts with machines, it’s possible to imagine some day we will be able to turn fact finding of complex facts, even those involving intent, over to machines as well.

Sports provide an excellent framework for evaluating automated fact finding that some day we may be tempted to integrate into our criminal justice system. As scary as it may sound to turn fact-finding over to machines, if done carefully it can be an excellent mechanism to eliminate human bias and error.

Sports provide a poor framework for discussion of criminal justice fact-finding, because, despite the sporting allusions in the vocabulary of adjudication, the social environments are so fundamentally different.

Actually, every time I tune into Sportscenter it looks like the social environments of the criminal justice system and sports are converging. Jokes aside, I find myself wanting after this comment. The two are indeed different, as any two institutions will inevitably be, but, fundamentally different? Maybe I'm being obtuse here but I need more explanation (time permitting). In what ways are the two social environments fundamentally different that are relevant to the point this paper is trying to make? -- MatthewZorn - 13 Apr 2010

As I was taught by one of the great high-middlebrow baseball metaphorists, Bart Giamatti, I'm relatively hard to impress with yet another way to make baseball into a microcosm of the human condition of struggle with fate and the universe, or whatever. But this one, I must admit, surprises me slightly. What matters in games is making decisions that fit within the time-discipline of the game. Decisions and appeals must occur more or less immediately. Factual dispute—although it may, as you say, involve intention—is usually of the kind a laser beam can resolve: the establishment of an accurate mark in spacetime, or the compliance of equipment with required specification. Where, as in the America's Cup, the fact-finding becomes more difficult, it is sport that has use for adjudication, rather than the other way around.