[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Ryan M. Spaeder [@theaceofspaeder](/creator/twitter/theaceofspaeder) on x 66.8K followers Created: 2025-07-18 16:19:55 UTC I believe that using the ABS system for challenges is a flawed approach for MLB. Despite the strike zone’s standardized definition in the handbook, its application varies by umpire, creating inherent subjectivity. Allowing ABS challenges introduces a new inconsistency, as pitches called balls or strikes all game could suddenly be overturned, disrupting established patterns. A challenge system further amplifies in-game discrepancies, undermining the integrity and flow of a game already strained by inconsistencies. For automation to be effective, it would need universal application across all calls, not selective player-driven challenges. Having said that, I oppose automation entirely. It risks creating an overly mechanical game that erodes the strategic depth of baseball in favor of rigid precision. Umpires, despite their variability, call a strike zone that shapes in-game dynamics and highlights a player’s ability to adapt—a pitcher might exploit a slightly wider zone, while a batter adjusts their approach to those same tendencies. Automation’s inflexible adherence to a fixed zone will disrupt this tactical interplay, reducing the game to a mechanical process that stifles its dynamic balance, ultimately diminishing the competitive essence of this great game. Nevertheless, ABS challenge system is worse than full automation because its selective interventions will cause disruptions that counterintuitively heighten inconsistency by deviating from the game’s established patterns, while even a fully automated system risks deteriorating our context-driven game. XXXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [mlb](/topic/mlb) [Post Link](https://x.com/theaceofspaeder/status/1946243547965112735)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Ryan M. Spaeder @theaceofspaeder on x 66.8K followers
Created: 2025-07-18 16:19:55 UTC
I believe that using the ABS system for challenges is a flawed approach for MLB. Despite the strike zone’s standardized definition in the handbook, its application varies by umpire, creating inherent subjectivity. Allowing ABS challenges introduces a new inconsistency, as pitches called balls or strikes all game could suddenly be overturned, disrupting established patterns. A challenge system further amplifies in-game discrepancies, undermining the integrity and flow of a game already strained by inconsistencies. For automation to be effective, it would need universal application across all calls, not selective player-driven challenges.
Having said that, I oppose automation entirely. It risks creating an overly mechanical game that erodes the strategic depth of baseball in favor of rigid precision. Umpires, despite their variability, call a strike zone that shapes in-game dynamics and highlights a player’s ability to adapt—a pitcher might exploit a slightly wider zone, while a batter adjusts their approach to those same tendencies. Automation’s inflexible adherence to a fixed zone will disrupt this tactical interplay, reducing the game to a mechanical process that stifles its dynamic balance, ultimately diminishing the competitive essence of this great game.
Nevertheless, ABS challenge system is worse than full automation because its selective interventions will cause disruptions that counterintuitively heighten inconsistency by deviating from the game’s established patterns, while even a fully automated system risks deteriorating our context-driven game.
XXXXXX engagements
Related Topics mlb