Personally, I'm divided on the current challenge system.

On the one hand, I think baseball is an incredibly subjective sport by nature. The rules allow for a ton of leeway on judgement calls, and I think it needs to stay that way. If we're just going to review all the close calls, there's no point having more than one umpire on the field.

On the other hand, I want the right calls at all times. I want everyone to win or lose games based on their own merit, and not because they lucked out.

I think that the challenge system needs a little work, but I don't think as it is, it's a bad thing. As it is, a manager gets a challenge. If it is right, then they get a 2nd, essentially. This is fair.

After expenditure of challenges, managers are still allowed to disagree with the umpires and argue calls, and at this time, umpires are under no OBLIGATION to review the calls but are allowed to, if they think it is a challengeable instance.

The answer isn't to allow more challenges, it is to build a better level of trust between managers/players and umpires.

legacyme3 : There are 54 outs in a baseball game, more if you get free baseball.  A lucky call one way or another shouldn't decide a game at any given point.  The strike zone is subjective and that sets up all of baseball.  A 1-0 count vs an 0-1 count completely changes the dynamic of the at bat and how a batter and pitcher treat the strike zone.  A 2-1 count is completely different from a 1-2 count and those are the things that make any play in the field.

So, the objectiveness of the field plays pale in comparison to the strike zone if you want to look at it that way.  I think challenges should be allowed, 2 per game per manager, and they get a third if they win the first two.  We have technology for it.  We may as well use it as long as it doesn't slow the game down too much.

warmaker :

While I don't completely disagree, I don't think adding more challenges changes anything. From most games I've watched this year, there were enough challenges to make sure the right calls were made. And since managers CAN argue even if they are out of challenges, all it would take is a willingness by umpires to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong. By doing so, they go through the same process as the challenge system, without having to worry about the number of challenges remaining.

At any rate, the strike zone cannot and will not, ever be argued. They've made that very clear. Balls and strikes are NOT reviewable calls in any meaning of the word. And honestly, the effect they have on the game is a lot smaller than most people think.

For the most part, umpires do well with calling strike zones. There are 2-3 umpires in the game that routinely mess up calls (and should have been fired long ago), but they are the exception, not the rule. I draw strikezones in my spare time after ball games, I take it into a drawing application, like paint, and draw around the strikes, while trying to avoid called balls. In the end, I'm left with a lot of strikezones that end up looking like these.





These are not egregiously bad zones, and are fairly typical in today's game. Some calls are timely for a team, and have the other team crying foul, but to get even 99% of all ball strike calls right over a course of three hours, 162 games a year is nothing short of incredible. Umpires do not get enough credit for what they do.

The problem isn't the challenge system or the number of challenges a team gets (I say this as a fan of a team who has been screwed on challenges year round), nor is it a problem per say with the umpires themselves (they do rather well all things considered).

It's a lack of trust between managers/players and umpires. And that's more on the players and managers than the umpires. They always feel like the umpires are out to get them. There are some umpires who think the game is all about them, but those are the ones that should be fired, and are outside the curve to begin with.