Players say MLB’s robot umpires are shrinking the strike zone 46%

By David Brandt0%

4/23/2026, 6:52:48 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Hasty Generalization, and Status Quo Bias, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 10.5% saturation with 95 hits. Analysis detected 510 faulty-reasoning hits from 908 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.1% and a BS Rank of 46% (11,861 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.20% of the article peer group.

By DAVID BRANDT 
Updated 5:56 AM PDT, April 23, 2026 
Home plate umpire Alex MacKay reacts toward the Seattle Mariners bench after calling a strike during the third inning of a baseball game against the Texas Rangers, Monday, April 6, 2026, in Arlington, Texas. 
(AP Photo/Julio Cortez) 
PHOENIX (AP)  Arizona Diamondbacks closer Paul Sewald knows that  in theory  Major League Baseball’s new Automated Ball-Strike system shouldn’t favor batters or pitchers. 
In practice, he thinks one side has gained an advantage. 
And it’s not the guys throwing the baseball. 
“It’s what (MLB) wanted  people on base,” Sewald said. 
“Tough time to be a pitcher. 
Balls flying everywhere, you’ve got a smaller strike zone. 
But you just go out there and do the best you can.” 
So  is Sewald right? 
It depends on which numbers you want to use, but it sure seems like the strike zone has shrunk. 
Walks have skyrocketed to near historic highs through the season’s first month. 
There’s no direct evidence ABS is the reason for the increase, but as D-backs catcher James McCann said: “Of course it is. 
What other rules have changed?” 
MLB players have drawn a walk in 9.8% of plate appearances this season through Wednesday’s games, which would be the highest rate since 1950. 
The rate is likely to come down as the season progresses  pitchers usually have more trouble finding the zone during widespread chilly conditions in northern cities during March and April. 
But even adjusted for the time of year, walks have made a massive jump from last season. 
Everyone knew the strike zone would change. 
MLB had to re-write its definition of the zone to accommodate the shift to robot umpires. 
The Official Baseball Rules long described a zone stretching from the midpoint of the hitter’s torso down to the “hollow beneath the kneecap.” 
The new zone is more precise. 
It starts at 27% of a batter’s standing height and stretches to 53.5%. 
The ABS zone is 17 inches wide, matching the width of home plate. 
All pitches are measured at the midpoint of the plate. 
The spike in walks doesn’t tell the whole story about who is benefiting during the ABS era. 
MLB’s league-wide batting average is down slightly to .240 through Wednesday, a few ticks below the .242 rate through last year’s games in March and April. 
That pokes a hole in Sewald’s claim that there are “balls flying everywhere.” 
The difference in opinion is fascinating as MLB players digest the new rules and new data. 
New York Yankees outfielder Cody Bellinger isn’t putting too much stock in the early numbers. 
He said hitters and pitchers are always playing a cat-and-mouse game, and there will eventually be equilibrium. 
“I think there’s always an adjustment to something new,” the 2019 National League MVP said. 
“It’s also such a short sample size. 
It’s (20-25) games into the season, so numbers skyrocket both ways early on.” 
McCann’s not so sure. 
The veteran catcher said a smaller strike zone will inevitably lead to more walks. 
“I think it’s tighter in general,” McCann said. 
“Umpires are getting instant feedback on what’s a strike or a ball and everything’s becoming much more uniform. 
That’s what the guys who had used it in the minor leagues told me was going to happen before the season started, and they were exactly right.” 
Chicago Cubs star infielder Nico Hoerner had a slightly different take  arguing that hitters might be benefiting in the short-term by laying off pitches at the top of the strike zone  but that all adjustments have an expiration date. 
“Getting on base has been emphasized for a long time,” Hoerner said. 
“Walking is incredibly valuable as a hitter. 
A lot of pitchers  their approach is to avoid slug at all cost. 
Sometimes that involves throwing less strikes. 
But I’m sure there will be a back and forth, just like every trend in baseball.” 
If recent history is any indication, MLB rule changes can cause a lasting effect. 
There was a nearly 50% increase in stolen bases from 2022 to 2023 after a rules package introduced a pitch clock and limits on how many times a pitcher could make pickoff throws. 
Stolen bases have remained high in the subsequent years  even after teams adjusted to the new rules. 
And when MLB lowered the mound in 1969, the walk rate jumped from 7.6% to 9.1%. 
It dipped slightly after that but didn’t return below 8% again until 2013. 
Miami Marlins manager Clayton McCullough believes the ABS issue is a different animal. 
He’s watching the trends and doesn’t believe the higher walk rate is here to stay. 
Who knows? 
The next five months will tell the tale. 
“I think that we’ll get to a point where it gets close and stabilizes to what it’s been, where relievers are walking around 10%. 
Starters are going to be more around 8%,” McCullough said. 
“My hypothesis sitting here now early in the year is that by the time the season ends, (walk rates) will look very much like they have, say the last several seasons.” 
AP Baseball Writer Jay Cohen, AP Sports Writer Alanis Thames and AP freelancer Larry Fleshier contributed to this story. 
DAVID BRANDT 
Brandt is an Associated Press sports writer based in Phoenix. 
He covers a wide variety of sports including the NBA, NFL and MLB. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.1%David Brandt: 5.1%One America News Network: 4.6%Confirmation Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 2.3%One America News Network: 2.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%David Brandt: 2.7%One America News Network: 3.9%Availability Heuristic1.5%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 1.7%One America News Network: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.8%David Brandt: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.8%This article: 2.5%David Brandt: 2.3%One America News Network: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 1.1%One America News Network: 15.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.1%David Brandt: 3.1%One America News Network: 1.1%Status Quo Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.5%David Brandt: 12.2%One America News Network: 4.3%Optimism Bias10.5%This article: 0.7%David Brandt: 0.7%One America News Network: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.7%This article: 1.9%David Brandt: 2.2%One America News Network: 11.8%Negativity Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.6%One America News Network: 3.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.4%One America News Network: 3.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.4%One America News Network: 5.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%David Brandt: 4.5%One America News Network: 2.0%Recency Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.8%David Brandt: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.8%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.0%David Brandt: 2.3%One America News Network: 6.3%Appeal to Authority3.0%This article: 0.6%David Brandt: 2.5%One America News Network: 1.8%False Dilemma0.6%This article: 1.5%David Brandt: 0.8%One America News Network: 1.1%Slippery Slope1.5%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.6%One America News Network: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.4%David Brandt: 7.7%One America News Network: 5.4%Hasty Generalization6.4%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.5%One America News Network: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.4%One America News Network: 10.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.3%One America News Network: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.8%David Brandt: 8.2%One America News Network: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.8%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.7%One America News Network: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 1.7%One America News Network: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.1%David Brandt: 1.6%One America News Network: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.1%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.4%One America News Network: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.7%One America News Network: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.6%One America News Network: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.1%David Brandt: 1.0%One America News Network: 5.2%Biased Writer Voice2.1%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 3.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brandt: 0.0%One America News Network: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

908 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers28%attributed speech658writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Sewald • 10 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Sewald • 6 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Sewald • 9 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Sewald • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJames McCann • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageCody Bellinger • 15 words • 0.0% coverageCody Bellinger • 7 words • 0.0% coverageCody Bellinger • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJames McCann • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJames McCann • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJames McCann • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageNico Hoerner • 12 words • 0.0% coverageNico Hoerner • 7 words • 0.0% coverageNico Hoerner • 14 words • 0.0% coverageNico Hoerner • 6 words • 0.0% coverageNico Hoerner • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageClayton McCullough • 24 words • 0.0% coverageClayton McCullough • 10 words • 0.0% coverageClayton McCullough • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Paul Sewald

68%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words15% of attributed speech41% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Paul Sewald: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.