Korea’s robot umpires reduce favorable calls for star players 28%

By Andrew Paul22%

7/14/2026, 9:02:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 15.2% saturation with 72 hits. Analysis detected 1,042 faulty-reasoning hits from 475 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.8% and a BS Rank of 28% (15,860 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.50% of the article peer group.

When it comes to making fair calls, the Korea Baseball Organization (KBO) deploys robots. 
The nation’s professional league added a fleet of so-called robot umpires to the field during its 2024 season, hoping to even out the playing field. 
Called the Automatic Ball-Strike system (ABS), it utilizes pitch-tracking sensors and camera arrays to quickly analyze when a pitch crosses the strike zone—not uncanny machines wearing catcher’s gear. 
The ABS data is then presented to the human home plate umpire, who announces their call based on the additional analysis. 
ABS is designed to offer more accurate decisions while reducing overall bias in games, but did it deliver? 
Two years later, researchers at the University of Michigan (UM) say effects are already clear—although not necessarily what some baseball fans (or players) anticipated. 
According to a study published in the journal European Sport Management Quarterly , famous top-ranking hitters performed worse during the 2024 KBO season compared to previous year for statistics involving strike-zone judgment. 
Meanwhile, the high status players walked less, struck out more, and reached bases less often when ABS entered the equation. 
“This suggests that there may have been an existing bias in favor of prominent batters before ABS,” Jimin Song , a UM kinesiologist and study co-author, said in a statement . 
“Before ABS, when a big-name batter was at bat, umpires may have given more favorable calls on borderline pitches.” 
While the top batters saw statistical declines across multiple plate-focused areas after the introduction of ABS, the shift in wider-ranging hitting performance was less noticeable. 
Song and colleagues believe this strengthens the theory that it’s the umpire calls that changed between seasons, and not the KBO’s players themselves. 
However, these patterns weren’t apparent in major name pitchers, which researchers attributed to potentially more varying performances for the position or fewer opportunities to show a decline. 
“We’ve all seen calls that have influenced outcomes at the end of the game,” said study co-author and UM kinesiologist Richard Paulsen. 
“Some decisions made by officials, like ball-strike decisions or out-of-bounds calls, are very objective and could be automated easily.” 
Song and Paulsen say their findings extend beyond baseball. 
Higher status bias frequently occurs in professional life, educational institutions, and other situations involving power dynamics. 
Although the ABS system likely won’t find its way into the office building, the team believes their study underscores the importance of working to reduce biases as much as possible through a range of methods like blind performance reviews and evaluations. 
Meanwhile, don’t expect the robots to come for the actual umpires—despite Major League Baseball incorporating its own ABS system this season. 
“Human judgment, in my view, remains useful for more subjective decisions, and for that reason I do not believe we will see human officiating go away completely anytime soon,” said Paulsen. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.2%Andrew Paul: 2.5%Popular Science: 2.2%Confirmation Bias15.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Andrew Paul: 3.0%Popular Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic10.3%This article: 3.4%Andrew Paul: 1.1%Popular Science: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic3.4%This article: 4.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias4.0%This article: 12.4%Andrew Paul: 3.2%Popular Science: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias12.4%This article: 13.9%Andrew Paul: 4.4%Popular Science: 3.5%Framing Effect13.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 10.9%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.7%Status Quo Bias10.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.6%Andrew Paul: 6.7%Popular Science: 4.6%Optimism Bias8.6%This article: 5.1%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.7%Pessimism Bias5.1%This article: 6.1%Andrew Paul: 4.3%Popular Science: 3.0%Negativity Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error4.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.6%Popular Science: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.1%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 0.9%Recency Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 3.8%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.7%Andrew Paul: 5.5%Popular Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority6.7%This article: 4.8%Andrew Paul: 1.2%Popular Science: 0.8%False Dilemma4.8%This article: 4.4%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.3%Slippery Slope4.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.1%Andrew Paul: 5.0%Popular Science: 4.1%Hasty Generalization13.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.6%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.6%Bandwagon4.6%This article: 4.6%Andrew Paul: 3.4%Popular Science: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion4.6%This article: 6.5%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.6%Begging the Question6.5%This article: 10.7%Andrew Paul: 2.4%Popular Science: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.5%Burden of Proof4.0%This article: 8.6%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature8.6%This article: 1.9%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Composition/Division1.9%This article: 5.3%Andrew Paul: 1.9%Popular Science: 2.2%Anecdotal5.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.5%Andrew Paul: 2.2%Popular Science: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.0%Andrew Paul: 2.3%Popular Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote4.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.3%Andrew Paul: 5.0%Popular Science: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice13.3%This article: 8.6%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 1.3%Indoctrination8.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 2.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

475 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers31%attributed speech330writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJimin Song • 31 words • 0.0% coverageJimin Song • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJimin Song • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Paulsen • 22 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Paulsen • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Paulsen • 31 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Richard Paulsen

100%flagged-word coverage
72 attributed words50% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-19.1 ptsWriter: 19.1%Richard Paulsen: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-12.4 ptsWriter: 12.4%Richard Paulsen: 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.