Technology is great. Or at least it is when it works as expected. When it doesn’t then it’s the bane of our existence. That same sentiment applies to umpires, doesn’t it? Well, starting in the 2026 season it seems like we’re going to get a mix of both. Joe Lemire of the Sports Business Journal reports that Major League Baseball is expected to vote in favor of the automated balls and strikes challenge system later today and bring it to MLB in the 2026 season. Update: The changes officially passed the vote and will be coming next year.
For those of you who follow the minor leagues a little bit you’ve probably seen this system in place for a while now. For the last five seasons it’s been used at various levels of the minors – including in both Daytona where the Reds have a Single-A team and in Triple-A where Louisville plays. We even got a taste of it in the big leagues in 2025 during spring training and then in the All-Star game.
Don’t get too carried away with your excitement of the automated zone, though. MLB is planning to go with a challenge system rather than an “all the time called by the cameras that are tracking the pitch” system. There are probably plenty of reasons for that, but the biggest one is that it’s what the players prefer. If you want to know why they prefer that I’m not sure what to tell you or who to refer you to, but having challenges is what they prefer over just having the zone called by the cameras on every pitch.
With that said, a few times a year I will come across a game in Major League Baseball where the Hawkeye system (which provides all of the Statcast data, including the strikezone) simply isn’t working for an inning or half-inning. While it’s rare, it does happen. And it’s situations like that where the challenge system is better because you don’t have to just stop the game and figure out why things aren’t working. You can play through and unfortunately just don’t have challenges for that 10-20 minute period of time.
Despite the nightly screenshots you see on social media and replays showing a ball called a strike/non-strike by a quarter of an inch that people lose their minds about – umpires are so much better today at calling the strikezone properly than they used to be. When we first began to track this stuff in 2008 calls were not great, but as Baseball America looked at recently – the improvement has been incredible. There’s a specific spot outside of the zone to left-handed hitters that in 2009 saw it called a strike more than 4000 times, but this season through late June (when this piece was published) it had been called a strike just six times. It’s still not perfect, and it likely never will be, but umpires do a good job even if they do miss some calls.
The system that is going to be implemented will give each team two challenges per game. Only the pitcher, catcher, or hitter can request a challenge and they have to make the decision almost immediately. If a team wins the challenge, they retain that challenge. Teams will also get one challenge added for each extra inning of a game, assuming that they are out of challenges when that inning is set to begin.
As a former software developer, I’m less infatuated with technology than many. Regardless, umpire mistakes are part of the game. It adds a randomness that makes baseball more fun, IMO. Too much technology and you’d might as well be playing a video game, whatever the premium baseball game is. Just enter the stats, push a button, and bam season is over.
I will strongly disagree with the idea that “too much tech and you’d might as well be playing a video game”.
The players play. They aren’t using the tech in any sense beyond the scouting reports they get now are more detailed because we can track everything better than when we used to send scouts to *some* games.
As a current and former Luddite, I have instinctive and reflexive hostility toward many new things, technology included. So, reason for a grain of salt. An issue I have with the challenge system is the time it may add to the game. We already have challenges on other plays, and those often result in seemingly interminable delays while the people in New York look at every available angle of a bang-bang play and attempt to divine something close to the truth. I’m certainly annoyed by some calls made by umpires, and I can already hear people reasonably asking whether I want outcomes to hinge on mistakes (no, I don’t), to which I reply that replay is no guarantee of accuracy, and I prefer the two hour and change games of my youth. I agree with LDS. Until the home plate ump is squeezing a Reds’ pitcher in a close game.
I’m not sure that you have seen the challenge system at work in a minor league game, if you think it delays the game. It literally delays the game about 10 to 15 seconds, which in the end is a time saver when you consider the arguments that sometimes get caused due to bad calls of balls and strikes and managers and players taking time before getting the boot. Not only that, the fans love it at the games and get involved as well. I’m a big-time traditionalist when it comes to this game, but this is one move that is excellent.
I’ve never seen it, Chris. Bear in mind the grain of salt I mentioned before I got deeply into my rant. I’m sure that what you say is true, though I’ll be unsurprised if arguments crop up despite the challenge system, but for me–and probably LDS–the game we grew up with was more fun, hence the skepticism.
Yes @greenmtred, it was far more fun. As a former math nerd, I loved all the stats, the annual Bill James Abstract, etc. But, I knew that historical averages didn’t decide games. The players and managers did. Much of that has been lost in today’s game. We’re losing some of the dynamics of the game with all these rule changes, eg Pete Rose’s hit on the IBB. Not to mention universal DH, inter league play, and wild cards. Yes, the WC may well get the Reds into the playoffs, but I prefer that the team needs to win the division. Of course, it’s all about the money.
I don’t like technology at all, but I don’t like grifters either. Pitch framing is a grift. The actual baseball will be better for this.
This will be a very visible symbol of our world being taken over by all-seeing computers though, making them seem kind and helpful and competent in a time when we need to resist them. On that level it’s a bad thing. Benefit, cost.
Noyes: It’s hard to argue in favor of grifting, but there is a counter point: Baseball has always featured deception–sign stealing, phantom double plays, the hidden ball trick, the butcher boy. It’s one of the features of the game going back to its beginnings and adds a human element and a bit of amusing complicity for fans. For all of its rules, baseball retains an element of invention and informality. I certainly take your point, as well as the point others make about the benefit of more accurate calls, but I’m far from certain that the game will be better for being cleaned up.
Yeah, that’s true enough. One difference is you can counter sign stealing and trick plays by being sharp enough yourself. Umps are just incompetent, they’re only human – there’s no counter to pitch framing. It’s unbeatable. That’s probably why I dislike it more.
Point #1. I’m for deception when the opposing team is the target (within the rules), but attempting to deceive the umpires seems to violate principles of good sportsmanship (intentionally trying to circumvent the agreed-upon rules).
Point #2. Change is part of life, and there is no going back. The speed of the game, pitch movement, etc., all make pro sports harder to officiate than ever. Using technology, especially something like ABS that has been thoroughly tested in the minor leagues and major league spring training, is good for the game and an appropriate way to deal with the inevitable changes.
Change is part of life, certainly. But change is not always for the better, and when change is not imposed upon us by uncontrollable forces, when it’s a result of decisions, discussion and weighing pros and cons, then it is not inevitable. I’m not totally opposed to this particular change, by the way, but I do fear that it will be impossible to get rid of if it proves to be riddled with unintended consequences. And I am being a devil’s advocate.
But that’s why changes like this, ones dependent on technology, get thoroughly tested before implementation, like ABS has. Change is good when it makes things better. ABS won’t be perfect, but more accurate ball and strike calls will put more emphasis on the players than the umpires. As I’ve already stated, who goes to any sporting event wanting to watch the officials blow a key call (or sometimes multiple calls) that ultimately changes the outcome of the game?
Good points, BK and everybody. I will say that the pre-introduction testing of technology isn’t fool proof–driverless cars, for example–but presumably this rather simple and, in the greater scheme of things, low impact change probably could be modified if needed.
I am ok with the challenge system, but think it should be 3, not 2. Sometimes an ump, or a player, is just having an off night, and you might burn one right away that you’d love to get back.
Ultimately, I like this better than nothing because it enables the players to still determine the outcome of the game, which is what we should all want. When it’s the umps blown calls that determine it, and we can fix it, we should.
If the umpire is blowing calls you aren’t burning anything if you are challenging the calls and getting them right. You don’t lose a challenge if you win it.
Correct Doug. I think like many things, people seem to not like something when in fact they haven’t studied or learned what that something truly is. Get the challenge right and you lose not challenges.
Once there is a challenge how does everyone find out the outcome? If he system is working technically how quickly is the outcome announced?
The “replay” is shown on the screen at the stadium (and the television broadcast) and it shows where the ball was. In the minor leagues it also gives a measurement on how far outside of the zone the pitch was, up to 3 inches. Anything beyond that and it just is “outside”. The average replay time from the point it’s challenged in 14 seconds. The umpire will then announce the call – but again, we are all seeing it and will know before he announces the call.
I’ve followed the Bats on MiLBTV for a couple of years, and I like the ABS.
It would be interesting to compare any umpires now working in MLB who worked with ABS to see how similar each’s MLB called zone is compared to the other, and also how they would compare to the ABS zone in the games they work at MLB.
Before this year, half the MILB games using ABS were called by ABS and half were called by umps, subject to challenge, with ABS having the final say on challenges. This said, I think I’d like some sort of hybrid system where the umpires get an auditory cue from ABS but ultimately make their own call subject to challenge. I guess @LDS (comment above) and I have a common thread in our background where software is concerned 😉
Two years ago we visited Louisville and saw the Bats on back to back nights. As it happened, the first night was ABS, the second night was challenge. There was no discernible difference in the two games. Most notably, there were no argued ball and strike counts and both games were no longer than 2 1/2 hours tops each.
I think the pitch clock has already done wonders in reducing the ball/ strike arguing by players on the field, by both the batters and the battery.
Maybe I just notice the Angel Hernandez clones in the league but I’m all for this. I get what the statistical numbers say and there are some very accurate umps but I like the ability to use a challenge to get a call correct. I’m a firm believer in all facets of life, including sports, adapting to technology.
This change was fully expected, and I like it. Generally speaking, I agree that the umpires do a fantastic job. However, when they are off, they seem to keep missing the same calls, which may affect the outcome of a game–only the umpires’ mothers come to the game to see the umpires in action. Challenges go quickly, and I would hope that the time is somewhat neutral, as they may stop players from arguing (asking) about calls they disagree with.
And it’s official:
https://www.mlb.com/reds/news/abs-challenge-system-mlb-2026
I’ve wanted the challenge system for a long time now. It can’t come quick enough. Bring it on.
I love this. One step closer to 100% automated strike zones!
I’m sorry, sir. The computers are down.
When the computers are down, the umpire’s call will stand.
I’m sorry, I am not programmed to respond in this area.
Even with fully automated strike zones?
“Hal, open the pod bay doors.”
I was vastly against it at the start, but now I think it’s a good idea. I like the decision to incorporate the challenge system, acts as sort of a compromise between the two ideas. That’s perfect coming from me the moderate, diplomatic pacifist. I hated interleague play for years but I’ve accepted the latest format MLB is currently using. I feel this ABS challenge system will end up being a positive for baseball.
Now———if they’d only get rid of the annoying ghost runner.
Agreed, the ghost runner in extra innings is the worst.
I’d like to see them assign challenges also to check swing appeals. I’m sure I am exaggerating but it feels like they appeal check swings like 50 times a game.
I agree Tom. The Ghost Runner is awful. It changes the game by creating artificial offense. I will never get used to it. But using the automatic umpire for challenges is different. It is trying to correct bad calls. In that sense I am fine with it. I’m not sure how I would feel using it instead of a home plate human umpire.
I suppose sometime in the future we will be watching robots playing the game.
If we’re still around to watch them play, V4L, and are allowed to take the time off from our assigned duties.
Check swing appeal has become rediculous. It’s about as annoying as Basketball players constantly asking to look at every foul. Maybe they should give the catcher 2 challenges on that as well.
I actually like the ghost runner. 14 inning games are tiring to watch.
I like the ghost runner too, and I love the pace of play changes. It is so much easier to watch a two-and-one-half-hour game than the three-hour-plus marathons that were becoming normative. I remember when Aaron Harang came in and pitched five innings on short rest in what ultimately ended up being an eighteen-inning game. In one night, he went from a durable and effective starter to an ineffective pitcher for the remainder of his time as a Red. Not good.
If they insist on ghost runners, at least change the standings from pure winning percentage to a points system like some other sports use. Make a regulation win worth 3 points and an extra inning win worth 2 points, with a single point for the loser.
I, too, hate the ghost runner. My understanding of checked swings is that the rule is not really definitive–more of a judgment call, to wit: the batter clearly intended to swing, or something like that. If this is the case, the rule would need to be changed to make a replay of any use. And while some replays aren’t time consuming, if you have them for enough events you’ll return to 3 1/2 hour games full of boring breaks in the action.
Amen!
I kind of liked it in spring training.
Hallelujah.
It all sounds rather……challenging. To say the least.
Maybe it will make the game better.
Time marches on!
I’m very much in favor of it. I’m hoping it reduces the Flex-o-Zone or Bizzarro Zone we see. As described, it won’t add time to the game and it’s a solid next step.
I do hope it’s better than the PitchCom shenanigans … 😛
It seems when a pitcher is in trouble he usually will have a pitchcom problem. That usually gives him a breather during the swap of his comm gear.
First time my bleary eyes read this I thought it said Barrero Zone.
+5,000
I don’t think two challenges are enough. I would give each spot in the lineup one challenge and at least 4 or 5 to the pitcher position.
In theory,this should help EDLC with his ankle high strikes next year.
I don’t have a problem with strike zone when it’s established in the first couple of innings. It shows the batter what is going to be a strike or ball today. What annoys me is when the umpire decides he is going to change it in the 8th or 9 th. You want better? Give the umps the big chest protectors and have them crouch down right behind the catcher. Standing to one side is what’s wrong. Totally miscalling the outside plate .
Next thing I would do is tell the catcher if you move that glove and try to manipulate the pitch I’m calling it a ball. Catch it and freeze it.
The ABS as they currently use it and plan to use it is nothing but a silly sideshow at the moment. It’s going to impact one or two at-bats a game and will have virtually no effect on situational baseball.
Of course, the difference between a 1-2 count and a 2-1 count is always an issue, but there is nothing on the planet that can fully fix that. I’ve been watching it regularly on Bats games (yes, I do sometimes watch Bats games, yawn) and the intense anticipation of the outcome on a challenge — heart-stopping. Meh. I think worrying about this is not unlike the rants over the torpedo bat that lasted until some Boston guy decided to shut up about it.
Are they going to call it the Angel Hernandez challenge system?
+50,000
I am so, so, SO in favor of this.
Lineup is out. Tito, we need some offense in there.
On our bench are guys with an OPS of .966, .849, and .770. I know some may be injured, but those would look much better in the lineup versus .656 and especially .599.
I love Hayes’ defense, but bring him in as a replacement once we get a lead.
I am equaling nervous and excited about tonight!
*equally
People complained about the lineups in the four games against Chicago also. Lineups seemed to work out ok.
Have watched it in the minors and it’s excellent. Possibly the best form of challenge in pro sports. Very quick and, best, there is zero ambiguity, ie not enough to prove a call one way or the other. You’ll see. The pitch is in or out. And the game moves on. It makes Nomar Garciaparra’s at bats look like a 12 hr Grateful Dead show.
Agree. I suspect fans who have not seen ABS in action will initially be taken aback by the high strikes which catch a small piece of the zone in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions at the extreme inside and outside corners. At least I was.
Then there are what I call the slow pitch softball strikes, breaking balls that look hung hang but apparently dip down just enough to catch the top of the zone at the extreme back of the zone.
What a long strange trip it’s been.
Back home, sit down and patch my bones
Baby steps.
For now, challenges.
Later, when the system becomes more reliable and doesn’t fail so often, fully automated strike zone.
Here’s an idea: Why not have a backup system online that you can switch to at the flip of a switch so that even if one system fails, you still have another system already up and running to take over while the first system reboots or whatever it is it needs to do?
My bold prophetic proclamation… The day that robots call balls and strikes is the day baseball organizations return to knuckleballers. Umpires are too reluctant to call strikes… You are going to have knucklers aiming for the top of the strike zone and just subtly changing speeds. We might have pitchers throwing longer into games.
Doug, the reasons I have heard that the challenge system is preferred by the players is 2-fold.
1. The umpires call balls and strikes closer to how the hitters expect than the cameras do. Because the plate is dynamic rather than planar, the way the rule is written in the book is far different than the human eye is able to easily notice. A breaking ball that nicks the back of zone is a strike by rule, but is not recognized as one by any ump or hitter.
2. The players like having the power to tell the ump he’s wrong.
Even if the strike zone is planar, the automation will be consistent, throughout the game. Changing strike zones from game to game, inning to inning, even in an at bat is a variable that makes hitting and pitching tougher than it has to be.
Hitters are coming up who have spent their entire minor league career using ABS and/or challenge. I like that there will be more consistency from milb to mlb. Maybe some of the hot shot AAA guys, like Hinds as one example, might find an easier transition to mlb.