The Automated Ball-Strike (ABS) Challenge System is coming to Major League Baseball in 2026, meaning for the first time in baseball history (since 1876!) MLB umpires will be assisted by technology when calling balls and strikes. Beginning next year, teams will be provided 2 challenges in regulation play, with an additional challenge granted if a game goes into extra innings. Unlike replays in football, for example, the ABS system provides immediate evidence to support or refute a human call — a major advance for technology and sports. Still, critics worry that the challenge system will be abused, add controversy, add some delay, and eventually render umpires basically useless. While MLB officials push back and remind us that ABS is an assistant and not a full takeover of human officiating, we have to wonder if this is the start of a slippery slope? Is perfection the goal, or do we still enjoy a human element when it comes to umpires calling balls and strikes?
Unpacking technology & officiating
There should be no surprise that MLB is continuing to explore ways to use technology to make baseball better, but the step of auditing balls and strikes feels different than reviewing a bang-bang tag out at a base (calls that are almost impossible to make in real time). To begin with, the strike zone in baseball, while not arbitrary, is still a subjective area impacted by each player’s unique strike zone. In other words, unlike the objective nature of deciding whether a bat hit a baseball (the ball either hits the bat or doesn’t), each umpire’s strike zone will inevitably vary. In fact, part of the fun of baseball is watching teams self-correct for the strike zone being called by an umpire on any given day.
Another concern has to do with potential delays and change in momentum. Yes, MLB has assured us that the reviews will be completed in mere seconds, but what if that’s not the case? Tamping down the enthusiasm of a home crowd because of a pitch review can potential change the flow of the game, something baseball purists certainly do not want. MLB has outlined that only the pitcher, catcher, and hitter can challenge a call, but what about the new confusion when the players look to one another (or to the dugout) waiting to see if they should challenge? With only 2 challenges per game, it’s reasonable to assume there will be some uncertainty witnessed sorting out what pitches to challenge.
Lastly, can we continue to live with a little human error? Baseball has to this point, and while a bad call against your team never feels good, there is excitement about humans making spontaneous decisions — even when they are occasionally wrong. Taking the human element out of the game feels a bit robotic, and may dull some of the more exciting moments.
It is certainly understandable why MLB wants to increase the use of technology by means of pitch challenges, and the ways in which this technology has been used in tennis provides hope that the change could be a good thing. At the same time, baseball—arguably more than any other sport—has preserved the human element as a central part of the game, yet it tempts fate with each decision to increase technology at the expense of human error. Baseball purists won’t like that, but will the rest of the baseball fan base care?
Final thoughts
Are MLB umpires perfect? Of course not, but they are remarkably good at their job, and they are regularly graded by the league for their on-field calls. Calling balls and strikes is difficult, and for over 100 years baseball fans have accepted that different umpires call slightly different strike zones. It is inevitable that sports leagues will continue to integrate technology to make sports better, but there is also a balancing point to consider when integrating technology designed to take the place of humans. Critics worry that the introduction of ball/strike challenges will eventually lead to the end of human umpires, something I am not sure that every baseball fan wants.
drstankovich.com
