Twins Caught in the Middle of ABS Controversy After Razor Thin Overturn

[Cody Christie]

There are growing pains that come with any new technology, and Major League Baseball’s Automated Ball Strike challenge system is no exception. On Thursday, the Minnesota Twins found themselves in the middle of one of the most talked-about moments yet in the early days of ABS, a call so close that it is now fueling debate across the sport about what the strike zone should actually be.

In the bottom of the second inning, Royce Lewis stepped to the plate against Jack Flaherty with a runner on first base. The count moved to 3-1, and Flaherty delivered an 91.3 mph fastball that was ruled a ball by the home plate umpire. Lewis began his routine jog to first base, shedding his gear as if the walk was already secured.

Detroit catcher Jake Rogers tapped his helmet, signaling for a review. Within seconds, the Hawk Eye system took over and delivered its verdict. The call was overturned. Strike two.

Not just a strike, but the closest confirmed strike yet under the system, according to Codify Baseball. Hawk Eye showed that the tiniest sliver of the baseball clipped the strike zone, enough to flip the call and send Lewis back into the box. Instead of standing on first base, Lewis was suddenly in a 3-2 count, and Flaherty finished the at-bat with another fastball that Lewis swung through for strike three.

It is exactly the type of moment ABS was designed to handle, but it is also the type of moment that exposes how different a rulebook strike zone can feel compared to the one players and fans have grown used to seeing.

The debate picked up quickly. MLB analyst Ryan M. Spaeder voiced frustration with how the system currently interprets the zone. He suggested a 50-50 rule, where at least half the baseball must cross into the strike zone to be called a strike. His argument centered on the idea that the current system effectively expands the zone beyond its traditional 17-inch width. When accounting for the baseball's full diameter, Spaeder argued, the zone can be closer to 22.8 inches wide.

That interpretation has raised eyebrows, especially for hitters who now must account for pitches that barely graze the edge rather than clearly enter the zone. From a hitter’s perspective, the difference between a ball and a strike has never been thinner, literally.

Still, not everyone sees a problem. There is a strong contingent across the league that believes this is exactly what ABS is meant to accomplish. For pitchers, a pitch that clips the zone is a perfect pitch, and the system rewards that precision without bias or inconsistency. In a sport that has long struggled with inconsistent strike zones from umpire to umpire, ABS offers a level of consistency previously unattainable.

Royals reliever Matt Strahm even pushed back on Spaeder’s idea publicly, noting that if baseball is going to start redefining what counts as a strike based on partial entry, then the same logic would need to apply elsewhere. He suggests that the foul line/pole shouldn’t be fair then.  

For the Twins, the moment was more frustrating than philosophical. What looked like a routine walk turned into a strikeout, and a potential scoring opportunity disappeared just as quickly as it appeared. It is the kind of swing that can change an inning, or even a game, and it underscores how impactful the challenge system can be in high-leverage spots.

At the same time, it is hard to argue that the system got the call wrong. By definition, it got it exactly right.

That is where the tension lies as baseball continues to adapt. The ABS system is doing what it was designed to do, but it is also forcing players, analysts, and fans to reconsider what they expect the strike zone to look like. The human element has not disappeared, but it is now being checked by a level of precision that leaves little room for interpretation.

Moments like this one involving Lewis are likely to keep popping up as the season unfolds. Each will add another layer to the conversation about fairness and consistency.

For now, the early returns suggest that while there may be flaws to iron out, the overall reception to ABS has been positive. Players are adjusting, fans are learning, and the league is gathering valuable feedback in real time. The strike zone may not look the way it used to, but it has never been more exact.

View full rumor

[Linus]

The premise is stupid. No matter where you set the boundary there are always going to be balls that barely clip said boundary. That is what the “black” on the plate represents. Perhaps the real problem is Royce didn’t perform. 

[ashbury]

5 hours ago, Linus said:

The premise is stupid. No matter where you set the boundary there are always going to be balls that barely clip said boundary. That is what the “black” on the plate represents. Perhaps the real problem is Royce didn’t perform. 

I know the following doesn't really remove all scope for arguments, but with the alleged precision of the camera system, a rule could be instituted that the umpire's call in-the-moment stands, unless the measured discrepancy is more than half an inch, or whatever threshold gets chosen.  

Eventually fully automated ball-strike calls will happen, but as long as there's an umpire calling pitches, I see no reason to hang one dry by reversing ticky-tack distinctions.

[Linus]

14 minutes ago, ashbury said:

I know the following doesn't really remove all scope for arguments, but with the alleged precision of the camera system, a rule could be instituted that the umpire's call in-the-moment stands, unless the measured discrepancy is more than half an inch, or whatever threshold gets chosen.  

Eventually fully automate ball-strike calls will happen, but as long as there's an umpire calling pitches, I see no reason to hang one dry by reversing ticky-tack distinctions.

I just don’t see an issue with what happened. The ball clipped the zone, just barely but it did. Perfect pitch. It would actually be unfair to the pitcher not to overturn it. 

[twinstalker]

ABS = more walks.

So now someone wants even more walks than that?  And what happens whein 50% of the ball is in the zone, but it's actually a sliver one way or the other?  Should we reset the rule again?  This is dumb (the "controversy," that is).

[Nshore]

Obviously, the thing to do is to bring Angel Hernandez back as a consultant on the matter.

I like the ABS zone.  They better be ready to swing the bats.  The at bat would have been fine if Lewis would just hit the baseball.

[tony&rodney]

Impossible to explain how stupid it is to adopt a system that is admittedly flawed (by MLB) and then argue to adjust the ways in which the ABS is administered. 

There are ways to change it: 1) use ABS all the time; 2) eliminate it and go back to umpires calling strikes but hold umpires accountable for egregious calls by requiring retraining or demotion while financially rewarding those who are extremely accurate.

For those who want a change on challenges, reduce the time on base challenges to 5 seconds. If the call is egregious it gets challenged and overturned, otherwise these 5-10+ minute delays to eventually determine that there isn't enough evidence to overturn a call because it was too close are gone. Remove the video geek from the game.

[bunsen82]

ABS is improving the ball that was an inch off the plate, but due to pitch framing and bad angles by the ump was called a strike.  

[Dman]

I have been amazed at how well the umpires are calling games these days.  Most of the calls I have seen missed have been by the sliver of the baseball.  Just no way the human eye can get those calls right all the time IMO.  Even some that are just half an inch off can be tough to see with the human eye.  It feels like ABS is training the umps to be better.

Catchers have the best view for strike and ball calls and even they are wrong at times about calls.  I do feel like ABS has widened the zone especially the bottom of the zone.  As if changeups and sliders aren't hard enough to battle now low fastballs get called as strikes as well.  Still it seems most players have enjoyed that the zone is the zone.  I haven't heard many complaints from the players.  I think getting just two challenges helps make it so you can't challenge every close call.  

I like the system as it stands now and the challenges add a new dimension of the game as a check on umpires and the ability to make a wrong call right.  It seems to be a rule change players and fans both are on board with and one that I think make the game better.

[Dman]

Just now, Dman said:

I have been amazed at how well the umpires are calling games these days.  Most of the calls I have seen missed have been by the sliver of the baseball.  Just no way the human eye can get those calls right all the time IMO.  Even some that are just half an inch off can be tough to see with the human eye.  It feels like ABS is training the umps to be better.

Catchers have the best view for strike and ball calls and even they are wrong at times about calls.  I do feel like ABS has widened the zone especially the bottom of the zone.  As if changeups and sliders aren't hard enough to battle now low fastballs get called as strikes as well.  Still it seems most players have enjoyed that the zone is the zone.  I haven't heard many complaints from the players.  I think getting just two challenges helps make it so you can't challenge every close call.  

I like the system as it stands now and the challenges add a new dimension of the game as a check on umpires and the ability to make a wrong call right.  It seems to be a rule change players and fans both are on board with and one that I think is making the game better.

 

[arby58]

2 hours ago, Nshore said:

Obviously, the thing to do is to bring Angel Hernandez back as a consultant on the matter.

I like the ABS zone.  They better be ready to swing the bats.  The at bat would have been fine if Lewis would just hit the baseball.

That was close to an unhittable pitch. Let's also keep in mind that many years the player with the best batting average in MLB fails to get a hit two-thirds of the time.

[stringer bell]

No problem with the system as it is. I was at the game and when the shot came on the screen, I thought the ump was right.

I don’t think it reflects poorly on the umpires to be challenged and for calls to be overturned on such incredibly close pitches. Yeah, if a pitch is well out of the zone or clearly in the zone, the ump should be criticized, but umps are seldom that wrong. The main adjustment the umpires need to make is that there shouldn’t be a shrunken 0-2 strike zone or an enlarged 3-0 zone. 

[jorgenswest]

ABS had no idea if that was a strike. The technology can’t determine the exact location of the ball. The tolerance for the 99% confidence interval is 0.48 inches. At that close it was probably 50% confident it was correct.

MLB’s graphics would have us believe ABS has found the exact location of the ball. Those graphics should come with the confidence interval. If not 99% then 95% which is .39 inches. Anything less than that and they should stick with the umpire and state that the ABS system was inconclusive.

[Whitey333]

Yes the umps seem to umpires differently.  It's amazing how the strike zone expands after a team or both teams are out of challenges.  

[Mike h]

Idk, but maybe 1/8 of 1 mm is about the size of the stitching on a baseball?  Maybe they should make a rule that the LEATHER must cross the strike zone, not just the stitching?

[Patzky]

13 minutes ago, Mike h said:

Idk, but maybe 1/8 of 1 mm is about the size of the stitching on a baseball?  Maybe they should make a rule that the LEATHER must cross the strike zone, not just the stitching?

Depends on where in the ball's rotation it crosses the plate.. can we see the replay 😉

[terrydactyls]

The definition of a strike has not changed (ANY part of the ball crosses the plate); just the accuracy.  If a pitch is that close, step towards it and hit it to the opposite field.

[bunsen82]

14 hours ago, Dman said:

I have been amazed at how well the umpires are calling games these days.  Most of the calls I have seen missed have been by the sliver of the baseball.  Just no way the human eye can get those calls right all the time IMO.  Even some that are just half an inch off can be tough to see with the human eye.  It feels like ABS is training the umps to be better.

Catchers have the best view for strike and ball calls and even they are wrong at times about calls.  I do feel like ABS has widened the zone especially the bottom of the zone.  As if changeups and sliders aren't hard enough to battle now low fastballs get called as strikes as well.  Still it seems most players have enjoyed that the zone is the zone.  I haven't heard many complaints from the players.  I think getting just two challenges helps make it so you can't challenge every close call.  

I like the system as it stands now and the challenges add a new dimension of the game as a check on umpires and the ability to make a wrong call right.  It seems to be a rule change players and fans both are on board with and one that I think make the game better.

Its also at point is the System calling the strike.  From the front of the batters box to the glove some of these balls are moving an an inch horizontally.   

[stringer bell]

Last year for whatever reason, the Twins were the most penalized by missed ump's calls on balls and strikes. ABS would help to level the playing field, so it is a good thing IMHO.

[Linus]

14 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

ABS had no idea if that was a strike. The technology can’t determine the exact location of the ball. The tolerance for the 99% confidence interval is 0.48 inches. At that close it was probably 50% confident it was correct.

MLB’s graphics would have us believe ABS has found the exact location of the ball. Those graphics should come with the confidence interval. If not 99% then 95% which is .39 inches. Anything less than that and they should stick with the umpire and state that the ABS system was inconclusive.

Interesting. Where did you get that info?  The technology for electronic line calling in tennis has a margin for error of 3 millimeters which is way more accurate than nearly a half inch. Not implying your info is wrong just surprised about the difference in the accuracy of the systems. 

[jorgenswest]

3 hours ago, Linus said:

Interesting. Where did you get that info?  The technology for electronic line calling in tennis has a margin for error of 3 millimeters which is way more accurate than nearly a half inch. Not implying your info is wrong just surprised about the difference in the accuracy of the systems. 

The Athletic. I linked that article here

Much easier in tennis because the ball will change its path when it hits the 2D plane of the court.

[jorgenswest]

5 hours ago, terrydactyls said:

The definition of a strike has not changed (ANY part of the ball crosses the plate); just the accuracy.  If a pitch is that close, step towards it and hit it to the opposite field.

Isn’t the current zone is a 2D slice of the plate? Wouldn’t that be a change in the definition of what it means to be a strike crossing the plate? I agree that any part of the ball is the same.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

23 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

Impossible to explain how stupid it is to adopt a system that is admittedly flawed (by MLB) and then argue to adjust the ways in which the ABS is administered. 

There are ways to change it: 1) use ABS all the time; 2) eliminate it and go back to umpires calling strikes but hold umpires accountable for egregious calls by requiring retraining or demotion while financially rewarding those who are extremely accurate.

For those who want a change on challenges, reduce the time on base challenges to 5 seconds. If the call is egregious it gets challenged and overturned, otherwise these 5-10+ minute delays to eventually determine that there isn't enough evidence to overturn a call because it was too close are gone. Remove the video geek from the game.

I warmed up quickly to the ABS system. The speed of the call is great. And you can say that the technology, if not 100% accurate, is consistent. 🙂

I am still bothered by the other challenge system. It was sold as a system that would reverse egregious calls, that would set wrongs right, like the Armando Galarraga perfect game that was spoiled. That's not how that challenge system is used, however, and based on how it has been adopted would still not ensure that another Galarraga situation is prevented (say, if Detroit had used and lost its challenges in that game before the 9th inning)

[tony&rodney]

34 minutes ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

I warmed up quickly to the ABS system. The speed of the call is great. And you can say that the technology, if not 100% accurate, is consistent. 🙂

I am still bothered by the other challenge system. It was sold as a system that would reverse egregious calls, that would set wrongs right, like the Armando Galarraga perfect game that was spoiled. That's not how that challenge system is used, however, and based on how it has been adopted would still not ensure that another Galarraga situation is prevented (say, if Detroit had used and lost its challenges in that game before the 9th inning)

My first paragraph rejects changes to the current system unless they change to all ABS or back to umpires. I say keep it.

My second paragrapg requests a reduction of time allowed to challenge outs - make it 5 seconds. That stops the obvious egregious calls. 

[Fire Dan Gladden]

On 4/11/2026 at 10:14 PM, jorgenswest said:

ABS had no idea if that was a strike. The technology can’t determine the exact location of the ball. The tolerance for the 99% confidence interval is 0.48 inches. At that close it was probably 50% confident it was correct.

MLB’s graphics would have us believe ABS has found the exact location of the ball. Those graphics should come with the confidence interval. If not 99% then 95% which is .39 inches. Anything less than that and they should stick with the umpire and state that the ABS system was inconclusive.

I understand the point you are making, and you have a solid argument about overturning/confirming edge calls. However as every player and team is playing by the exact same strike zone rules (which was not the case before ABS), your issue doesn't bother me as much as it probably should.

When you get to the ABS boundry, there is always going to be disagreement. At some point, you have to decide where you are going to draw the line (no pun intended) and how you are going to interpret the results. Keeping in mind this is the first year, I would not be surprised to see some tinkering with the edges over the coming years.
 

[jorgenswest]

29 minutes ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

I understand the point you are making, and you have a solid argument about overturning/confirming edge calls. However as every player and team is playing by the exact same strike zone rules (which was not the case before ABS), your issue doesn't bother me as much as it probably should.

When you get to the ABS boundry, there is always going to be disagreement. At some point, you have to decide where you are going to draw the line (no pun intended) and how you are going to interpret the results. Keeping in mind this is the first year, I would not be surprised to see some tinkering with the edges over the coming years.
 

I am biased. I happen to know a kid (to me) who umpires major league games. To overturn a call that ABS isn’t confident in disrespects the really good work of umpires. Umpires do make mistakes. Captures those pitches that ABS is confident are incorrect. Honor the umpires on the ones where ABS isn’t truly certain. I counted this weekend. Yesterday only 4 of the 46 challenges were less than 0.4 inches. Another was less than 0.5. On those four state the truth and call it inconclusive and allow the team to retain their challenge without overturning the call. Yesterday 7 of 61 were in that 0.4 range. One was 0.01 inches. Let’s honor the umpire on those.

I hope the tinkering is like the NFL instant review and immediately fix every confidently wrong call. Let’s not have a game decided on a mistaken call because a team has run out of challenges. Let’s drop the challenge nonsense. 

[jmlease1]

22 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

I am biased. I happen to know a kid (to me) who umpires major league games. To overturn a call that ABS isn’t confident in disrespects the really good work of umpires. Umpires do make mistakes. Captures those pitches that ABS is confident are incorrect. Honor the umpires on the ones where ABS isn’t truly certain. I counted this weekend. Yesterday only 4 of the 46 challenges were less than 0.4 inches. Another was less than 0.5. On those four state the truth and call it inconclusive and allow the team to retain their challenge without overturning the call. Yesterday 7 of 61 were in that 0.4 range. One was 0.01 inches. Let’s honor the umpire on those.

I hope the tinkering is like the NFL instant review and immediately fix every confidently wrong call. Let’s not have a game decided on a mistaken call because a team has run out of challenges. Let’s drop the challenge nonsense. 

I actually think the system has been showing the umpires in a pretty good light? When the "misses" are mostly coming in at such a fine line, isn't it showing that the umpires are pretty dang good at their jobs? There's not been a ton of reviews on egregious misses, because there aren't a lot of those (we just remember the bad ones that end up costing a team and make it to SportsCenter a lot more) and when an ump gets overturned on a call that's 1/2 an inch it's not an insult.

The NFL's review system is not a great model to be aspiring to. Their reviews take forever sometimes, and NFL fans are more confused than ever as to what actually constitutes a catch and what doesn't. VAR in the premier league does fine on offsides, I think, but has similar issues with time spent on review. The speed of what they're doing in baseball is part of what is making this work.

I'll be interested to see where this lands at the end of the season. I suspect by the end of the year you're going to see almost no pitchers ever challenging a call (they're bad at it, and the catchers are far better), and fewer hitters. There's some tweaks to be made, perhaps, but it's been pretty seamless so far, and there's been some good humor in seeing a hitter get mad and challenge a call entirely because he's on tilt and get rung up anyways.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

1 hour ago, jorgenswest said:

I am biased. I happen to know a kid (to me) who umpires major league games. To overturn a call that ABS isn’t confident in disrespects the really good work of umpires. Umpires do make mistakes. Captures those pitches that ABS is confident are incorrect. Honor the umpires on the ones where ABS isn’t truly certain. I counted this weekend. Yesterday only 4 of the 46 challenges were less than 0.4 inches. Another was less than 0.5. On those four state the truth and call it inconclusive and allow the team to retain their challenge without overturning the call. Yesterday 7 of 61 were in that 0.4 range. One was 0.01 inches. Let’s honor the umpire on those.

I hope the tinkering is like the NFL instant review and immediately fix every confidently wrong call. Let’s not have a game decided on a mistaken call because a team has run out of challenges. Let’s drop the challenge nonsense. 

I am not arguing with you. MLB is way more concerned about pace-of-play than the NFL is. Any tinkering will not extend game time.

Right now, it is black and white. It either is or is not a strike. I can definitely see MLB get to a point where a call does not get overturned if it is in the "margin of error". But that type of tinkering takes time and will happen in the offseason. But like I said, there will always be disagreement on the edges.

Another point not really talked about is how this changes the interactions between managers and umpires. I saw video clip of the umpire turn to the dugout and say "If you don't like the call, challenge it!". I would be willing to bet that the number of ejections over pitch call arguments drops dramatically from last year. It also helps to keep certain umpires egos in check when everyone sees the horribly bad calls (looking at you Buckner).

[Squirrel]

2 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

I am biased. I happen to know a kid (to me) who umpires major league games. To overturn a call that ABS isn’t confident in disrespects the really good work of umpires. Umpires do make mistakes. Captures those pitches that ABS is confident are incorrect. Honor the umpires on the ones where ABS isn’t truly certain. I counted this weekend. Yesterday only 4 of the 46 challenges were less than 0.4 inches. Another was less than 0.5. On those four state the truth and call it inconclusive and allow the team to retain their challenge without overturning the call. Yesterday 7 of 61 were in that 0.4 range. One was 0.01 inches. Let’s honor the umpire on those.

I hope the tinkering is like the NFL instant review and immediately fix every confidently wrong call. Let’s not have a game decided on a mistaken call because a team has run out of challenges. Let’s drop the challenge nonsense. 

I get what you are saying but then why use it. Honestly, if we are going to get into the territory of ‘let the really close ones go’, it gets too subjective. What’s too close? Everyone has a different opinion. Then you start getting into measuring fractions and what fraction still counts as a strike and what doesn’t? I think the system is working. It evens the playing field for everyone. No more unintentional biased calls for or against a specific team or player. 

[Heiny]

I did not want to see this challenge system put in place initially.  "BUT", I now believe that the umpires calls have been so much better this year than in previous years.  Due, I'm guessing to them being checked and challenged.  Last year was horrible in my opinion.  So now I am very much liking the system.  The umps are better, and when they are not the call gets changed to the correct call.  What could be wrong with that.  I believe that technology is so much more accurate than the human eye at live speed,  that there is no reason to tinker with it.  It doesn't matter what you change, there will always be complaining and whining.  You want changes in baseball?  You got'em.  You now have a clock in a baseball game - stupid.  You have the Manfred man in extra innings - UTTERLY RIDICULOUS.  At least this challenge system improves the "correctness" of the human factor.  Now if we could teach the players to not blow challenges at silly times.  Like two outs in the first inning, nobody on base.  Have they not dicussed the strategy?  You get two incorrect calls.  Don't risk them at times when they mean so little.  Ok, rant over.  Continue the whining.