If MLB is really concerned with pace of play... seems to me that the easiest change to make is instructing umpires to call the strike zone as it exists in the rule book.... agree / disagree?

If you don't mind cutting total runs scored for the league by a quarter, then sure, that'd be the quickest way.

I think that MLB is looking for ways to speed the game up without impacting the playing of the game.

If you don't mind cutting total runs scored for the league by a quarter, then sure, that'd be the quickest way.

 

I think that MLB is looking for ways to speed the game up without impacting the playing of the game.

Cutting total runs scored would just be a secondary benefit to me (I'd always prefer a 2-1 game vs. a 10-8 slug fest).

Easiest, yeah, sure, but I don't think that would be good for the game. That's such an extreme change from what the athletes and fans are accustomed to. I'm not necessarily opposed to extreme change, but in this case as Mackus said, it would result in a significant reduction in runs scored, which I would not be a fan of. Removing personal bias, I'm pretty sure this would be unpopular among the masses. 

Also, for anyone who cares about the integrity of stats, this would probably have a greater impact on that then steroids, juiced balls, smaller parks, etc.

Cutting total runs scored would just be a secondary benefit to me (I'd always prefer a 2-1 game vs. a 10-8 slug fest).

You'd prefer it if it were the norm?

A 2-1 game can be great, but part of the reason IMO is it doesn't happen all that often. 

I think the limitation on mound visits is good. 

Otherwise, TBH, IDGAF about pace of play. Like, at all. Does that make me a fuddy-duddy?

(...among other reasons that makes me a fuddy-duddy...)

You'd prefer it if it were the norm?
 
A 2-1 game can be great, but part of the reason IMO is it doesn't happen all that often. 

I'd like it to be the norm.

That would be awful IMO.

And I think it's pretty safe to remove the IMO in terms of how it would affect the popularity of the game.

This assumes that the umpires aren't already trying.

That would be awful IMO.

 

And I think it's pretty safe to remove the IMO in terms of how it would affect the popularity of the game.

I'm not inherently against offense.... but I don't find a bunch of offense more entertaining then a well pitched game.

I like games which move... balls in play...  defense... the drama of every pitch mattering...

I don't think there is any credence to the opinion that lowered offense would affect the popularity of the game, but I'm open to hearing why you think that way...

(Ultimately I'm biased towards wanting less offense.... you seem to think others are biased towards wanting more offense... all I'm saying is I just don't know that I agree that the large majority of fans are fans because they prefer a lot of offense.)

As far as integrity of stats etc....  the integrity of the game shouldn't be challenged by calling the rules as they exist.
If rules are that egregious, change the rules.

If you called the strike zone which exists in the rule book, we could get away some from the current landscape of walk, k, homer.

With more strikes called earlier in counts, hitters would figure to swing more.  More balls in play, more action. 

I think it would be a far better product vs. what MLB provides today.

I really didn't think I'd have to elaborate on my opinion that a norm of 2-1 scores would be bad for the popularity of the game.

In '14, the average team scored 4.07 runs per game.
In '17, the average team scored 4.65 runs per game.

In '14, there were 4,200 homers league wide...
In '17, there were 6,100 homers league wide...

So, there were substantial jumps in power and runs scored between '14 and '17.

Did baseball become more popular in that time?

Maybe?
http://www.baltimore...-popular-sport/

If baseball has become more popular, I wouldn't attribute that to runs scored...  but maybe I have that wrong.

Yes, if the strike zone was called as the rule book exists... there would likely be a decrease in offense overall (and I'd be pleased by that).. but that (for me) would be the secondary benefit.

Hey, I'm not advocating they go back to the '68 raised mounds (yet)...

As for calling the strike zone with the rules that exist, well those rules are completely irrelevant. They have quite clearly been changed so I'm not sure why anyone would get so hung up with what's actually written when those words are ignored.

I would favor changing the wording simply to never hear this argument again, though.

Robo umps, and the actual rules as they exist. That's the dream.

The actual rules are what the umps, players, tv networks, and fans are told are the rules by MLB, and then implemented during the games. Otherwise, they're meaningless.

Right, if you choose to ignore the rules as they exist... said rules are meaningless.

But the rule does exist. 

Utilizing the rule is the easiest way to increase pace of play.

If MLB believes pace of play is a real issue... all they have to do is utilize their own rule book.

So all MLB has to do to make their game more entertaining is the following:

 - Change the rule to drastically change a key component of how the game is played

- Impact how good players are at pitching and batting, sometimes dramatically, and in many cases for players under contract for multiple years

- Decrease scoring by a significant margin, which will make the game less entertaining (to most) by a much larger level than what was gained by speeding up the game

Sounds like a great plan! But at least Stoner likes it.

So all MLB has to do to make their game more entertaining is the following:

 

 - Change the rule to drastically change a key component of how the game is played

 

- Impact how good players are at pitching and batting, sometimes dramatically, and in many cases for players under contract for multiple years

 

- Decrease scoring by a significant margin, which will make the game less entertaining (to most) by a much larger level than what was gained by speeding up the game

 

Sounds like a great plan! But at least Stoner likes it.

Nah, they just have to utilize a rule which already exists..... that's not changing a rule.

Enforcing the rule as it exists, won't change the talent of the player.

Back up the notion that baseball fans are entertained by more scoring.  Is there anything to substantiate that?

Presumably there is more offense in the AL vs. the NL.  Do AL teams consistently outdraw the NL? Get higher ratings?

Right now all you are saying is that you are on the other end of the spectrum from me. That more offense is more interesting to you. Which is fine... that's what you like.

What points to more offense being something that the majority wants?

I can accept that you might be right, but I'd like to see something to that point.

As it is, I think many people would like a game which moved quicker, and there were more balls in play (that action making up for any decrease in the action created by increase offense).