Possible MLB Rules Changes
 

So technically they are proposing to raise the strike zone about the width of the baseball. Which means the ball can be a strike and touch the new and old strike zone. :confused::confused::confused:

Apparently, MLB batters are simply taking most pitches at the knees. Not calling these pitches strikes will only mean more walks and longer games. I don't think that's what they're trying to achieve.

Want to speed up the game? Start every batter with a 1-1 count.

They're taking pitches there and some are strikes and some aren't.

If NONE are strikes, the pitchers will have to bring those pitches up and more will be put in play.

I think both ideas are stupid ideas. They need to call the strike zone as it is written in the current rules, which will speed up the game by forcing more batters to swing at pitches. They also need to stop allowing players to call time in the batters box. Put in and enforce a 10 second ready to bat rule (you have 10 seconds to be in the box from when the pitcher gets the ball back, and the pitcher has 20 seconds to release the pitch from when they get the ball back.

The other rule to change the intentional walks would be to expand the catchers box to the width of both batters boxes, thus allowing the catcher to be standing to catch the outside pitch.

I don't like the idea of the automatic intentional walk because takes 4 throws off the pitchers arm, even if they are not high pressure throws. Also, it removes the possibility of that rare WP on an outside pitch.

MLB has failed to notice that over all baseball attendance is so far up this year. This the classic example of trying to fix somethin that ain’t broke.
From the article in the OP…
(However, the adjustment in the strike zone is designed to produce more balls in play, more base-runners and more action ...
Mets second baseman Neil Walker voiced support Friday night for raising the bottom of the strike zone.
"I think if you ask hitters, most of the complaints they would have would be about low strikes," he said. "They're probably the hardest to call for umpires, and catchers have gotten so good at presenting them." {I disagree that these are tough pitches for umpires to call but rather are the pitches hitters are most likely to give up on.}
However, he also said he thinks the new strike zone would lead to more walks rather than balls in play.) BINGO!

Altering the strike zone is a really bad idea. The problem is not the zone but rather a lack of good low-ball hitters. Ever wonder why Mike Trout stands out so much. One of the reasons is that Trout is a good low-ball hitter. In 2012, he hit .385 with a .981 OPS on pitches located in the lower third of the zone. FYI Pitchers are adjusting to Trout and he is seeing many more pitches in the top third of the zone, consequently his BA has gone down over the past two seasons.
Over the past 8 years pitchers have become more proficient at locating pitches in the lower third of the zone. The percentage of pitches landing in the lower third has increase each of the past 8 years. This is not a problem that needs addressing by MLB but rather by hitting instructors.

Regarding speeding up the game and lengthy at bats here is a good observation from a post on another site…
“Some of the best at bats are lengthy where the hitter fouls of several pitches before the pitcher is forced to give in. I don't understand why people are so anxious for the game to end. Is there a Golden Girls marathon coming on next they are afraid of missing? How can people who watch reality shows about men and women losing weight claim baseball is boring?”