Bigger (Strike Zone) Is Better

There's been a lot of grumbling about the speed of Major League Baseball games recently, and with good reason; even for the most dedicated baseball fan, the games can often be slow and drawn out.  Just last week, it was announced that MLB Commissioner Bud Selig would instruct his recently-formed committee on Improving Baseball on the Field to look into how to speed up the pace of games.  A number of preliminary suggestions have already been thrown around, from limiting catcher mound visits to implementing a pitch clock (much like basketball's shot clock).

While some of these suggestions would undoubtedly help (I especially think MLB should eliminate the warm-up pitches that relief pitchers take on the mound when they enter the game, after getting nearly infinite time to warm-up on the mound in the bullpen), I think the best solution would be to increase the size of the strike zone.  While this isn't an original idea (experts have called for strike zone expansion as a way to speed up games for years), I personally think it represents the best alternative for reducing game times while simultaneously preserving baseball's tradition / limiting the number of radical changes.

A larger strike zone shouldn't be seen as a drastic change for MLB, since the "new" strike zone would simply be the strike zone as defined in the MLB rulebook (as opposed to the watered down strike zone currently enforced by MLB umpires).  In 2001 baseball vowed to enforce a larger zone (see the diagram below, originally published by the St. Petersburg Times in 2001, regarding enforcement of the high strike call), but anyone watching MLB games in 2010 can tell you that pitches above the belt rarely, if ever, get called strikes.

MLB's previous efforts to expand the size of the strike zone have proven unsuccessful. 

A larger strike zone would have numerous ripple effects throughout the game of baseball - some obvious, others subtle - that would result in a faster paced game.  Of course, a larger strike zone would lead to fewer walks and more strikeouts, which would speed things up substantially.  Calling fewer balls would enable pitchers to get through each inning with a lower pitch count, hopefully reducing the need for as many late game pitching changes.  Batters, knowing that borderline pitches are more likely to be called strikes, would begin swinging at pitches earlier in the count and putting more balls in play, the majority of which would be converted into outs (it seems like many batters today go up looking to walk, knowing that the odds of a pitcher throwing three well-placed "strikes" before four balls are comparatively slim).  The list goes on.

We don't need a rule change to speed up games, but we do need the current rules to be enforced (and maybe need to retrain the umpires; this article shows that not only are umpires not perfect, they're actually quite flawed).  Hopefully Major League Baseball's new committee will avoid any drastic changes to America's Pastime and realize that the best way to make the game more exciting is by undoing previous (inadvertent) changes to the strike zone.