Pitchf/x Data and The Changing Strikezone.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

This is an article from the Hardball Times.  To be clear, it's not about pitchf/x changing the strike zone, but rather the strike zone changing and how we can measure it using pitchf/x data.  I thought it was really interesting and that some of you might enjoy it.
 
http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-strike-zone-during-the-pitchfx-era/

 

[Sampo Gida]

Why would MLB endorse an expansion of the strike zone, as the article suggests, which would reduce offense at a time when testing was expected to reduce offense. 
 
Maybe they expected the testing would not have as much impact on offense as they would like it to in order to show the game was cleaned up?  Other reasons?

 

[cannonball 1729]

Game speed?  That's my first thought.

 

[Sampo Gida]

Game speed?  That's my first thought.

 
Yeah, maybe. But time is relative you know, even if they cut off 15 minutes (and I don't know that they have) the reduced offense makes the game seem longer.  Also, while K rates have increased significantly,  BB rates have fallen only 1/2 the rate.
 
You would think there could be better ways to increase the speed of the game than killing offense.
 
edit-and according to this games are getting longer, so its not working
 
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9375790/length-mlb-games-not-issue
 

According to a recent, well-researched and very entertaining Boston Globe story, major league game times are longer than they used to be, reversing a trend. They're back up to an average of nearly 2 hours, 58 minutes this year, matching the all-time high in 2000.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

I know this study isn't about PitxhFX changing the stikezone - that is , umpires have been instructed to call more of a rule book strike and using PitchFX as feedback .. But isn't this simplest explanation for the evidence? Rather than proposing conspiracy theories just accept it on face value.