Basic Premise/i.e. Three Impossible to dispute-Cold Hard Facts.
1.) A majority of baseball fans love the long ball.
A majority of team owners and MLB front office execs love the long ball.
2.) Steroids increased the number of HRs hit from the 1990s until very recently. HGH continues to do so.
3.) MLB's prevailing extra-wide (non-book) strike zone inevitably restricts HR output.
Basic Question #1:
Is it not reasonable to expect that a by-the-book strike zone would significantly increase long ball output? Perhaps even enough to offset any HR losses caused by a "drug-free" game?
Basic Question #2:
Assuming most people prefer the game with more HRs, how would more "clean" home runs present any problems?
Supporting Observation:
During 2007's MLB playoffs I religiously charted three full games using MLB Gameday's pitch-by-pitch strike zone. Watching each game live, I made screen shots of each out-of-zone location.
A minimum of 20 pitches and maximum 29 pitches were miscalled (according to the book) during these three games. This represents 10-15% of the total pitches. Meanwhile, 90% of the "miscalls" were outside the zone.
Original Post