Baseball created it's own problem juicing the ball which incentivized homeruns. Current strategy does not often consider "small ball" since the risk vs reward does not pay off. Anyone can pop a two or three run homer. Counter that with bullpens that have high velocity arms often resulting in high pitch counts culminating in a lot of pitchers per AB and often a strikeout or walk. In theory the number of pitches per game would have gone up compared to twenty years ago but I haven't checked on that.
While I'm not a fan of the pick off it is the only way to hold a runner. The lefty balk move has always been an unfair advantage for a lefty versus a righty but forcing the lefty to step off to throw to 1B would seem appropriate. There rarely is a time I get frustrated because a pitcher is holding a good runner close. They might as well draw a line on the field that is where the runner can lead off. That eliminates throws completely and allows the runner to get a running start. The rule seems a little absurd after two pickoffs you might as well move the runner to second. I just don't see this one making sense. I would think a lot of stolen bases will result in longer innings because there will be less double plays. Billy Hamilton may have significant value if the rule gets to MLB and he can still run.
I am in favor of the 15 second pitch clock. To me this is the primary drag on the game. It is fair to expect that a player (pitcher or hitter) does not need thirty or more seconds to be composed for the next pitch.
Automated K zone is coming. That will be the Commissioner's mark on the game. It will be a win for some. But just like the baseball I'm sure there will be changes made to favor a style. Too many K's in the game then tighten the zone. There is always a somewhat unintended consequence in fixing a problem. Experimenting in the minors and independent leagues is good but when it makes it to MLB there will be serious thought on how to improve outcomes or use the rule advantageously as possible. I doubt the trial leagues have many people trying to figure out how to maximize the outcome of a rule being tested.
Oh, they have not mentioned the three minute commercial break between innings. I think it is at three but maybe it is two minutes. Either way it is a time that is built in that has to be there for revenue. So, there is 30+ minutes of built in dead time that has to be there. I'm assuming more in game product advertising is coming in the form of a banner or product getting a five second splash screen type placement. With larger TV screens they will figure out how to use the screen space to get advertisement dollars.
I'm not a fan of major changes when the biggest problem is the length between pitches due to hitters or pitchers not being ready. My son's college team had games averaging four hours, it was a dreadful amount of time as coaches called pitches and catchers then relayed at varying pace. Most Summer league games were called by catchers and they lasted two to two and a half hours. Much better fan experience for sure.
I cut the cord several years ago and went with YouTube TV since it had the MLB Channel. Cost was $49, now it is $65 and they seem intent on being like cable TV. It is still a much better deal than cable but they seem to be victims of adding non-valued channels in order to get the one channel they want from a provider. I guess the business model works for them or they wouldn't add the non-valued channel for the one they want. I'm spoiled with the DVR so for now it it the best deal going.