However, I fear moving the mound back a foot may lean too far in the hitters favor and I don't think employing it in the minor leagues is a good way to get the data they need to see if it will have the desired effect. They claim it will reduce home runs and strikeouts, all while increasing action from play to play. Trying to make baseball more "exciting" by implementing ridiculous rules I don't agree with. At any rate, time will tell.
Well...I'm confident that moving the mound back will do three things: (1) reduce average pitch speed; (2) increase walks (which will, in turn, increase average game length) and (3) increase injuries to pitchers. I think it may reduce home runs because of the increase in walks and because you won't see as many home runs where the batter just sticks out his bat and the ball goes over the fence. It might also increase strike outs because batters get more anxious and swing harder and swing at pitches they shouldn't be swinging at.
I'm also one of those people that doesn't like the designated hitter, so....
I don't either. However, the DH has existed in the AL as long as I've been following baseball, and it's kinda part of the game for me. I enjoy the novelty of having different rules depending on where the game is played. Inter-league baseball has killed that somewhat -- and that's even more so since we've had 15 teams in each league, so there's always at least one inter-league game every day that all 30 teams are playing.
On an unrelated note, watching the Dodgers has become sadly difficult. When I turned on the game on Saturday, I initially thought it was 0-0, but I then realized that was an "8" in the Dodgers' run column. The Dodgers then tacked on 5 more, and I think it was 13-0, then 13-1, then 14-1. I then joked that congratulations would be in order for the Angels' record-setting comeback and they almost proved me right. Somehow, the Dodgers held on to win 14-11 and then came back yesterday and laid another one run egg.