Yes, the pitch clock and the relievers' requirement to face at least three batters in an inning have done a very good job of handling game times.
At some point, as the game continues to evolve, I think we'll see an upward swing in game times in the future, but I don't believe it will trend as high as it has before. I think that sub-three-hour games will remain the sweet spot going forward.
Now, for sub-two-hour games, this is one I wish I could watch and re-watch
In the middle of a pennant race, Addie Joss pitched a 74-pitch perfect game against Ed Walsh, who had already won 39 games that year. The game kept Cleveland in the running for the pennant. Game time? 1:40 minutes. The minimum number of batters for a nine-inning game is 54, this game had 56.
Wouldn’t the minimum be 51? 932 =54, but if the team batting second is winning after the top of the 9th then they don’t need to play the bottom of the ninth, so subtract 3? Not a baseball person.
And if you have rain , they can call the game "complete" if the losing team had 5 half innings at bat. So that could be 28. Assume 27 outs and one home run by the home team.
At some point, as the game continues to evolve, I think we'll see an upward swing in game times in the future, but I don't believe it will trend as high as it has before. I think that sub-three-hour games will remain the sweet spot going forward.
Now, for sub-two-hour games, this is one I wish I could watch and re-watch
https://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1908/B10020CLE1908.htm
In the middle of a pennant race, Addie Joss pitched a 74-pitch perfect game against Ed Walsh, who had already won 39 games that year. The game kept Cleveland in the running for the pennant. Game time? 1:40 minutes. The minimum number of batters for a nine-inning game is 54, this game had 56.