.

Again roundtabling off of a better man than I:

.

http://www.metsblog.com/2010/04/30/chat-with-bobby-v-about-stats-and-changes-in-mlb/

"Basically, I left in the height of the Steroid Era, and at that time, in 2004, there was very little mention about the team concepts.  Everything was about the guy who could throw 100 mph and hit it 500 feet.  That’s all people cared about. 

That and On Base Percentage, which, of course, at that time was being discussed as if it was a new concept, and most people knew it was anything but new.  Now I’m back, and I see people are actually caring about how the game of baseball is played.  They care about the composition of how a team is comprised.  They have a better understanding of the value of a bullpen, in addition to the closer.  So, I think baseball is, as we speak, it’s being re-born again and going back to the future and I kind of like that."

This attitude will fly by in the minors-bus window if we don't stop for a second to get our bearings on what he's thinking about.

Bill James once talked about the disdain that he had for the oldtimers, and the way that they complained that Babe Ruth "ruined baseball" with his hot-dogging, swing-from-the-pants homer mania. 

Bill figured that it's just one more generation assuming that the world is going to pot as they get too old for it, and waved off the sour grapes.

Then, he said, he visited Houston, and saw a week's (?) worth of games in the old Astrodome.  It suddenly dawned on him that it would be completely impossible to win games with home runs there. 

(For example, the 1965 Astros hit .237/.305/.340 with only 90 homers, despite three major stars in Joe Morgan, Jim Wynn and Rusty Staub, along with three other decent hitters.  The 1975 Astros hit .254/.320/.359 with 84 homers despite the superstar Cesar Cedeno, along with Jose Cruz, Bob Watson and others.)

And as Bill thought about the fact that chasing homers was futile, he began to think about how to score 4 runs without the possibility of hitting a homer.  And he realized that such a game would be inherently more complex -- and, SSI might add, therefore inherently more interesting.

Earl Weaver always preached that in the modern game, "correct" offensive strategy was simple.  "Give me a lineup full of Eddie Murrays and Frank Robinsons, and I'll show you how simple managing can be."

There isn't any question about it:  walks and homers are simple, and mathematically speaking, they're boring.

..........................

So we see what Bobby V is talking about.  As the roid rage spiralled off into outer space, the complexities of the game became more and more irrelevant.

Now we see the pendulum swing back.  Sequential offense -- an inning with two or three clean base hits, and a baserunning decision or two -- decide a game.

And what if some of these old-school guys can now wheel out their virtuosity on a new generation that is not quite as conversant with the sequential game?  Might they not have an advantage?

For example, might Bobby Valentine not look at the value of a 4- or 5-man outfield, and the batter-pitcher matchups they would give him, where a Don Wakamatsu might not?

..........................

As you know, Japanese baseball is about precision rather than power.  Valentine watched a generation of ballplayers hit the weight room, blow up to 250 lbs. and stop listening to his spiel about good decisions.

Valentine's instant MLB-NPB success confirms his Ph.D. in the language of sequential baseball.

You've got young players coming up, Moore and Smoak and Ackley and Saunders and etc., the accent is indeed on technique. 

.

Part 2

.