You wouldn't expect managers to change their thinking (unnecessary small ball isn't going to be ending anytime soon), but you'd at least hope GMs could think through these things and come to the conclusion that OBP might just be more important than stolen base totals for a leadoff hitter. Looking at it from an education standpoint the answer is simple. We all carry with us the knowledge we have learned through our lives. To learn new knowledge requires us to "scaffold" the new knowledge onto the old. In this process we decide which of the information is "good" and which is "bad" changing our knowledge base accordingly. When we learn the "bad" new knowledge it requires us to not only unlearn the "bad" new knowledge but also relearn the "good" new knowledge to continue to learn the right things. Hard enough for a grade school student, much less a 50-year-old man whom views himself as a MLB GM. Applying this to baseball, (keeping in mind that the game has a very mafia mind set), you can see the same things happening. The work of Bill James and the others that have followed him have all been done by non-insiders. Hence to the "Made men" of baseball it is for the most part "bad new knowledge" because it challenges the knowledge base that has made them "successful" in their very closed field. Also it challenges the schema of knowledge they have gained through the application of "the good knowledge" to the problems before them. IE; when you steal, playing for one run, the hit and run, the sac bunt, the... you get the picture. If they fail to see a problem then their knowledge is still good. Human pride, which we all have, makes this difficult to see even with a mountain of evidence to the contrary. The Billy Beanes and Theo Epstiens of the world are not part of the "Baseball Mafia" who have been able to break into the ranks with out paying the dues (1). Because they enter with a different set of knowledge they are more open to "new" knowledge than their "made man" contemporaries. They have been able to embrace and integrate the new knowledge into the schema of thought in running their organizations. The end result we see is a World Series championship in Boston after a few false starts to learn where human nature must be taken into account over the numbers. Closer by committee comes to mind in Boston leading to the pick of Foulke to be the guy in the ninth. Until Chicago brings in, or promotes from within, someone who is willing to challenge the groupthink and approach the problems with a new schema of knowledge expect more of the same. (1)(Yes Beane was a marginal player, but is the exception to the rule, ala LaRussa who is also book smart that didn’t have the normal career path. Doug Glanville is a good homegrown name to throw out there for the hostility toward the "book smart" player in baseball.) Oh, I pretty much agree. But stolen bases would seem to be one of the easier things to change. With increased power, I still would have expected more people to deemphasize the importance of stolen bases intuitively. Maybe I'm underestimating the marketability of the prototypical leadoff hitter. Or just how attractive the idea sounds.