Are they really misunderstanding why the game has changed? I don't think they are, or at least, I don't think it really matters to their argument. The game will always gravitate toward optimal strategies, and I think it's a valid criticism of the game when multiple strategies are invalidated because of the way the game has evolved. There have been a lot of changes since the start of baseball that could have made certain strategies such as speed or baserunning more valuable. I can only assume that the reason that they were used after their expiration date is because the teams didn't have data available to them that showed that the other strategies were sub-optimal following x rule changes. The solution then would be to seeing what policy changes or rule changes would make the game more well-rounded. Here are a few ideas:
-Tinkering with the ball materials/construction has already been discussed, but we could also tinker with the ball weight. A heavier ball would be more difficult to throw hard. Maybe not make a huge difference, but taking off 1-3 MPH off the top fastballs would go a long way.
-BBCOR testing for wood bats to ensure that bats are sufficiently dead. This could also be achieved by modifying the ball construction.
-Mandate that all new ballparks and renovated ballparks have larger outfields. I'm thinking 350 down the lines, 440 in center, OR 330 down the lines and 470 in center. Distances can also be flexible based on wall height. For Colorado add 10% to all values.
-Lower the mound height.
-Change the strike zone.
Many of these things have been tinkered with in the past, so I don't think you're really fundamentally changing the game if you tweak these values. Even though they look like small changes, I believe that a couple of small changes to the rules could lead to drastic systemic changes to the game.