Braves players are lobbying to have Brian Snitker return

Fans often complain about a manager's in game blunders because that's the only part of their job we see. We don't see 98% of their job which is done in the clubhouse.

Being a good bench strategist is nice but it doesn't make you a good manager. You can be brilliant in game and be a terrible manager. Conversely, you can be terrible in game and still be a great manager.

The fact that the players love Snitker and are willing to go to bat for him (no pun intended) is a strong endorsement. It's not everything as there are plenty of managers that are player friendly but unable to motivate their men.
 
At some point, all of the motivation and player-friendliness in the world doesn't mean squat if it doesn't translate into wins. That is the situation in which Snitker finds himself at the end of his second season at the helm. Under any "bottom line" criteria, I don't know how he can realistically expect to keep his job regardless of how much his players like him.
 
This stuff just baffles me.

If Snit is loved by his players and they will play hard for him then that's a very good reason to keep him.

So why not keep the manager the players love, and give him directives on how to manage the tactical portion of the game?

There are like 10 scenarios that really matter each game. Things like which BP arm faces which parts of the lineup, the batting order, who to PH vs which opposing pitcher, when to sub defensively for Kemp, etc. Why not script out the 10 most impactful scenarios ahead of time and make Snit follow the script?

It really isn't that complicated.
 
Of course the existing set of players will lobby for someone they know vs. someone who might toss everything up in the air.

I'm with enscheff in that if Snitker comes back, he needs to be on a short leash. There are so few decisions in a game that matter, but those that do seem to matter a lot. Snitker comes up short in bullpen management and not replacing Kemp in games where we lead late is simply inexcusable.
 
Enscheff said:
This stuff just baffles me.

If Snit is loved by his players and they will play hard for him then that's a very good reason to keep him.

So why not keep the manager the players love, and give him directives on how to manage the tactical portion of the game?

There are like 10 scenarios that really matter each game. Things like which BP arm faces which parts of the lineup, the batting order, who to PH vs which opposing pitcher, when to sub defensively for Kemp, etc. Why not script out the 10 most impactful scenarios ahead of time and make Snit follow the script?

It really isn't that complicated.
Click to expand...

You're describing the role of the bench coach. Unfortunately, there aren't many the caliber of Pat Corrales around.
 
Enscheff said:
This stuff just baffles me.

If Snit is loved by his players and they will play hard for him then that's a very good reason to keep him.

So why not keep the manager the players love, and give him directives on how to manage the tactical portion of the game?

There are like 10 scenarios that really matter each game. Things like which BP arm faces which parts of the lineup, the batting order, who to PH vs which opposing pitcher, when to sub defensively for Kemp, etc. Why not script out the 10 most impactful scenarios ahead of time and make Snit follow the script?

It really isn't that complicated.
Click to expand...

To your list I would add someone needs to go over the data with him on how the different relievers do with rest or no rest.
 
Enscheff said:
This stuff just baffles me.

If Snit is loved by his players and they will play hard for him then that's a very good reason to keep him.

So why not keep the manager the players love, and give him directives on how to manage the tactical portion of the game?

There are like 10 scenarios that really matter each game. Things like which BP arm faces which parts of the lineup, the batting order, who to PH vs which opposing pitcher, when to sub defensively for Kemp, etc. Why not script out the 10 most impactful scenarios ahead of time and make Snit follow the script?

It really isn't that complicated.
Click to expand...

I vaguely remember something from the Bill James Abstract back in the 80s that is along these lines. James suggested that an inexperienced manager should be forced to play a few hundred games of ABPA baseball or some other strategy-based baseball board game in order to learn how to handle a multitude of tactical decisions. Today you could put them on a computer and up the number of games to the thousands to accomplish the same thing.
 
DirkPiggler said:
I vaguely remember something from the Bill James Abstract back in the 80s that is along these lines. James suggested that an inexperienced manager should be forced to play a few hundred games of ABPA baseball or some other strategy-based baseball board game in order to learn how to handle a multitude of tactical decisions. Today you could put them on a computer and up the number of games to the thousands to accomplish the same thing.
Click to expand...

What I find odd is that a guy who has been around baseball all his adult life and managed extensively in the minors still flinches in some obvious situations. The game isn't as complicated as some make it and one has to play with the cards they are dealt, but one still should play those cards--whatever they are--as skillfully as possible.
 
Enscheff said:
This stuff just baffles me.

If Snit is loved by his players and they will play hard for him then that's a very good reason to keep him.

So why not keep the manager the players love, and give him directives on how to manage the tactical portion of the game?

There are like 10 scenarios that really matter each game. Things like which BP arm faces which parts of the lineup, the batting order, who to PH vs which opposing pitcher, when to sub defensively for Kemp, etc. Why not script out the 10 most impactful scenarios ahead of time and make Snit follow the script?

It really isn't that complicated.
Click to expand...

First, I don't think there's a manager in the game who would accept the front office giving him "game scripts." That's cutting the legs out from under the manager. Trying something like that is just asking for an ugly blowup between the clubhouse and the front office.

Honestly, the game really isn't that complicated. The majority of a manager's in game decisions are fairly obvious. You bring in your LOOGY to get out the big left handed hitter late in the game. You put your set up man out there in the 8th. Etc. When those moves go well the manager gets no credit. When they blow up people are screaming at the manager.

Too often a manager gets blamed when the real problem is with the roster. If you don't have the horses to get you to the playoffs then you can't blame the driver. The question is whether the manager is squeezing the most he can out of the team. If he's doing that then you can't complain.
 
striker42 said:
First, I don't think there's a manager in the game who would accept the front office giving him "game scripts." That's cutting the legs out from under the manager. Trying something like that is just asking for an ugly blowup between the clubhouse and the front office.

Honestly, the game really isn't that complicated. The majority of a manager's in game decisions are fairly obvious. You bring in your LOOGY to get out the big left handed hitter late in the game. You put your set up man out there in the 8th. Etc. When those moves go well the manager gets no credit. When they blow up people are screaming at the manager.

Too often a manager gets blamed when the real problem is with the roster. If you don't have the horses to get you to the playoffs then you can't blame the driver. The question is whether the manager is squeezing the most he can out of the team. If he's doing that then you can't complain.
Click to expand...

Can you honestly say the Snitker makes the right call in all of those "obvious" situations? Is it obvious that Kemp shouldn't be playing the outfield late in the game? Haven't there been a ton of obvious moments that he has mismanaged our bullpen?

Honestly, a manager's impact on the game is probably minimal and you are right that most of a manager's decisions should be fairly simple. And if the players like playing for him then that is definitely a positive that needs to be taken into consideration. But if you are going to keep him, then you have to make him realize that his in-game management has been sub-optimal and that he has players with different needs. Don't bench Swanson if he is on the MLB club, either send him down or play him (this is also a FO thing). Get Kemp a defensive replacement late in the game. Don't keep sending a reliever out there in high leverage situations when he has been getting lit up every single time he takes the mound. Understand when a player's production is probably luck and when it is probably actual skill. Don't be afraid to look at stats outside of RBI, avg., and ERA.

If they can work with Snitker a little on the way he approaches the game, I'm on board with keeping him for another year since the player's do seem to play hard for him. That is definitely an important element. Just try to get him to optimize the rest of his decisions.
 
Maybe this is just me, but i think there is an inconsistent message coming from upstairs and that is hamstringing Snitker a bit. There's no question that Snitker has earned the moniker "Game 7" in here because that is how he has managed for the most part (at least when it comes to the bullpen). Where I think there is a disconnect is that they bring in veterans to fill a few holes on the team with the supposed intent on making a big step forward in the W/L column. When that falls through, they start jacking around the roster and Snitker is kind of going on the fly both with the big furniture and the end tables). Last year was a lost season and I always thought this year would be a lost season as well. I guess the front office thought differently, but I still would have played through with everything that was brought in (except that fat b*st*rd Colon) instead of shaking things up they way they have with the early call-ups. I want to stress that this is just me.
 
striker42 said:
First, I don't think there's a manager in the game who would accept the front office giving him "game scripts." That's cutting the legs out from under the manager. Trying something like that is just asking for an ugly blowup between the clubhouse and the front office.

Honestly, the game really isn't that complicated. The majority of a manager's in game decisions are fairly obvious. You bring in your LOOGY to get out the big left handed hitter late in the game. You put your set up man out there in the 8th. Etc. When those moves go well the manager gets no credit. When they blow up people are screaming at the manager.

Too often a manager gets blamed when the real problem is with the roster. If you don't have the horses to get you to the playoffs then you can't blame the driver. The question is whether the manager is squeezing the most he can out of the team. If he's doing that then you can't complain.
Click to expand...

Then they need to find a manager who understands why the scripts are written as they are. The manager should have full buy-in, rather than the FO just handing down a list of commandments.

Like you said, the game isn't overly complicated. Therefore, it is inexcusable for Snit (or any manager) to make so many incorrect moves. The article that spurred all this discussion only named the most egregious examples.
 
Hopefully next season will be a winning season whoever manages the team. It seems this year was a quasi-tank just to bring some of the prospects up to get some needed experience.
 
Mickey Callaway, pitching coach for the Indians, is another guy I would be interested as manager.

Dave Martinez from the Cubs being the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top