Who should manage the Braves?

Super said:
yes, Snit is the reason these super talented players work hard and produce.
Josh Donaldson and Freddie Freeman were lazy bums before Snit motivated them to be great on a consistent basis. Acuña and Albies bust their asses to be better because Snit lights a fire under them.
managing in regular jobs is nothing like it is in the MLB. players make it to this level partially due to their insane work-ethic regardless of who is managing their teams.
again, give this group of players to most MLB managers and they'll do similarly well in the regular season. it isn't rocket science to manage a team this talented.
Click to expand...

If it's not rocket science, why are there always teams that underachieve? How did Atlanta handily beat a more talented Nationals roster and an arguably more talented Phillies team?

The Braves ran like a machine this year. That's largely management. It's the same with any team in any business. A good manager has everyone chugging along in the roles they fit best in and the team moves like a well oiled machine.
 
I really wanted Terry Francona back in the day when the Sox axed him, but the Braves had the venerable Freddie Gonzalez at the helm already.
 
Super said:
it says a lot...about the talent of the team.
Snit has repeatedly made boneheaded moves that cost the team games. these moves will be amplified in the playoffs.
a lot of managers could manage this team to 90+ wins...i'd say a large majority of them.
i don't think the manager has a huge effect on the season as a whole. but in dicey situations in the playoffs, a dumb move can and will cost you.
Click to expand...

Using the word "boneheaded" tells me all I need to know about your thought process. It's not dumb at all for a manager who is tapped into the heart of a team, having lived with them day in and day out for several months to make an unconventional, or even a conventional, managerial decision, one that seems to go against the advanced stat line. Not dumb or strange at all. In fact, I would assume that a good, sensitive and aware manager who pays attention to his players ups and downs to often go against the book. And considering that no one but him will answer for it in the end, he has that right. He puts in the hours and it's his right and his job to do that and the front office should expect him to make those decisions and not micro-manage every move he makes.

Managing is more of a human art than a science.
 
Last edited:
I must agree on the human aspect of managing being very important.

I know you don't watch Formula 1 too much on your side of the ocean, also because it's very hard to watch on TV (at least this is what my US friends told me). But, in that sport, I think the top teams have the concept of advanced analytics at their top. Both Ferrari and Mercedes have 50 engineers right there on the circuit, and 200 more engineers connected from their respective factories in Italy and UK (yes, Mercedes headquarters are in UK).

They simulate pit stop strategies and run weather forecast models all the time, coming with things like "it will rain on corner 12 in 7 minutes", or "in 3 laps, tyres won't allow to go faster than 1'23.515"". That can make the difference in winning a race.
Despite this, both teams often make mistakes because they listened to these recommendations.

In baseball, applying advanced stats, even to a single game or at bat, certainly gives you the best chances to succeed - in normal circumstances.

"in normal circumstances" makes all the difference in this world, though. The job of the manager is taking decisions based on the circumstances he knows, that can alter the outcome and cannot be measured. By circumstances, I mean the player's mood, how he slept last night, eventual hidden injuries that are not showcased - how many times we say "he was definitely hurt" when some player suddenly comes back strong...

It's not an easy job.
 
striker42 said:
Guys who can make sure their players are ready for first pitch are rare. This isn't just players liking the manager. Players liked Freddie. They didn't particularly respond to him as their leader.

A manager who is a phenomenal clubhouse leader and is also a brilliant bench strategist would be great. But if it was as easy to find one as just saying "get you somebody who can do both" then there wouldn't be so many bad managers out there.

I suspect Snitker has stats available to him that are way more in depth than anything we have (the Braves have statisticians whose full time job is to dig into the stats). I'll bet Walk Weiss has binders of stuff at his finger tips during games. And I'll also bet that some of the counter intuitive moves Snit has made in game have been informed by those stats. Maybe there was something in all the information about Duvall and Flaherty that told Snit it was a good matchup. Who knows?

I just find the idea that the manager who led a team picked to finish 3rd or 4th in the NL East the last two years to two straight division titles is getting constantly attacked by fans who see a fraction of what all he actually does to be pretty ridiculous.
Click to expand...


the argument for Duvall is that Ortega isn't very good. I have no problem with that decision.

I do think pinch running for McCann in whichever game that was is something that was a fairly obvious move. I guess that was Game 1.
 
striker42 said:
If it's not rocket science, why are there always teams that underachieve? How did Atlanta handily beat a more talented Nationals roster and an arguably more talented Phillies team?

The Braves ran like a machine this year. That's largely management. It's the same with any team in any business. A good manager has everyone chugging along in the roles they fit best in and the team moves like a well oiled machine.
Click to expand...

lol. the Phillies were not a more talented team.
the Nats simply got off to a rough start. that's not because Snit is so much better of a manager than Martinez.
just because teams overachieve and underachieve, like in every sport ever, doesn't mean managing a super talented roster is hard.
 
Runnin said:
Using the word "boneheaded" tells me all I need to know about your thought process. It's not dumb at all for a manager who is tapped into the heart of a team, having lived with them day in and day out for several months to make an unconventional, or even a conventional, managerial decision, one that seems to go against the advanced stat line. Not dumb or strange at all. In fact, I would assume that a good, sensitive and aware manager who pays attention to his players ups and downs to often go against the book. And considering that no one but him will answer for it in the end, he has that right. He puts in the hours and it's his right and his job to do that and the front office should expect him to make those decisions and not micro-manage every move he makes.

Managing is more of a human art than a science.
Click to expand...

ah. so because Snit is "in tune" with the team, no decision he makes can ever be called dumb. because he "just knows" something about the team we fans can't see.

or, he makes plenty of dumb decisions when the game goes off script. decisions a better in-game manager wouldn't make.
 
striker42 said:
On paper going into the year, most of the talking heads had them as the more talented team. I don't think they were more talented but it's hardly beyond argument.
Click to expand...

Because they made a lot of splashy moves. Typical over reaction by the media.
 
striker42 said:
On paper going into the year, most of the talking heads had them as the more talented team. I don't think they were more talented but it's hardly beyond argument.
Click to expand...

The talking heads are enamored with big names and the flavor of the month. Always. Using them to support your argument is weak.
 
CyYoung31 said:
The talking heads are enamored with big names and the flavor of the month. Always. Using them to support your argument is weak.
Click to expand...

Again, not saying the Phillies were more talented. Just saying it's hardly beyond argument that they were. Certainly they weren't 16 games behind us in terms of sheer talent. But I think it's absolutely no question that the Braves capitalized on the talent we have far more than the Phillies capitalized on theirs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top