The Braves hired Brian Snitker to be their (permanent) manager and I want to write an authoritative, assertive opinion about their decision. Great hire for the Braves! What were the Braves thinking?
But I can’t do it.
I also can’t say if the two other candidates, Bud Black or Ron Washington, would have been better (or worst) choices. I’m a proponent of evidence-based reasoning rather over hunches or assumptions, and there’s just not much proof that (most) managers make that much of a difference to team performance.
That’s according to the best available evidence collected by “sabermetricians” and others who have crunched the numbers and tried to answer the question: How much do managers contribute to winning? Their conclusions: not much, at least for the vast majority of skippers.
It turns out that strategic decisions that we tend to believe have a big impact on winning or losing really don’t. Here’s Neil Paine, writing for FiveThirtyEight.com in 2014: “Based on my analysis, 95 percent of all managers are worth somewhere between -2 and +2 wins per 162 games.”
Those statistical studies looked at decisions that are within a manager’s control and have measurable outcomes. That means they obviously can’t capture every factor that contributes to winning but it’s not logical to base conclusions on what we don’t know. Stats provide the best available evidence of a manager’s impact.
That's my perspective when examining Snitker's body of work as Braves manager. I'm not persuaded by the simple correlation/causation argument that because the Braves had a better record under Snitker (59-65) than predecessor Fredi Gonzalez (9-28) it means Snitker was the difference. I can point to many player-centered reasons for why the Braves played better after Snitker was manager:
Freddie Freeman broke out of an early-season funk and went on MVP-type run… . Nick Markakis’ production again approached his career norms… . Ender Inciarte got healthy and started hitting… . Erick Aybar got traded… . Matt Kemp got added… . Jim Johnson resurrected his career… . Adonis Garcia became a competent third baseman with pop… . Jace Peterson looked like a big leaguer again.
I’m betting roster changes and improved production from incumbents had a lot more to do with the Braves’ improved fortunes than the new manager. Again, it’s possible that Snitker influenced the Braves to play better but it’s difficult to prove empirically and, besides, those tangible factors listed above are much more persuasive.
That brings us to the intangibles. I hear fans say that the Braves played harder for Snitker than they did for Gonzalez. But did they only perceive that to be true because the Braves played better with Snitker as manager? How do you even quantify playing hard, anyway?
Braves players were vocal in support of Snitker and clearly their opinions should carry significant weight. But, again, perceptions come into play. Was the clubhouse atmosphere better because of Snitker or was it because the Braves were winning, which may have had little to do with Snitker?
Braves boss John Hart and general manager John Coppolella obviously have more information than anyone but I doubt even they have real answers to those kind of questions. Perhaps that’s why they gave Snitker a contract with just one guaranteed year. The Two Johns get to evaluate Snitker more before committing to him long-term and, in the interim, they at least know he’s competent and supported by players.
And I get why players like Snitker. My impression of Snitker from covering him this season is that he is invested in the success of his players beyond his own self-interest. He’s 60-years old but seems to have a way with instilling confidence in younger players—no doubt because of his years in the minors. I’m sure veteran players respect him as a baseball lifer.
Maybe those are the kind of things that made the Braves play better with Snitker as manager in 2016. The truth is, I don’t know. We’ll find out, starting in April.
