I’m serious about this. All baseball tactical decisions can be more effectively (far more effectively, actually, within the very limited constraints in which anything other than “who your players are” makes any difference) made by computer than by human. Manager B does not exist.

It gets even worse when you consider how pathologically stupid the actual crop of big-league managers are. Managing is nothing more than a jock’s club with a nice sinecure attached to it.

So my answer is: whichever one costs less money.

Which is probably a vote for “excellent in clubhouse.” Getting a team to play hard and smart all season is probably better ultimately getting a team into the playoffs.

However, once the playoffs start, I could see where in-game decisions can win a game.

I grew up as a Braves fan in the Bobby Cox era, and that may have a lot to do with my vote. I believe that the qualities of manager A have more of a tendency to dominate in the long-term as the critical tactical decisions even out with luck and the hard play of a motivated team contributes little by little everywhere. Manager B will have more postseason success when he gets there, as the sample size allows those few critical decisions to turn a whole series.

I just don’t think tactics in baseball are all that hard. This isn’t football. Putting a lineup together and figuring out matchups just isn’t the hardest thing. Keeping 25 millionaires happy with those decisions is something else entirely. Good clubhouse guys are harder to find, and I think correlate better to success long term.

The tough part about this is it’s easier to see the repercussions of tactical decisions and measure them (bad matchup, wrong bullpen guy, wrong replacement, etc), while it’s near impossible to quantify what a good clubhouse guy brings to the table. How much is it worth keeping Albert Pujols happy? Does he hit less homers when he’s upset about Colby Rasmus? Does Jon Lester perform better when he’s relaxed in the clubhouse, and how much better does he perform? I’m not asking cuz I want to know the answer, I’m asking cuz I think the answer is impossible to determine, making this an entirely subjective question

Since the regular season is 162 games long, you would want a Type A to hold the ship together, but for the postseason you want a Type B guy that doesn’t screw things up. I don’t know about this, but I think a good coaching staff might help with the lack of people skills during the season so that’s why I prefer good game calling.
On a side note, I will prefer the manager that plays his best lineup and not the oldest or highest paid players, think Bochy and his situation with Zito and Rowan, the 2 highest paid players on the roster. Obviously the organization must be honest enough to allow the managers to manage the games and their rosters.

If I have a championship caliber team…. I would want someone who is a better tactician for playoff rotations, pitching changes, lineups etc. There are probably at least a few veterans and I think they can run the clubhouse for the most part. If I’m rebuilding, I definately want more of a leader in the clubhouse. Chances are there are mostly younger players or a new “organizational philosophy”. In that scenario I need someone to implement some sort of plan and lead the way far more than I need him to know which RP to bring in or which lineup might be the best.

Strat-O-Matic is an excellent tool to develop in game managing- the replayer in me values the tactician and am amazed at how much MLB managers miss on tactically-having said that I voted for the clubhouse leader as the human element can far take down a team more than a bad move here and there. A poor tactical manager might lose a few games but a blown out clubhouse can kill a season. Keeping players mentally at a peak is far more valuable than making the right moves and having no respect as those players control the game more than the manager and it will show on the field

There are guys who are very well versed in the intricacies of the game, or at least better so than most, who because of their personalities can’t get it done.

Don Wakamatsu this year was a prime example in Seattle. Been around the game forever, knows it in and out, but couldn’t keep a volatile clubhouse in check and it resulted in what many thought would be a contender being a disaster.

Ken Macha’s known for being a VERY poor communicator.

On the other hand, take a guy like Art Howe. Not the best in-game guy but his players love him and more often than not perform above their ceilings for him.

It’s no fun playing for a manager who’s a tactical lunkhead, … unless of course you’re winning every game.

What, are we somehow short of money?

Manager A is Cito Gaston.

is pretty archaic if anybody really believes that equates to Ws.

“the idea of a clubhouse leader is pretty archaic…”

man I hate that you can’t edit here…

I’ve got the ‘A’ manager right now in Wash, and I had the ‘B’ manager in Showalter. Buck was great with medicore talent for a few years. He got the most out of their talent for a short period of time before the team started to tune him out. With Wash, the talent level is much higher, but he also has the team as one huge cohesive unit. The chimestry couldn’t be better (of course you can always say that when you’re winning) and there’s not a player on the roster who wouldn’t run through a wall for him. The team has improved every year since he’s been here, and when he almost got canned a few years ago (would have been had it not been his birthday) the team rallied for him and saved his job. With a manager like Wash, it’s huge to have good coaches around him that help counteract his dificiencies, guys like Jackie Moore, Clint Hurdle, and Mike Maddox.
It was great having Buck here when we had zero pitching and even less defense, but that success was short lived before the players were sick of him. If the players don’t care in the room, why would they in the field? Give me ‘A’ all day.

Would rather have Washington than Showalter if they had the exact same team to work with? I bet If Showalter had the roster to work with that Washington does now, Showalter would have been successful. (Furthermore, winning games would have been the perfect antidote to whatever deficiencies Buck may have in the “warm and fuzzy” areas.) Likewise, if Washington had the roster to work with that Showalter did, Washington wouldn’t have done as well as he is doing now.