bigruss Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 LINKY article rates the best GMs, not just in baseball, but football basketball and hockey also, weighs the rating on winning and payroll, but double emphasis on winning, so why would Hendry be ranked #58, when KW is #67? i think the system is screwed up because of this, KW is much better than hendry, and with the winning being so important i think he would be higher, especially considering their payroll has been pretty similar to ours, oh well i think we all know who is better in real life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 This list is a joke, don't worry. There's no chance in hell Billy King is the third best GM in all of sports, nor that Kevin McHale is the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 QUOTE(Felix @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 02:45 PM) This list is a joke, don't worry. There's no chance in hell Billy King is the third best GM in all of sports, nor that Kevin McHale is the best. The second I saw McHale atop that list yesterday I stopped reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 02:49 PM) The second I saw McHale atop that list yesterday I stopped reading. I saw the brief in in the Trib, and completely ignored the article the rest of the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klaus kinski Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Hendry still basking in the glory of the Dusty Baker and Jacque Jones signings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hideaway Lights Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 guys, Williams inherited a 95 win team. That's why he's so low on the list. It don't make it right, but that's what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 03:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> guys, Williams inherited a 95 win team. That's why he's so low on the list. It don't make it right, but that's what it is. That's exactly what it is. Guys, read the criteria they based this off of and you will see. Jim Hendry is awful, but he inherited a team that is the laughing stock of MLB and had back to back winning seasons for the first time in modern Cubdom history. That is the only reason KW is lower than Hendry. The Sox are a constant average to above average team. You can not say the same for the loveable losers. Come on, any list that starts with Kevin McHale as the best GM has to have something wrong with it anyway. You should know right there that this list is a meaningless piece of crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 (edited) Carl Peterson being #16 is too high imo. He's not a bad GM for the Chiefs, there are just better people below him. Edited March 5, 2007 by WilliamTell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
striker Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Epstein and Minaya are overrated. Hendry sucks. He shouldn't even be on the list at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=250 Bad Science alert Forbes is one of the more reputable publications in American media, and while they don’t often foray into sports, their annual baseball franchise valuations are one of the more valuable and underrated resources around. That’s why it’s so disappointing to see their latest work on the best general managers in sports. Somehow, the highest-rated GM in Baseball, Oakland’s Billy Beane, slots it at only #26 on the overall ranking list, behind ten NFL GM’s, eight NHL GMs, and seven NBA execs. This problem isn’t just confined to Beane: the standard deviations of the rankings for baseball GMs are much narrower than they are for the other three sports: NFL 33.8 NBA 31.8 NHL 28.5 MLB 17.1 It’s very clear what’s taken place here. The Forbes formula is based, in large part, on changes in winning percentage from a general manager’s predecessor. But the structure of baseball, with its 162-game schedule and relatively even distribution of talent, dictates that winning percentages fall within a relatively narrow band. Improving from a .500 winning percentage (81-81) to a .600 winning percentage (97-65) is a huge deal in baseball. In football, it means that Nate Kaeding missed a field goal or two. Why do I care? I don’t really, except that it underscores the point I tried to make last week: we’re not for the increased use of statistics per se, so much as we’re for using statistics in such a way that they serve to enhance our understanding of sports rather than undermine it. This kind of “number crunching” is a step in the wrong direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(southsideirish @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 03:50 PM) That's exactly what it is. Guys, read the criteria they based this off of and you will see. Jim Hendry is awful, but he inherited a team that is the laughing stock of MLB and had back to back winning seasons for the first time in modern Cubdom history. That is the only reason KW is lower than Hendry. The Sox are a constant average to above average team. You can not say the same for the loveable losers. Come on, any list that starts with Kevin McHale as the best GM has to have something wrong with it anyway. You should know right there that this list is a meaningless piece of crap. I understand their criteria. It's obviously VERY flawed and pointless. Edited March 5, 2007 by Jordan4life_2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 At least they gave respect to John Paxton.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 QUOTE(SoxAce @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 05:14 PM) At least they gave respect to John Paxton.. Not if they spelled his name "Paxton", they didn't.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 QUOTE(The Critic @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 05:34 PM) Not if they spelled his name "Paxton", they didn't.... Damn I've been Gageing alot of names lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Payroll Containment is what killed KW. He was last in that stat compared to the other MLB GMs. The ultimate stat should be World Championships, and how much your payroll was when you won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDylan Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Is it just me, or are the Blackhawks missing from that list? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ginger Kid Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 How the hell Terry Ryan came in so low I'll never know. He's the best in MLB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 10:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How the hell Terry Ryan came in so low I'll never know. He's the best in MLB. Where was he during the first 10 years of his duty? Last year the Twins didn't take off until they dumped the dead weight that people KNEW were crappy signings (Loshe, Bautista, Juan Castro, and White got hurt.) That's exactly what it is. Guys, read the criteria they based this off of and you will see. Jim Hendry is awful, but he inherited a team that is the laughing stock of MLB and had back to back winning seasons for the first time in modern Cubdom history. That is the only reason KW is lower than Hendry. The Sox are a constant average to above average team. You can not say the same for the loveable losers. Ok, but this is not September 2004, this is March 2007. Some of the events that have occured since the time frame you mentioned include KW putting together a team that dominated an enitre season and won the World Series and Hendry putting out a 6th place team with a $100 million payroll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ginger Kid Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 08:11 PM) Where was he during the first 10 years of his duty? Last year the Twins didn't take off until they dumped the dead weight that people KNEW were crappy signings (Loshe, Bautista, Juan Castro, and White got hurt.) Right. He won the division 4 out of the last 5 years with one of the lowest payrolls in the league. Not to mention the AJ trade to SF, possibly one of the best/worst trades ever. The twins have an organizational mentality that starts in low A and works its way to the majors. I hate them for many reasons, but respect the hell out of them at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 10:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Right. He won the division 4 out of the last 5 years with one of the lowest payrolls in the league. Not to mention the AJ trade to SF, possibly one of the best/worst trades ever. The twins have an organizational mentality that starts in low A and works its way to the majors. I hate them for many reasons, but respect the hell out of them at the same time. Ryan should be fortunate the Twins organization was so patient. No doubt it is paying off, but it took a ton of time. I can only imagine the reaction of this board if the Sox had about 10 straight 90 loss seasons. The GM would be grilled after two seasons. As for the AJ trade, don't underestimate the stupidity of Brian Sabean. However Ryan and Co get full credit for Liriano because Sabean claims they specifically asked about him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 This is a perfect example of a business going outside its core competency. Forbes is an excellent business rag, but just because they can figure out the labyrinthine financials of sports teams, that doesn't mean they understand the on-field aspects of sports franchises. Stick with what you know, Mr. Forbes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Glad to see the Hurricanes' GM there (17 Jim Rutherford 11 148 98 NHL Carolina Hurricanes), but the rest are kinda funky, I have to agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heirdog Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Whatever the criteria are, when you do the analysis and garbage GMs rise to the top, then you know either your criteria or your analyses are flawed. I think these types of ratings, especially ones that span across sports, should be done subjectively as the numbers don't always translate from sport to sport (1 win in football is much more important than 1 win in baseball). But if you are going to try and quantify the value, then you should always start with a hypothesis..."If Kevin McHale is the top GM, then I f***ed up." So after doing the analysis, the Forbes scientist can undeniably confirm that he f***ed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpmahr Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 how is billy beane ranked in the mid 20s...hasnt he had a contender every season with a midlevel payroll. he should be atleast top 10 if not top 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.