Rating GMs

[roger_that]

Has anyone tried doing this? In some (simplistic) sense, it's easy: figure out the dates of each GM's tenure, tote up the wins his teams got during the time he was listed as GM, divide by the $ of all the contracts signed during his time, and come up with a number. I'm sure there are more sophisticated ways to arrive at a GM SUCCESS RATIO that take innumerable factors into account, but what's wrong with this as your basic starting point?

[MFS62]

The escalation of salaries over the years would skew those numbers. A win per 1969 dollar can't be compared to a win per 2022 dollar.

The formula would need a smoothing factor to accommodate those differences to be valid.

And even then I'm not sure if it is a true measure of how good a GM was. Some may have built an organization with better drafting or changed the "culture" that his successor(s) inherited. Or there may be other factors. But I have no time to be drawn down the rabbit hole to figure them out.

OE: It looks like Ceetar came up with other valid points as we cross-posted.

Later

[Ceetar]

that wouldn't work. for one, most of the decisions are made by others, often years before. (Of course, doing things like promoting an injured prospect to play in the middle of a super high leverage division-decided series can be judged pretty easily) Budgets are different. It's impossible to know if teams made similar offers and the player just opted for elsewhere.



One big thing to look at, imo, is loyalty to their own guys. How often does a GM give a struggling reliever a second shot because he's the one that signed him, vs. a legacy guy? How fast does a GM cut bait with a failing acquisition that didn't work? I want to see growth, and the ability to recognize a mistake and move on, not throw "good money after bad" so to speak

[roger_that]

Yeah, there are some other things wrong with it as well. A 50-win team with a $20M budget would have a better W/$ ratio than a 100-win team with a $50M budget.



But it is irritating that it's so hard to measure the quantity of a GM's achievements. A manager, too, for that matter. Maybe I've just fallen in love with such things as WAR that attempt to (and do a pretty fair job of) measuring players objectively.

[Ceetar]

In a sense, having a POBO is a good thing, because _they_ have all the knowledge and inside info about stuff to evaluate a GM. Of course, who evaluates that guy? Owner's are all just rich assholes, so it's not like they're good at..well, anything. Which is why I hope the Mets hire someone soon, the farther Cohen is removed from stuff, the better.