clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Watch Bodes Break 'Em, With the Seven, Seventy-Seven

What do you do on days when you're bored? Go to the park? Spend time with the kids? Surf teh net? Thrill-seeker liquor store holdups with a "Born to Lose" tatoo on your chest? Maybe not that last one.

Well, if you're the people at Forbes* you attempt, somehow, to rank all the general managers across all the team sports. I don't really know how or why they did this, but they did, and they attempt to explain it accordingly:

Our rankings compare each general manager to the final three years of his predecessor's tenure in two categories: (1) performance (regular season winning percentage and playoff win totals) and (2) payroll spending (relative to the league median). Performance counts twice as much in our scoring as payroll spending. Scores account for all teams where the GM held the office and are indexed to 100. A score of 120 in winning improvement means the GM won 20% more games than his predecessor. A score of 80 in payroll containment means the GM spent 20% more than the previous GM relative to the league median.

And here are the rankings. In case you don't want to click the link, Jim Bowden ranks 77th among all GMs, 20th among baseball GMs. Billy Beane ranks first in baseball, but 26th overall. That's a little funky. The baseball GMs bunch up from there.

Somehow, Mike Flanagan of the Orioles ranks 50th overall, 10th in baseball. Your mileage may vary, of course. Heck, I'm not even sure if he's a real GM. One would hope Peter Angelos would rank last simply by default.

*For Harper: Yes, like Hans Gruber, I read the article in Forrrbes.