The Standards of a Hall of Fame Manager

February 18, 2013

                Let us begin with the question of "How many Hall of Fame managers should there be?", or, if you prefer, "How many managers should be in the Hall of Fame?"

                Of position players who played in the 1920s (1920 to 1929), 11.0% are in the Hall of Fame, unless the Hall of Fame has recently elected some yahoo for whom I failed to account; from the 1950s, 7.3%.   Those are numbers based on seasons, rather than at bats or careers; in other words, Hall of Fame players account for 7.3% of all player/seasons in the 1950s.   Those numbers, however, include players with only a few at bats.   Since a manager is the most regular of the regular "players", the more relevant percentage would probably be for regulars.   For players with 400 plate appearances, the percentages are 24% from the 1920s and 17% from the 1950s.

                So we could begin, then, with the assumption that Hall of Fame managers should account for no more than 25% of teams managed; you can argue for less, but can we agree that it shouldn’t be over 25%.?    Through 2013 there will have been 2,696 major league team/seasons, depending on what you count; I’d tell you what the number is for 2012, but I don’t like to use that number.   Hall of Fame recognition lags behind performance, however, so let’s back that up about ten years, and the number would be 2,396.

                Hall of Fame managers, then, should account for no more than about 600 team/seasons.   A couple of qualifications here.    I’m not going to count Hall of Fame players who also managed, like Walter Johnson and Ted Williams.   A few guys, like Cap Anson and Fred Clarke, we’ll count them half as players and half as managers, and, by the same logic, we’ll count Connie Mack half as a manager and half as an owner.

                Let’s look at the guys who are in the Hall of Fame.

Name

YEARS

GAMES

John McGraw

33

4769

Joe McCarthy

24

3487

Connie Mack

53

7755

Walter Alston

23

3658

Sparky Anderson

26

4030

Casey Stengel

25

3766

Fred Clarke

19

2829

Miller Huggins

17

2570

Earl Weaver

17

2541

Leo Durocher

24

3739

Frank Selee

16

2180

Bill McKechnie

25

3647

Cap Anson

21

2288

Al Lopez

17

2425

Tommy Lasorda

21

3050

Billy Southworth

13

1770

Ned Hanlon

19

2530

Dick Williams

22

3023

Bucky Harris

29

4408

Whitey Herzog

19

2409

Harry Wright

18

1825

Wilbert Robinson

19

2819

 

                Hall of Fame managers managed 500 seasons or partial seasons, and managed 71,518 games.     But we are treating Cap Anson and Cap Clarke half as players (Fred Clarke was in fact called "Cap"), and Connie Mack half as an owner, which adjusts their numbers, and would make the totals 453 seasons and 65,083 games.  If we treat each 150 games as a season, that’s 434 seasons worth of Hall of Fame managing.

                We can reach, then, this early if somewhat unpersuasive conclusion:   The number of managers in the Hall of Fame is consistent with the number of Hall of Fame players, and is not unreasonable.

                Unpersuasive, for this reason.   Through baseball history a very large number of teams have been managed by people who are in the Hall of Fame, but not on our list of Hall of Fame managers.   Branch Rickey, for example, managed 1,277 major league games and is in the Hall of Fame, but not as a manager.   Edward Barrow managed 639 games and is in the Hall of Fame, but not as a manager.

                More troubling than those are, for example, Charlie Comiskey and Clark Griffith, who were not only managers but very, very good managers with fairly long careers, but who are listed on the Hall of Fame rosters as "Pioneers" and "Executives", when they might equally well be listed as managers.     The percentage of all teams which are managed by Hall of Fame managers turns out to be surprisingly difficult to establish, but moving on.

                What accomplishments are relevant to Hall of Fame standing?   With exceptions and limitations that will be discussed in a moment, there would appear to be only five:

                a)  Winning games,

                b)  Winning a high percentage of your games,

                c)  Winning championships,

                d)  Winning the World Series, and

                e)  Having teams that exceed reasonable expectations.

                Exceptions and limitations.    A manager could also be historically significant as an innovator, as a personality, a leader, a path-finder, or as a developer of talent.

                It is however, difficult to see that any of those things has ever led to the selection of anyone as a Hall of Fame manager, with the exceptions of Rube Foster and Harry Wright, and it is difficult to see that these things should make a Hall of Fame manager.    As a personality. . .well, you can’t have any more personality than Casey Stengel, but if he hadn’t won big with the Yankees, would that make him a Hall of Famer?    Doug Rader had a HUGE personality, but he didn’t win.

                As a developer of talent. ..let us say that Davey Johnson deserves some of the credit for the early-career success of Doc Gooden.   What Johnson did with Gooden was unusual.   At the age of 18, Gooden in the minors was 19-4 with 300 strikeouts in 191 innings.   Most people, however, were cautioning against moving Gooden too fast, talking about giving him at least 15 or 20 starts at Double A and some time in the bullpen before he went into the major league rotation.   Johnson said "No way in hell; he is better than my other pitchers, and he’s going into my rotation.  Now."   Not a direct quote; a characterization of his statements and actions at that time.

                Johnson deserves credit for that decision, without which Dwight Gooden would probably have wasted his best seasons in the minor leagues, as some young pitchers do.  But is this separate and distinct credit for Davey Johnson, or is it an element of his other credentials?   Because Johnson did this, the Mets won 90 games in 1984, 98 games in 1985, and 108 games and a World Championship in 1986.  That is what Johnson accomplished.

                Look at it this way:  Who was Walter Johnson’s first major league manager?   Who was Bob Gibson’s first major league manager?   Who was Bob Feller’s first major league manager?   Who was Cy Young’s first major league manager?

                Joe Cantillon, Solly Hemus, Steve O’Neill, Gus Schmelz.    Are any of this men in the Hall of Fame, or should they be?

                We should leave the door open a crack here.   If there was a manager who consistently, over a period of time, played a key role in the development of superstar players one after another, then we should respect that and consider its weight.   Perhaps the best example of that ever is Ed Barrow, who played key roles in the development of Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Pie Traynor, Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle.   But in the normal course of a career, having a 19-year-old superstar dropped into your lap is more in the nature of "extreme good fortune" than "Hall of Fame credential."

                An innovator, a leader and a path-finder. . .obviously these definitions overlap, and in this case we should leave the door open more than a crack.  

                But at the same time, it’s a dangerous concept.   Innovation is everywhere in baseball.   Innovation is what drives all changes in baseball, and every successful manager is an innovator in different ways.    Herman Franks, more than any one other manager, defined the role of the modern reliever, when he announced that he would protect Bruce Sutter’s overworked arm by using him only to protect leads at the end of the game.  Prior to Franks, relief aces (like Gossage and Fingers) were brought into games when the team was behind but close, and were routinely brought in when the score was tied. It’s an extremely important innovation.

                But does it make Franks a Hall of Famer, given his modest managerial record?   Of course it does not.   EVERYBODY is an innovator.   Nobody thinks of Walter Alston as a big innovator, but he played a major role in at least three changes in the game.   First, before Walter, managers would publicly criticize their players.   Walter felt that it was improper for a manager to criticize his players in the newspaper, and this practice essentially spread from Walter to all other managers, becoming the accepted standard in the industry.

                Second, while the usage patterns of pitchers have become steadily more regular over the entire history of baseball, they became radically more regular in the years 1959 to 1964.    Walter was one of the leading managers who "regularized" pitcher usage patterns by ending the practice of flipping pitchers back and forth between starting and relieving, and keeping pitchers religiously to a starting schedule.

                Third, Walter was one of the first managers to go to a five-man pitching rotation.    The Dodgers were using a five-man pitching rotation by 1972, well ahead of most of baseball.

                Would these things make Walter a Hall of Fame manager, had he not been successful?   No.   Innovation is everywhere in baseball; the game changes all the time in ways that are too subtle to be documented at the time the changes are occurring, and every change results from an innovation.    Innovation does not make a great manager unless it is accompanied by success.

                The first manager to platoon players in a systematic, organized fashion was George Stallings, with the Miracle Braves in 1914.    But does that make Stallings a Hall of Fame manager?

                Should we put Tony La Russa in the Hall of Fame, because he pushed the limits on the use of left-handed relievers?    Hell, to me, that’s a reason to keep him out.  A key concern:  Did he change the game for the better?   The constant and annoying use of more and more left-handed one-out relievers has not made the game of baseball better.

                I guess my real point is this.   If I let you start arguing that Birdie Tebbetts or Fred Hutchinson or John McNamara or Gene Mauch or Alvin Dark should be in the Hall of Fame because of his role as an innovator

                a)  There is going to be no end to it, ever, because innovation is everywhere in baseball, and

                b)  What this inevitably will lead to is paying a lot of attention to some innovations because they are connected to somebody’s Hall of Fame brief, while ignoring other innovations which are actually more important.

                Again, keep the door open a crack.   If a manager really does play a key role in making baseball a better game, I’m open to considering that.   But as a rule. . . innovation has nothing at all to do with whether a manager belongs in the Hall of Fame.

                OK, let’s get back to the five things that do make a Hall of Fame manager:

 

a)  Winning games,

                b)  Winning a high percentage of your games,

                c)  Winning championships,

                d)  Having teams that exceed reasonable expectations.                

                That’s four; I decided to consolidate "winning championships" and "winning the World Series" into one category, since the World Series is a championship.

                Let us say that, as a starting point, we give the manager one point for each 40 games that he won in his career.   Why 40?

                Don’t make me explain everything; we’ll be here forever.   I’m trying to make 100 points a line that sort of generally separates the Hall of Famers from the lesser geniuses.   One point for 40 wins is one of the decisions that makes that work.

 

                Winning percentage. .. we can look at that as Wins Minus Losses.  The Hall of Fame managers had 6,326 more wins than losses in their careers, this number discounting (ignoring) the negative contributions of Connie Mack and Bucky Harris, who were under .500, and also I’m ignoring Harry Wright’s record in the National Association, 1871-1875, since the National Association is a bona fide major league in the same sense that Bobby Parnell is a bona fide superstar.   Since there are 22 Hall of Fame Managers and we want to award around 600 points in this category, that would be one point for each 10 more Wins than Losses. 

                Earl Weaver won 1,480 games in his managerial career, which is 37 points.   He was 420 games over .500 in his career, which 42 points.    So at this point, Earl Weaver is at 79 points, which places him in a tie for seventh among the Hall of Fame managers:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wins Over

 

Name

YEARS

Wins

Losses

Over .500

Win Points

.500 Points

Total

John McGraw

33

2763

1948

815

69

81

150

Joe McCarthy

24

2125

1333

792

53

79

132

Connie Mack

53

3731

3948

 

93

0

93

Walter Alston

23

2040

1613

427

51

42

93

Sparky Anderson

26

2194

1834

360

54

36

90

Fred Clarke

19

1602

1181

421

40

42

82

Earl Weaver

17

1480

1060

420

37

42

79

Leo Durocher

24

2008

1709

299

50

29

79

Al Lopez

17

1410

1004

406

35

40

75

Frank Selee

16

1284

862

422

32

42

74

Cap Anson

21

1295

947

348

32

34

66

Bill McKechnie

25

1896

1723

173

47

17

64

Miller Huggins

17

1413

1134

279

35

27

62

Billy Southworth

13

1044

704

340

26

34

60

Tommy Lasorda

21

1599

1439

160

39

16

55

Casey Stengel

25

1905

1842

63

47

6

53

Bucky Harris

29

2158

2219

 

53

0

53

Dick Williams

22

1571

1451

120

39

12

51

Whitey Herzog

19

1281

1125

156

32

15

47

Ned Hanlon

19

1313

1164

149

32

14

46

Harry Wright

18

1000

825

175

25

17

42

Wilbert Robinson

19

1399

1398

1

34

0

34

 

The strongest Hall of Fame cases, so far in our analysis, would be for John McGraw and Joe McCarthy, and the weakest Hall of Fame managers would be Wilbert Robinson, Harry Wright, Ned Hanlon and Jersey Whitehog.    It is early, but I will alert you in advance that Whitey is not going to move up very much as we study the credentials in more depth.   I’m not anti-Herzog; I always liked the guy, and I’m glad they elected him.  Facts are facts; records are records.

                OK, next we look at winning championships.   Suppose that we give 5 points for winning a division championship, 10 for a league championship, 15 for a World Championship.

                Way too many points.   If we did that, the 22 Hall of Fame managers would earn a total of 1,400 points, or about 64 apiece.   It works on a different level, though.   From 1903 to 1960 there would be 25 points each year (except 1904), with 16 teams each year, or 1.56 points per team.    Now, there would be 45 points each year with 30 teams, or 1.50 points per year—about the same ratio.  So the proportions are fine; it’s just the numbers that are too high.

                Let’s go with three points for a Division Championship, six for a League Championship, nine for a World Championship (no doubling up; it’s not nine ADDITIONAL points for the World Championship.)   

                By that scale, the most qualified managers among the ‘famers are Casey Stengel, Joe McCarthy, Connie Mack and John McGraw:

 

Name

Div Championships

League

World

Championship Points

Casey Stengel

0

3

7

78

Joe McCarthy

0

2

7

73

Connie Mack

0

4

5

65

John McGraw

0

7

3

62

Walter Alston

0

3

4

51

Sparky Anderson

2

2

3

43

Miller Huggins

0

3

3

42

Tommy Lasorda

4

2

2

40

Dick Williams

1

2

2

31

Earl Weaver

2

3

1

30

Fred Clarke

0

4

1

29

Bill McKechnie

0

2

2

28

Billy Southworth

0

2

2

28

Whitey Herzog

3

2

1

28

Frank Selee

0

5

0

25

Cap Anson

0

5

0

25

Ned Hanlon

0

5

0

25

Bucky Harris

0

1

2

23

Leo Durocher

0

2

1

19

Al Lopez

0

2

0

10

Harry Wright

0

2

0

10

Wilbert Robinson

0

2

0

10

 

 

                When we add these points to those we had before, we get the following:

 

Name

Total

John McGraw

212

Joe McCarthy

205

Connie Mack

158

Walter Alston

144

Sparky Anderson

133

Casey Stengel

131

Fred Clarke

111

Earl Weaver

109

Miller Huggins

104

Frank Selee

99

Leo Durocher

98

Tommy Lasorda

95

Bill McKechnie

92

Cap Anson

91

Billy Southworth

88

Al Lopez

85

Dick Williams

82

Bucky Harris

76

Whitey Herzog

75

Ned Hanlon

71

Harry Wright

52

Wilbert Robinson

44

 

And finally, we have Performance Against Expectation.    The Baltimore Orioles didn’t win their league last year, or their division, or the World Series—but they certainly won a great many more games than anyone expected them to win.   We have to give Buck Showalter some credit for that.  How do we do that?

                I have a formula, and a file that has the relevant information in it.   The formula is for "Expected Wins in a Season"—expected wins by a team, given their won-lost record in recent seasons.  A team’s expected winning percentage in 2013 is:

                One times their won-lost record in 2011, plus

                Two times their won-lost record in 2012, plus

                162 wins and 162 losses. 

               

                For example, for the Baltimore Orioles in 2012. . .their won-lost record in 2010 was 66-96.

Won-Lost Record in 2010:

66

96

 

                Their won-lost record in 2011 was 69-93.   Two times that is 138-186:

Won-Lost Record in 2010:

66

96

Two Times their Won-Lost Record in 2011:

138

186

 

                To this we add 162 wins and 162 losses, giving them an expected winning percentage in 2012 of .452, so their expected won-lost record in 2012 was 73-89:

Won-Lost Record in 2010:

66

96

Two Times their Won-Lost Record in 2011:

138

186

Tendency to Drift to the Center

162

162

Total

366

444

Winning Percentage:

.452

Expected Won-Lost Record in 2012:

73

89

 

                The formula works, on average; teams that are expected to finish 73-89, on average, will finish 73-89.    The 2012 Orioles did twenty games better than that; they finished 93-69.   That makes Buck Showalter +20 games in 2012.    +20 is a good year.   There are 68 teams in baseball history that are +20 or better.

                (For expansion teams, we assume they are coming off two consecutive seasons with records of 54-108, which makes the expectation for a first-year expansion team 65-97, and then of course you have to adjust expectations for everybody else in the league.    For teams before 1961 we use 154-154 rather than 162-162, for obvious reasons.)

                Anyway, I have a file which has these expectations and plusses and minuses for everybody.     These numbers are kind of interesting, so let’s dwell on them a little bit.    Billy Martin had nine seasons in his career in which his team exceeded expectations by at least five games.    His 1974 Texas Rangers (83-76) exceeded expectations by 18 games; they had lost 105 games the previous season.   His 1980 Oakland A’s (83-79) exceeded expectations by 15 games, as did his 1969 Minnesota Twins (97-65) and his 1976 New York Yankees (97-62).    The 1981 Oakland A’s were +13, the 1985 Yankees +12, the 1977 Yankees +11, the 1983 Yankees +10, and the 1971 Detroit Tigers +9.

                That’s a very impressive record; those nine teams exceeded expectations by a total of 117 games (it adds up to 118, but I’m using an extra decimal behind the scenes.)   That’s a very impressive total, but is nowhere near a record.  Bill McKechnie had thirteen overperforming teams which exceeded expectations by 139 games.   Bobby Cox had 16 overperforming teams that exceeded expectations by 185 games.   Connie Mack, while he also had many desultory seasons, had 18 teams that exceeded expectations by a total of 234 games, which is the record.   Davey Johnson is +129 games with ten teams.    Fred Clarke was +121 games with 9 teams. Joe McCarthy was +187 games with 16 teams.   John McGraw was +227 games with 18 overperforming teams.   Leo Durocher was +164 with 12 teams.  Miller Huggins was +131 with 9 teams.  Sparky Anderson was +133 with 12 teams.

                Billy Martin’s teams added more wins than some of these other managers, but in looking at it that way, Martin is taking advantage of the low expectations for those teams.     He had several teams that were coming off of dreadful seasons and did well. 

                That’s impressive—but is it more impressive than sustaining excellence?    Not by this method.    By this method, if you’ve been losing 100 games a year, you’re expected to lose 92, but if you’ve been winning 100 games a year, you’re expected to win 92.   If you can continue to win 100 games a year, you’re outperforming expectations.   

                Anyway. . ..accounting.   Here’s what I did.    First, I ignored any seasons in which teams outperformed expectations by less than 5 games.    Then I gave each manager:

                1 point for a season in which his team outperformed expectations by 5 to 9 games,

                2 points for a season in which his team exceeded expectations by 10 to 14 games,

                3 points for 15 to 19 games,

                4 points for 20 to 24 games,

                5 points for 25 to 29 games,

                Etc. 

 

                Billy Martin earned 21 points in his career because his teams in 9 different seasons did substantially better than expected.   This is the tenth highest total of all time. 

                OK, let’s add these points to the totals we had before for the Hall of Fame managers, and see what we’ve got:

Manager

Previous Total

Overperforming Teams

New Total

John McGraw

212

38

250

Joe McCarthy

205

32

237

Connie Mack

158

39

197

Walter Alston

144

17

161

Sparky Anderson

133

22

155

Casey Stengel

131

14

145

Fred Clarke

111

20

131

Leo Durocher

98

30

128

Earl Weaver

109

17

126

Miller Huggins

104

22

126

Frank Selee

99

18

117

Bill McKechnie

92

21

113

Tommy Lasorda

95

15

110

Cap Anson

91

18

109

Billy Southworth

88

14

102

Al Lopez

85

15

100

Dick Williams

82

15

97

Bucky Harris

76

19

95

Ned Hanlon

71

21

92

Whitey Herzog

75

13

88

Harry Wright

52

16

68

Wilbert Robinson

44

14

58

 

                Wilbert Robinson’s election to the Hall of Fame, I think it may be said, was a capricious selection not justified by his record as a manager.

                Harry Wright. . .well, we can give him a little extra credit for inventing professional baseball.

                Whitey Herzog, as much as I like him, may not fully meet the standards of a Hall of Fame manager, based solely on the record of his accomplishments.

                The real purpose of this, of course, is to allow us to compare the records of other managers, Hall of Fame candidates, to those of the managers who have been selected to the Hall of Fame.

                I get questions all the time:  What do you think of the Hall of Fame candidacy of Bruce Bochy, of Gene Mauch, of Davey Johnson, of Charlie Manuel?   A week ago, I didn’t have any method to address those questions.   Now I do.

                Tommorrow, we’ll look at the Hall of Fame credentials of some recently retired managers who might be considered Hall of Fame candidates—Joe Torre, Bobby Cox, Tony LaRussa, as well as some long-retired managers.   On Wednesday, we’ll look at the active managers.  Thanks for reading.

 
 

COMMENTS (13 Comments, most recent shown first)

DFleitz
Anson would be higher had teams played more games from 1879 to 1897. Anson managed an average of 118 games a year during his 19 seasons at the helm in Chicago.
6:37 PM Feb 20th
 
Shankly
All I can say is that this is fantastic! Thanks.

12:32 PM Feb 20th
 
sprox
Wasn't it easier to win pennants and championships when there were only 16 teams vs 30?

Or is this accounted for by adding in division winning seasons?
9:15 PM Feb 19th
 
hotstatrat
I particularly love the meeting expectations portion of this method.

There is some redundancy with counting that, wins, and wins above .500. One could debate how much weight should be appropriate to each area. I trust Bill's weighing, but am a little surprised he didn't give the meeting expectations portion a heavier weight.

One tweak to deal with negative values in meeting expectations might be to count them against the manager if they are followed by seasons that make up for it, but not count them if they are at the ends of his term. Why? Because it should be considered the general managements' fault for not firing the manager soon enough. Different managers are better for different types of teams or in different phases of development - or different eras. It shouldn't take away from the success he had when he was the right manager for the job. If the failure is in the middle or (I think) beginning of his term - there is nothing one could have done about it. (I would consider a lack of success at the beginning of a term a learning period. A manager with a shorter learning period deserves more success recognition.)

Similarly, when discussing players' WAR, I believe all negative seasons at the beginning and the end of a player's career should be zeroed, because it is the team's fault - not the player's fault - that he was called up too early or released too late.

5:08 PM Feb 19th
 
jemanji
:: golfclap ::

Thanks!
2:22 PM Feb 19th
 
lidsky
To Alan Stewart's point, I don't think I buy the argument of leaving out low-expectation seasons based on the example given. There are too many counter examples. My main problem is this metric will over-credit longevity as opposed to longevity of performance.

Consider a 20 year guy with 5 above expectation seasons and no below expectation seasons versus a 40 year guy with 5 above expectation seasons and 10 below expectation seasons. They are credited with equal performance.

And as to flag fly forever - there are already points for that, we shouldn't try to build this in here as well, IMO.

Fun article.


12:46 PM Feb 19th
 
Alan Stewart
This combines the two separate elements of Bill's method of rating managers in the Guide to Baseball Managers (wins over expectation was a separate, alternative way to look at a question there.)

I think Bill got the way to combine them correct: give credit for good-expectation seasons, but don't subtract for below-expectation seasons.

Why? Well first, otherwise you overrate Billy Martin types who improve a team spectacularly, blow up spectacularly, and then get fired. Over Cox-type managers, who have a great team and organization and sustain it year to year. (Bobby Cox himself is not a "Bobby Cox-type" manager in this sense; he had a superb wins-over record at the time of the first book.) He was said to be headed towards being the best manager of all time then (1996); we'll see how he made out.

The other reason for ignoring low-expectation season is: Flags Fly Forever. If you have a manager who is with your team ten years would you rather have a manager who is even every year, or one who is +15 half the time and -15 half the time? The latter, because he will win pennants in his big years. If you're under, it's kind of irrelevant (at least when rating the BEST managers) whether you're -6 or -16; you're mostly not winning anything. (My thoughts derived from the Drysdale/Pappas study in the HOF book.)
6:59 AM Feb 19th
 
CharlesSaeger
I wonder who the long-retired managers are. For anyone wondering, all three of the guys whom Bill named are ludicrously qualified by this method and pretty much every other, and I didn't even compute wins over expectations. With those, Cox might even wind up the best ever. And Torre has a near-Hall playing career to throw in too.
10:29 PM Feb 18th
 
Robinsong
Enjoyed the article and how you combined the methods from the manager's book - Wins over Expectation and Winning Seasons. I do thin the should be subtraction for more losses than expectation. One of the things that is impressive about Cox's record is the scarcity of bad seasons. You could just subtract point using the same scale.
8:14 PM Feb 18th
 
bearbyz
Bill, Great article. I noticed you only gave 5 points for winning a pennent.
5:58 PM Feb 18th
 
studes
Great article, Matt. I had forgotten about that one. Your system is very similar to Bill's, though I like his additional take on avoiding regression.
5:05 PM Feb 18th
 
enamee
I tried to create a system like this in 2009, and I wrote it up at The Hardball Times:

www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/evaluating-managers/

Here's how I calculated the scores (with 100 being the Hall of Fame line):

Wins (times 0.2)
Games over .500 (times 0.1, with all negatives rounded to zero)
12 minus average rank (times 1.7)
Postseason appearances
Pennants (times 7)
World Series (times 10)

The results were similar (so far; haven't seen the rest of your series yet), but I didn't take into account seasons that exceeded expectations, which I think was a critical flaw of my system. My system also viewed Wilbert Robinson as far below the Hall of Fame line, and Whitey Herzog as not quite good enough.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the rest of your series.

- Matthew Namee
12:45 PM Feb 18th
 
MWeddell
I'm looking forward to the rest of the series. Your comments about Davey Johnson make me wonder how he'll rank. He sure had to wait a long time before getting the Nationals job.
9:46 AM Feb 18th
 
 
©2019 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy