Forbes best GMs in sports

[Gibsons]

Link

Jerry Jones at 13? It's almost a whole month til April Fool, maybe they're getting an early start.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

lololololol kevin mchale and billy king are 1 and 3. bahahahahahahhahahahah

 

[NuAlphaMan]

Your link is broken. I couldn't see the list.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: NuAlphaMan
Your link is broken. I couldn't see the list.

hm, works for me.

here's the URL
http://www.forbes.com/2007/03/02/sports-greatest-gms-biz-cz_jg_0302gms_2.html

 

[geecee]

What! Isiah Thomas is not in the top 25?

 

[Kwaipie]

Spot on. Michael Lombardi - Oakland Raiders - #98

 

[RbSX]

I'd have to say thats probably one of the more BS lists I've ever seen.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: RyanSengara
I'd have to say thats probably one of the more BS lists I've ever seen.

I don't know, they have Matt Millen at #96. That sounds about right, if not a bit generous.

 

[wheresmybacon]

Originally posted by: geecee
What! Isiah Thomas is not in the top 25?

After I saw Jerry Jones @ 13 I figured they'd have Zeek in the top 10...

 

[mugs]

Well it's not like they were basing the rankings on their opinions, it's based on the coach's performance (winning percentage and post-season wins) compared to their predecessor.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: mugs
Well it's not like they were basing the rankings on their opinions, it's based on the coach's performance (winning percentage and post-season wins) compared to their predecessor.

Which isn't a reliable way to measure. I think if you polled writers or other executives in the sport, you'd get a more reliable list than using their method.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: mugs
Well it's not like they were basing the rankings on their opinions, it's based on the coach's performance (winning percentage and post-season wins) compared to their predecessor.

Which isn't a reliable way to measure. I think if you polled writers or other executives in the sport, you'd get a more reliable list than using their method.

Because it would be opinion, not fact?

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: mugs
Well it's not like they were basing the rankings on their opinions, it's based on the coach's performance (winning percentage and post-season wins) compared to their predecessor.

Which isn't a reliable way to measure. I think if you polled writers or other executives in the sport, you'd get a more reliable list than using their method.

Yea, forget statistics and metrics .:roll:. Go with opinions which are biased by definition.

 

[fallenangel99]

Lou L is an awesome Gm. I wish he would take over the nets too

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: mugs
Well it's not like they were basing the rankings on their opinions, it's based on the coach's performance (winning percentage and post-season wins) compared to their predecessor.

Which isn't a reliable way to measure. I think if you polled writers or other executives in the sport, you'd get a more reliable list than using their method.

It's not really an easy thing to measure. Opinions can be based on biases or incomplete information. The Forbes methodology certainly has its flaws. It penalizes a GM who was preceded by a good GM and rewards a GM who was preceded by a poor GM. It ignores the fact that the coach has a pretty big impact on team performance as well.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: mugs
Well it's not like they were basing the rankings on their opinions, it's based on the coach's performance (winning percentage and post-season wins) compared to their predecessor.

Which isn't a reliable way to measure. I think if you polled writers or other executives in the sport, you'd get a more reliable list than using their method.

It's not really an easy thing to measure. Opinions can be based on biases or incomplete information. The Forbes methodology certainly has its flaws. It penalizes a GM who was preceded by a good GM and rewards a GM who was preceded by a poor GM. It ignores the fact that the coach has a pretty big impact on team performance as well.

I knew I didn't have to spell out what I meant for you, even though I should have for the other people who quoted me. It also ignores how luck can be a bigger factor than skill in your team improving. For instance, the GM who picked Lebron James. He was simply lucky to get the first pick in the draft, and then picked the person who everyone knew was the best person. Kevin McHale at number 1 on the list, benefitted from several lucky circumstances. Not many who follow basketball would put him in the top 10 for the NBA, not to mention for all professional sports.

The cyclical nature of sports, where the bad teams get first pick at the good players and usually have more money for free agents, makes it too easy to have a better record than your predecessor through sheer circumstances.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

mchale did draft kg, but thats it. and this list is stupid...anyone who thinks its accurate cause its based on 'stats' doesnt know what they're talking about.