funny. wedge just popped up with a 94/100 on my random made up stuff for rating a manager scale. ozzie guillen scored a -4/100.

See it must be true. It's in the WSJ and it's got numbers and everything! Very scientific!

Man ... this is really dumb.

It would almost make sense if they ranked player performance above expectation, rather than just raw player performance. It would still be poor, but at least that would make it more than totally non-sensical.

I thought the best part was their first line of the methodology section:

Assessing managers is difficult, since their win-loss records are closely tied to the team's talent level.

I thought it was more of a vague relationship between a manager's win/loss and who the players are.