BP Calls John Hart One of the, STRIKE THAT, BEST GMs of the 90s
Can we contain our rage? (Subscription Content)
about 2 years ago
afh4
69 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I do have a BP subscription, but they give their raw data and explaination for free. Bottom line, I don’t know what to make of any of this. Apparently, the Braves were terribly run in the 90’s too? Or are we reading this up-side-down and Hart was one of the best GMs?
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
um, dude, are you sure you’re reading this correctly?
And now for the best:
GM Teams Years PER
10. Jim Bowden Reds 1993-99 1.120
9. Dan Duquette Expos, Red Sox 1992-99 1.149
8. Andy MacPhail Twins 1990-94 1.152
7. John Hart Indians 1991-99 1.152
6. Bob Watson Astros, Yankees 1994-97 1.163
Hart is an obvious one here, as he took a small-market team without much of a history of success and turned it into a powerhouse.
hart is #4, three down from scheurholz at #4.
hart also had two of the best individual seasons, in 1994 and 1995
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 5, 2010 11:07 AM EST reply actions
dammit, i screwed up the block quote. the whole segment about GMs, including the sentence about john hart turning the indians into a powerhouse, was supposed to be included
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 5, 2010 11:08 AM EST up reply actions
lol, wow, i really mangled that entire comment. WTF. thanks for interpreting. yes, hart is ranked #7 overall, and he also has two of the top ten individual seasons.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 5, 2010 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
This is why posting BP articles are a bad idea. I have no idea what is going on. I’m mad, then I’m happy, then I’m confused then I’m angry for wasting my time, then I pass out.
by Toxicadam on Feb 5, 2010 11:26 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
That’s a 0.5 WAR comment. If my calculations are correct that means you owe me $2.
by APV on Feb 5, 2010 4:35 PM EST up reply actions
I imagine these ratings can be updated. Current preformance should knock Shapiro’s rating down significantly.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I would imagine a ranking of GMs from the 2000s would take their entire tenure into context including payroll, much like these rankings did. Shapiro would fair above average I think, but not near the top.
But there’s no way to take circumstances into the stats either. Hart started with a baseball franchise that was flat on it’s ass and built a winner. And Shapiro…….let’s be charitable here and just say Shapiro didn’t.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Hart started with a baseball franchise that was flat on its ass, built a winner, stripped the farm system bare and left a team that was flat on its ass.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Feb 6, 2010 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
OK, have it your way, Shapiro started with a franchise flat on its ass. Now, when does the perennial champion thingy start?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Yes. Especially now that we know that Hank is computer-literate.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Feb 7, 2010 10:54 AM EST up reply actions
Remind me again how many World Series’ the Indians won under John Hart.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
About the same number as they won under Shapiro.
Now tell me: how many pennants and how many division championships have they won under Shapiro?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Now tell me: How many 90-win teams did the Indians compete against with Hart at the helm?
by Jay on Feb 7, 2010 8:07 PM EST up reply actions
Look it’s disingenuous to even compare Shapiro’s record with Hart’s. You can slice it and spin it any way you want. Shapiro may not be Lane or Segui, but he ain’t John Hart either.
Shapiro is the Orson Welles of Cleveland GMs. He, like Welles, made one fantastic mov(ie) and has been unable to dublicated it since. Both did some good work afterwards but have been unable reproduce their original success.
This whold conversation will make more sense next time we’re in the play-off hunt, but not after a 97 loss season.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Shapiro has made a whole lot more than one great move.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2010 9:51 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not old enough to remember, which of Hart’s teams won the chamionship?
Is this the whale section?
Next time you’re at the Jake, check out the AL Championship pennants flying in the outfield. The last one’s from ’97, a few years before Shapiro took over.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I’d be tickled pink if Shapiro could get us a coupla more of those. I imagine you would be too.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Baseball that matters in August and September? C’mon Westy, you know better. Meh is a season that ends in June. Like the past two years.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Feb 7, 2010 2:41 PM EST up reply actions
But as an ultimate goal? I’ll pass. The ALCS that we win will be awesome at the time but none of us would care 21 months later if we’re 45-70.
However, if we win the WS, we could have another 09 two years after and I would be like “not a big deal, we just won the WS two years ago… we can’t expect to do better with the way MLB is designed.”
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
The ultimate goal is always to win it all, I agree with that. But entertaininga baseball, in contention thought August and September, is not “meh”. That’s where we disagree.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Feb 7, 2010 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
And forget the “a” after entertaining.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Feb 7, 2010 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
And thought needs to be through. SB Sunday, geez. I’ll stop now.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Feb 7, 2010 4:03 PM EST up reply actions
2007, 1997 and 1995 were meh to you? It was best Indians baseball I’ve ever seen.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Yes. For those of us that remember John Lowenstein signaling for a fair catch during a 10-0 September loss, between the yard line markers.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Feb 7, 2010 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
1997 was not a year chock full of great Indians baseball. Far from it. A wire-to-wire star turn from Sandy, a thrilling postseason, but apart from that, a lot of mediocrity on the way to only 86 wins in a pretty bad division.
by Jay on Feb 7, 2010 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
Come on, Chuck. You can’t continue to have it both ways. Either failing to win it all is failure, or it’s good enough to come close. Which is it?
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
Winning it all is the goal. Losing 97 games after eight years of stewardship is a disaster.
I prefer coming close to going in the tank.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Here’s what’s “intellectually dishones”: acting like Shapiro’s a good GM when his team has one of the worst records in all of baseball after eight years of his leadership. How one can argue that Shapiro’s one of the best GMs in baseball after results like this astounds me.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Did anything else happen in those eight years? It sure would be interesting to know that.
by Brad D on Feb 8, 2010 2:10 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Still disingenuous and wanting to have it both ways.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Feb 8, 2010 11:14 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah.
Chuck, this is what you ultimately have to answer. Your “ring or no ring” aesthetic has now been applied with comical inconsistency. You create yardsticks that contradict one another every day now, and the only consistent thread is that every standard is rigged to portray Shapiro in as bad of a light as possible.
It’s hard to maintain a modicum of intellectual respect amid such transparent intellectual dishonesty.
by Jay on Feb 8, 2010 4:33 PM EST up reply actions
I’ve often thought someone should start making stickers that actually take up the whole bumper.
by Logodaedalus on Feb 12, 2010 12:59 AM EST up reply actions
Ya know this article isn’t about the last decade and Shapiro isn’t mentioned at all … right?
by Jay on Feb 6, 2010 1:48 AM EST up reply actions
Easy to update.
What I don’t understand Chuck, is that I swear that you’ve advocated the strategy of tearing down the team and punting seasons to build up young talent. Isn’t that what Shapiro is doing? The only asset that he’s hanging onto through his peak is Sizemore. Otherwise, he has stripped away all the veteran talent except for a few who don’t seem to have the market (Peralta, Westbrook, Wood), and each of those guys is a good bet to be traded this season.
It’s unrealistic to think we can roll out 98 wins per season. So we can either putter along at .500 every year, or suck it up during some down years to collect and develop cheap young talent, and then go for it in following years (but, and let me stress it, no guarantees). I guess my point is: suck it up.
by dgcambridge on Feb 6, 2010 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I was on board with Shapiro’s 2003 strategy: cash in some of our chips – like Colon and Robbie Alomar – for young players, draft well, and pick up a few missing pieces as needed to sustain a competitive team. Shapiro did all of these things, save one – draft well. That failure – coupled with one very notable bad contract extension – has led to a steep decline in the competitiveness of the team. So we’re back at square one: trade vets for prospects, draft well and pick up a few missing pieces. If Plan A wouldda gone right we wouldn’t need a Plan B. But it didn’t and we do.
And, oh yeah, I’m a long time Indians fan. I know how to suck it up. I also know how to play the Blame Game.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Feb 6, 2010 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
