MLB: Rating the front offices of the AL Central
By Bill Felber
Chicago White Sox GM Rick Hahn stands head and shoulders above his division rivals, and was one of the best in MLB this year.
Rick Hahn has been promising Chicago White Sox fans a Great Come-And-Get-It basically since he took over in 2013. This summer, Hahn and the Sox finally delivered.
Chicago played 35-25 ball, the team’s first season above .500 since Hahn, a top aide to Kenny Williams, was promoted to take over for his old boss. True, the Sox only finished third in the AL Central, but in this expanded playoff scenario that was good enough to reach the MLB playoffs.
The Sox may have dropped out in the first round of those playoffs, but that was not Hahn’s fault. Of the five AL Central front offices, his was the most productive, improving White Sox fortunes by 4.2 games.
Our front office/general manager ratings are based on the collective short-term impact, as measured by Wins Above Average, of every personnel move made by every front office since the conclusion of play in 2019. A positive number represents a front office success. In a few cases, those marked by an asterisk, the front office really succeeded; it generated more positive impact than the margin by which the team qualified for post-season play.
If a rating is negative, that means the team’s front office reduced the club’s talent base during 2020. And woe betides a general manager who gets an asterisk for negative performance; that means the team’s execs dealt, promoted or signed their way out of the playoffs. Those rare instances are marked by an X.
As a general proposition, MLB front offices influence their team’s performance in five ways:
- By the players they acquire in trades, purchase or waiver claims with other teams.
- By the players they lose in those deals.
- By the free agents they sign.
- By the players they release or lose to free agency.
- By the rookies they promote.
Findings for the AL East and NL East have already been reported. This analysis of the AL Central front offices is not based on final standing, but rather on the extent of the positive or negative contribution of the general manager to the team profile.