MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122415154

Major League Baseball General Managers: An Analysis of Their Responsibilities, Qualifications and Characteristics

2010· article· en· W3122415154 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Glenn M. Wong, Chris Deubert

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican Sports and Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChampionLeagueVictoryManagementEconomic historyPolitical scienceLawHistoryEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2008 World Series between the Philadelphia Phillies and Tampa Bay Rays was a study in contrast for the two teams’ front offices. The eventual champion Phillies were led by General Manager (GM) Pat Gillick, who had 45 years of experience in Major League Baseball (MLB) front offices. Gillick, 71, had previously been General Manager of the Toronto Blue Jays, Baltimore Orioles and Seattle Mariners after having broken into the industry in the scouting departments of the Houston Colt .45s and Astros and New York Yankees. The Phillies victory was Gillick’s third World Series title as a GM, having guided the Blue Jays to championships in 1992 and 1993. In his 27 years a GM, Gillick’s teams made the playoffs 11 times.On the other hand, the Rays GM was 31-year old Andrew Friedman, who was only in his fifth year in MLB. Like Gillick, Friedman played college baseball. However, Friedman never made it to the minor leagues like Gillick. Instead, Friedman, who earned a B.S. in management with a concentration in Finance from Tulane University, worked on Wall Street, first for Bear Stearns then for MidMark Capital. Friedman got into baseball after he had a chance to meet Rays principal owner Stuart Sternberg, a fellow New Yorker who made his fortune on Wall Street.The two unique paths of Gillick and Friedman exemplify the increasingly divergent paths MLB GMs have taken to their positions. In any case, the obligations of a MLB GM are difficult and wide-ranging. The first part of this article will examine some of the duties of a GM, including representing the organization at league meetings, preparing for amateur player drafts, negotiating with agents, representing the club during salary arbitration, dealing with the media, managing the club’s payroll, ensuring compliance with MLB rules and the collective bargaining agreement and of course creating and developing the clubs roster.The second part of the article will examine the characteristics and experiences of MLB GMs including playing experience, coaching experience, education, age, gender, race, family ties and career path. In addition, the article will provide a longitudinal study, showing how these traits have changed over 20 years, comparing GMs from 1989, 1999 and 2009.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)Same topicAmerican Sports and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207