Tim Marchman's a brave man. You have to be, to rank all 30 general managers.

Marchman's analysis rests on three legs: winning (vs. expectations), efficiency (as measured by marginal wins vs. payroll) and "not doing stupid things" (which obviously is subjective but there are some things you just can't ignore). Marchman:

The really impressive thing about this list is how few bad general managers there are in the game. Most of the ones who come in among the lower half are there because they just haven't had much chance to do anything good or bad yet, and even most of the lower-rated veterans would be perfectly competent stewards for most teams. Say what you will about Moneyball, but that book's most lasting influence may have been in convincing the rich people who own baseball teams to run their clubs like any other business, looking for agile thinkers rather than interpreters of the inner mysteries of what really isn't a very complicated game.

I'll let you RTWA to see who does well and who doesn't. But I'll bet you can probably guess the top five and the bottom five and do pretty well. And that's fine. But for a nuanced take, you would literally have to make dozens and dozens of phone calls to figure out which of the stupid things were done because (among other possible reasons) the owner demanded it. Everyone inside baseball can tell you about a stupid move ordered by the owner, or a smart move vetoed by the owner. Or vetoed by a layer of administration between the owner and the general manager.

I'm talking about a book ... and by the time the book is published, three or four of the general managers will have retired or been promoted or been fired.

So what we get instead are lists on the fly, like Marchman's. And that's okay. But when I see

Andrew Friedman, Tampa Bay Rays

at the top of the list, and

Dayton Moore, Kansas City Royals

at the bottom, I tend to focus more on Rays and Royals than Friedman and Moore. Andrew Friedman is a key performer in an outstanding organization. Dayton Moore is not.