This quote by Dayton Moore about Trey Hillman was met with honest to goodness howling by anyone who follows the Royals but who isn't employed by the team.  It seems ludicrous on the face of it, but is there anything in Hillman's record that would seem to preclude him eventually earning a reputation as one of the very best baseball men in a generation?  I thought I'd take a quick look at the early records of some men who could be considered the very best of their generations to see if Hillman's record in any way disqualifies that possibility.

"You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid?  Well, mine are even worse!"  Calvin, Calvin and Hobbes

First let me say that whatever the outcome of this analysis, I'm not suggesting that by performing as poorly as other great managers have, Trey Hillman will somehow end up a wonderful manager.  There are only two possible conclusions from this study:  1) Based on two-season samples from historically great managers, Trey Hillman is not and will never be one of the very best baseball man of his generation, or 2) Despite the titanic tone-deafness of Moore's quote, it is far too early to say that without a doubt Trey Hillman will not be one of the very best baseball men in a generation.

What this chart shows is the Manager, his winning percentage in his first two full seasons, his winning percentage in his worst two full seasons, his career winning percentage, and whether or not one or both of his first two seasons were among his worst two seasons.  Only Joe Torre and Bobby Cox's first two seasons were also their worst two seasons. (Note:  For simplicity's sake, I only used full seasons.  I simply ignored partial seasons in both the "First" and "Worst" columns)

Things of note in this list include:  Earl Weaver really hit the ground running, eh?  Connie Mack managed some horrible teams.  Casey Stengal's career record was dinged pretty badly by the early Mets teams.

As for what it says about Hillman, not much.  Two of the winningest managers of the current generation fared worse than Hillman has in his first two seasons.  And if his first two seasons end up being his worst, Hillman wouldn't look terribly out of place on this list.

Now, this list doesn't tell us all that much.  What would be interesting is to see how the teams of these managers fared prior to their arrivals.  Did these all-time baseball men improve their teams right off the bat?

This chart shows the manager, the winning percentage of the team he first managed in the two seasons prior to his hire, his winning percentage from his first two full seasons, and the difference.  (Note:  as in the first chart, partial seasons are not included.  If the manager managed a partial season, then the two seasons before his first partial season is used to calculate the "Prior" column.)

This surprised me.  Only McCarthy, Sparky, Weaver, Cox and yes, Hillman managed to improve their teams' records in their first two seasons.  Clearly, this is over-simplified, because it doesn't take players into account, but I think it shows pretty clearly that even the most successful managers take a while to find their stride.

Conclusion:  Based on early-career records of the winningest baseball managers of all-time, it's far too early to say that Trey Hillman will not be one of the very best baseball men in a generation.  Of course with the bar set this low, such a thing could be said about virtually any ML manager and signify just as much, i.e., zilch.  I for one, have exactly no idea whether Hillman is a good manager or not.  I think that he's shown the ability to learn on the job--most notably with Soria's 6-out saves and his quick hook on Jacobs at first base--which is promising.  He's managing a terrible roster, though, and until that changes, it's unlikely that he'll ever get the chance to earn the reputation that Dayton Moore has so boldly predicted for him.