I went through a lot of players in the WAR database and I found all the seasons of +11 WAR since 1955. So without further ado here are the best seasons since 1955 as measured by WAR:

1956: Mantle 13 WAR

2001: Bonds 12.8 WAR

1957: Mantle 12.5 WAR

2002: Bonds 12.3 WAR

2004: Bonds 12.2 WAR

1967: Yaz 12.1 WAR

1975: J. Morgan 11.8 WAR

1961: Mantle 11.7 WAR

1982: Yount 11.4 WAR

2001: Sosa 11.3 WAR

1977: Carew 11.2 WAR

2003: Pujols 11.1 WAR

2000: A-Rod 11 WAR

There always seems to a lot of discussion about who the best managers in the game are. Do they increase their team's chances of winning, or is it the players? Is it just good luck or do managers really have a significant impact on their teams. I am sure its a little bit of both, but I was trying to think of a way to measure the performance of a manager from a statistical perspective. I'm not sure if anyone has done this before but I think this would be an interesting idea if anyone could actually get a hold of the data needed.

I was thinking that you could take the projected records of the team from the beginging of the season, and compare them with what the final records were. I know there are quite a few things that would effect the projection and the final record (i.e. rookies playing well, players having career years, injuries) But over 162 I think if the teams record is better then it should have been at the begining of the season then the manager has done a good job with the team.

I would bet that this type of look would show that the managers everyone thinks to be the best would have the highest +/-. For example the Cardinals this year were projected to be somewhere in the 70s and won 86. Giving LaRussa a +10 or so for the season.

its a thought that I think has some merit, but I'm not sure exactly how to go about doing it. If anyone has any thoughts about this that would be great.

Thanks