Kim Ng - First Woman to be Hired as GM in Baseball History

[Vanimal46]

 

Monumental hire by the Marlins. Congrats to them and good luck to HER!

[Mike Sixel]

I believe their COO is also a woman. Congrats to them both.

[Thegrin]

If she can do the job, so what if she's a woman. Its not fair to her that people are making a big deal about her sex.  Thats as dumb as making a big deal about someone's race.

[terrydactyls]

A first of any kind is always a "big deal". Your comment sounds more like you don't like the idea of a woman in charge.

[adjacent]

 

If she can do the job, so what if she's a woman. Its not fair to her that people are making a big deal about her sex.  Thats as dumb as making a big deal about someone's race.

In an ideal world, like race, it shouldn't be a big deal. In the real world, where women are usually discriminated against in this kind of job, it is.

[Squirrel]

 

If she can do the job, so what if she's a woman. Its not fair to her that people are making a big deal about her sex.  Thats as dumb as making a big deal about someone's race.

It's not 'dumb' to make a big deal out of it because it IS a big deal. She is the first woman ever to hold that position, and, it was a long time coming. She is eminently qualified and has been passed over FOR YEARS. Inequities in the job market for women and minorities is real, whether or not you choose to acknowledge that, and it is a big deal when someone breaks down a barrier, because they've probably had to work harder and be better than their competition just to get in the door. And it should be lauded and celebrated, and attention should be drawn to it. imo. What wouldn't be a big deal if yet another white, male was hired for the job.

[nicksaviking]

Great news. Seemed like she was going to get a shot at this a decade ago. This was a long time coming.

[Cap'n Piranha]

If she makes astute signings and trades, this was a good move.  If she does not, this was a bad move.  That is all I, or anyone else anxious to move into a more equitable world, should care about.

[nicksaviking]

 

If she makes astute signings and trades, this was a good move.  If she does not, this was a bad move.  That is all I, or anyone else anxious to move into a more equitable world, should care about.

 

Disagree. Strongly. She's more than qualified. I care about a more equitable world and this is a good move even if she doesn't pan out. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Disagree. Strongly. She's more than qualified. I care about a more equitable world and this is a good move even if she doesn't pan out. 

 

No where did I say she's not qualified--I said she should be judged by the same criteria as every other GM.  You also can't be in favor of hiring someone based on immutable characteristics, and equity.  Equity means people get treated the same despite any immutable characteristics.  Saying it was a good idea to hire a woman simply because she's a woman is sexist, and quite frankly, demeaning to women.  It implies that you think women need men's help in order to be equal to men.  I think (outside of some physical activities), women can do anything men can do, and as such, do not need special treatment or favors.  Anyone who does need special treatment in order to achieve an equal outcome is, by definition, not equal.

[Squirrel]

 

No where did I say she's not qualified--I said she should be judged by the same criteria as every other GM.  You also can't be in favor of hiring someone based on immutable characteristics, and equity.  Equity means people get treated the same despite any immutable characteristics.  Saying it was a good idea to hire a woman simply because she's a woman is sexist, and quite frankly, demeaning to women.  It implies that you think women need men's help in order to be equal to men.  I think (outside of some physical activities), women can do anything men can do, and as such, do not need special treatment or favors.  Anyone who does need special treatment in order to achieve an equal outcome is, by definition, not equal.

NO ONE, not one person, said she should have been hired BECAUSE she was a woman. And she was not hired because she is a woman ... so just stop with that line, because no one is saying it. She has been in the running for a GM job for a decade, because she is that qualified. She was hired because she is that qualified. But it IS a big deal because she is the first woman to occupy the job. And, for the record, there is a disparity in the job market for women and minorities, and it has nothing to do with qualifications but is completely about 'immutable characteristics'. She has broken a barrier, and that should be noted. Should we not honor Jackie Robinson then, too? She has been qualified for this job and in the market for a GM job for a decade, and has finally been hired because of those qualities, and yes, she should be judged by the job she does. However, she is the first woman in that role, and that is important. Maybe not to you, but it is important.

 

And yes, it would be great if everyone was blind to the 'immutable characteristics' for equality to exist, and yes, I hope that's the goal for everyone. But, sadly, we are a million miles away from that. In a perfect world ...

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

NO ONE, not one person, said she should have been hired BECAUSE she was a woman. And she was not hired because she is a woman ... so just stop with that line, because no one is saying it. She has been in the running for a GM job for a decade, because she is that qualified. She was hired because she is that qualified. But it IS a big deal because she is the first woman to occupy the job. And, for the record, there is a disparity in the job market for women and minorities, and it has nothing to do with qualifications but is completely about 'immutable characteristics'. She has broken a barrier, and that should be noted. Should we not honor Jackie Robinson then, too? She has been qualified for this job and in the market for a GM job for a decade, and has finally been hired because of those qualities, and yes, she should be judged by the job she does. However, she is the first woman in that role, and that is important. Maybe not to you, but it is important.

 

And yes, it would be great if everyone was blind to the 'immutable characteristics' for equality to exist, and yes, I hope that's the goal for everyone. But, sadly, we are a million miles away from that. In a perfect world ...

 

I have to take issue with your assertion that no one said she should be hired because she was a woman.  Just 3 posts up, nicksaviking said "this is a good move even if she doesn't pan out."  Can you tell me with a straight face nick would have said that (changing she to he in the quote) if Miami had hired a man?  The answer is obviously no, meaning nick thinks its good she was hired because she's a woman.  In all likelihood, the next Vice President of the United States will assume that role based solely on the fact that she's a woman--since Joe Biden openly declared he would choose a woman as his running mate.

 

There are clearly people in this world, some of them extremely important and influential, who do not mind picking people for important and influential positions based on the fact that the person being selected is a woman.  By the way, this doesn't mean the woman being selected isn't the best and most qualified candidate; it simply means that it is less likely the best and most qualified person will be selected, since just under half of the population has been ruled out with not even a cursory glance.

 

Jackie Robinson is also not a good comparison to Kim Ng.  When Jackie Robinson first stepped foot on a diamond, there were multiple states in the country where segregation was legal.  I am not aware of any state in 2020 that has laws allowing separate and sub-standard treatment for women.  Jackie Robinson was, by legal statute in many places, and actual second-class citizen.  Kim Ng is, in no place (at least no place in the Western World), and actual second-class citizen.

 

In the case of Kim Ng, I had never heard her name, or had any idea who she was until this news was announced.  I assumed, prima facie, that she is perfectly qualified for this position.  I also assumed, and still assume, that the Marlins hired her because after conducting their search, she was the most qualified person they spoke with.  If that's not the case, and the fact that she's a woman played any role, no matter how small, in her hiring, then the Marlins are being just as sexist as if they hired a man over her because he's a man.

 

I'm glad we can agree on a desire for a world that cares as little about skin color and biological sex in terms of hiring as it cares about eye color and foot size--that is to say, not at all.  The problem is not when we acknowledge that we are not there yet as a society.  The problem is when we as individuals don't act the way we want the world to be because not everyone in society does.  The longer we insist immutable characteristics are important, the longer immutable characteristics will continue to be important.

 

If we as individuals truly yearn for a society in which immutable characteristics no longer matter, than we should act that way, and encourage others to do the same.  As Gandhi said, "Be the Change you wish to See in the World".

[ashbury]

I see no harm in celebrating a significant "First". And I see plenty of benefit.

[shortround81]

 

If she can do the job, so what if she's a woman. Its not fair to her that people are making a big deal about her sex.  Thats as dumb as making a big deal about someone's race.

 

Unfair to whom? 

 

I can tell you as an Asian-American woman this is a very big deal!

[ashbury]

If she can do the job, so what if she's a woman. Its not fair to her that people are making a big deal about her sex.  Thats as dumb as making a big deal about someone's race.

 

Unfair to whom? 

 

I can tell you as an Asian-American woman this is a very big deal!

 

[Craig Arko]

There is another usage of the three-letter acronym 'ERA' that might be applicable here. Just maybe.

[terrydactyls]

No one page attention to ERA any more. It's all about advanced metrics. (Insert smiley face so Piranha knows this is a satirical post.)

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

No one page attention to ERA any more. It's all about advanced metrics. (Insert smiley face so Piranha knows this is a satirical post.)

 

Now this is funny!

[old nurse]

When I got started in my profession there was about 5% males. It is now somewhere around 9%.  There are still plenty in the field that do not like men being in their profession. A boy in the girl’s club was a big deal. It took a long time for it not to be.  Now a woman in the boy’s club, It will take a while for that not to be a big deal. If you have been on the other side of the equation it is easy to understand

   I always like the most qualified candidate arguments.  A person who did not play pro baseball, had 3 years as an intern and about 7 years of front office work is qualified to be a GM? Not everyone is an Epstein.  Neil Huntington was considered a great GM when the Pirates had a couple good seasons. I don’t think he is that highly thought of now.  It is hard to determine qualifications. Bill Smith had a lot of experience in a shoestring organization. The Peter principle was in effect there. You don’t know. 

[ashbury]

   I always like the most qualified candidate arguments.  .... It is hard to determine qualifications.

It probably wouldn't be hard to reel off half a dozen major qualifications for being a GM. A GM needs good public relations skills; a grasp of analytics; an ability to be decisive; strong negotiating skills; strong organizational/people skills. There, that's 6 right there and I'm sure another 6 are low-hanging fruit as well, plus another dozen or two of lesser importance.

 

And it's not as if stellar abilities in one area will necessarily hide deficiencies in another - each of these categories is a potential career-killer. OTOH, it would be a rare candidate who didn't have a deficiency or two that will need to be managed. Two great candidates could have very different profiles.

 

So, even if we could determine qualifications from our outsider vantage points, the bottom line is that "most qualified candidate" is way more linear and analytic than even this linear-and-analytic writer is willing to be limited to. There can be more than one right answer to the question of whom to hire.

 

Was Ng the most qualified candidate, or even the right choice? The question is for me a giant red herring, relative to the post that kicked off this thread. Congratulations and good luck to the new hire, that's the farthest down this tangent I would want to go.

[Trov]

Congrats to her.  The most important thing to remember is even if she is not amazing at the job, does not mean the next woman will not be.  Every candidate is their own person.  I hope her great success at the job to help keep the door open for the other women to follow, because for some reason people like to think how she does will reflect on all women in baseball. 

[old nurse]

 

It probably wouldn't be hard to reel off half a dozen major qualifications for being a GM. 

There is only one qualification that you have to be a GM.  All the qualities you mentioned are probably there for these candidates. Probably. There is one qualification that you missed. In the end wins count more than anything. Terry Ryan would still be running the Twins except for the lack of winning. 2015 or so Dayton Moore was considered good in many of theGM articles, now not so much. Beane, Friedman and Cashman have built sustained winners. The guy with the Cards, too Not many others have. When the teams they built begin to lose, the GM is gone. The smart ones leave as the team starts to fade without the pipeline working. 

Good luck to Ng. Hill appears to have developed the pitching staff, as fickle as that can be. That gives her a start. A winning team might be the unfair determinant of talent as a GM. Anywhere but Florida winning brings fans. Fans bring cash to the owner.  That bottom line always wins.