If they can find some way to prove that other than saying "he made a bad move here, here, and here," I'll give them a cookie. I think the onus in the debate of "managerial impact" is on the group that believes managers DO NOT have an impact. There have been have a lot of studies that have shown about a 5-6 game swing between bad/great managers. Now certainly we can debate on the degree of impact -- however I don't see how fans can get around the most base logic, that tells us -- Managing is a skill, generally speaking people have skills developed at different levels, therefore it is only logical that some managers are better/worse at this skill than others. Bottom line -- There is evidence, data and base logic that tells us managers have an impact, someone need to prove, or at least show some evidence, that managers do not have a tangible impact for this debate to continue. Impact Now, if we can accept that managers have an impact of 5-6 games, let's put a little depth to this concept. When Ryan Howard won the MVP, he gave his team 5-6 wins that an average 1b would not have (e.g. Ryan Jorgensen). Now, I think we can all imagine the impact Ryan Howard MVP year would have on a team that had an NL average 1b -- I also know we can imagine the amount of payroll those five wins would have cost us on the FA market. If we can get wins at the manager position -- those wins are probably going to be the cheapest wins a team can upgrade to. Injuries I think that every year there are a couple of teams that seemed blessed with good health, and a couple of teams that seem unfairly cursed with injuries. Overall though, every team is going to have some key players miss time due to injuries -- and a manager needs to be able to deal with these events as they happen and minimize subsequent losses. I understand giving a manager a pass if their whole pitching staff implodes with injuries, but generally managers should not be let off the hook for injuries -- unless they exceed the norm for the league. W/L & playoff expectations I don't like setting arbitrary benchmarks like "81 wins", or "making the playoffs" as a measuring stick for a manager -- A GM/owner should be able to look at the decisions the manager makes over the season and decide whether or not a manager got the most wins out of his talent. For example -- letting Mench bat against Dempster -- DM should have seen that, and IMO, realized that most managers that could fog a mirror would not have made that move, -- or of course the year-end pissing match Yost had with LaRussa (and the list goes on). If a manager gets 97 wins, but the GM thinks they should have gotten 102 based on the talent they had -- that manager should be fired. If a manager gets 78 wins on a team that should have gotten 70 that manager should be retained. All in all I think Ned's impish handling of the fans is what will do him in, Ned will have no slack in 2008, and if the Brewers start out slow for whatever reason -- that doesn't bode well for Nedgar. I thought Ned should have been fired after 2006, so I really hope this is his last shot.