You're still dodging the actual argument.
I mentioned his mediocre playing career as ONE part of an exceptionally thin résumé. You isolated that single point, rattled off a list of legendary managers, and declared it meaningless. Fine. Throw his playing career out entirely. What's left? A guy who's never managed a single game at any level. How does that strengthen the case for hiring him?
And saying "managers aren't particularly important" doesn't make it true. Managers make decisions about bullpen usage, substitutions, lineups, player accountability, and clubhouse leadership that directly affect wins and losses. If those decisions barely mattered, teams could save millions by letting the front office manage games remotely.
More importantly, if managers don't matter, why defend this particular hire at all? Why not hire someone with actual experience and reduce the uncertainty?
My argument is about risk, qualifications, and a front office with a questionable track record. Yours is that some great managers were mediocre players and managers don't matter anyway.
FWIW, I agree that roster talent and front-office decisions are important drivers of success. But you're taking that reasonable observation and stretching it into the absurd conclusion that managers barely matter. Research actually shows that MLB managers have measurable effects on winning and run prevention. Studies have also found a positive, albeit limited, relationship between managerial experience and performance, particularly in complex decision-making situations.
So no, experience doesn't guarantee success. But neither does inexperience make someone an exciting hire.
And that's my entire point about Kanzler. We're talking about an underperforming team that needs to win NOW, and the front office chose someone who has never managed a single game at any level over a candidate with demonstrated MLB managerial success.
Maybe Kanzler turns out to be brilliant. But what evidence suggests he's the better choice? You've spent two responses explaining why my concerns supposedly don't matter without offering a single reason Kanzler is actually qualified for the job. That's not a rebuttal. That's avoiding the question.
