By the way, that was a take-off on a Nigel Tufnel quote if you didn't know.
My friend Mike says that I oversold the sparce 70-and-over data. I just want to clarify: I don't think that the data prove anything especially since it's such a small sample size. I was just trying to evaluate the merits of Neyer's statement. I think it demonstrates, as he said, that their is no "historical precedent for a good manager in his middle 70s." It doesn't prove that one could not be successful, but it explains why or at least how teams would rather shy away from older candidates.
Also, you probably noticed that Cornelius McGillicuddy outlasted everyone even though his record wasn't very good. It causes more of a drag on the data as the groupings get older and smaller. Well, Mack, as you probably know, was in a special position: He owned the team. Managerial record did not really apply for him. Not many managers have such a luxury today (now that Pete Rose has been blackballed).