Serious question - when the Rangers started becoming real contenders - it seemed to me the biggest difference was a dramatic improvement in the pitching - when you've got pitchers getting their ERAs down into the 3s when you're playing in that hitter's paradise of a stadium, you're doing something right.

So who is really responsible for the improvement? Is it Ryan's influence, the pitching coach, or some combination of improved luck/BABIP or something like that?

A big factor is they improved their defense. Moving Michael Young off SS and replacing him with Elvis Andrus was probably worth 3 wins, even taking into account the offensive differences between them. Putting Adrian Beltre at 3rd sure didn't hurt. Kinsler has generally been an above average defender for most of his career. The beefed up IF defense has probably done a lot of good for their pitchers; historically Texas coupled their hitter's park with atrocious defenders.

The beefed up IF defense

Indeed, and outfield too, though it's started to regress of late. There were a lot of strange characters roaming the Ranger outfield in the mid-00s: Jerry Hairston, Frank Catalanotto, Mark DeRosa, basically infielders who seemed to have no speed or range or frankly, any idea what they were doing. I mean, they didn't even throw well, they were all second basemen.

By 2010 there were quite a few days when their outfield was Hamilton, Borbon, and Murphy, and at that point in their lives they were all fast centerfielders. Even Nelson Cruz could move around a little a few years ago. Murphy-Hamilton-Cruz inspired no confidence in 2012, but for awhile there that was an excellent outfield.

Young moved from SS to 3B to make way for Andrus in 2009. That might have been worth 20-30 runs. And then he moved from 3B to DH in 2011 to make way for Beltre, another 15-20 runs. So, contrary to Williams' claim, their handling of Young probably played a key role in the teams' success. (Not to mention the fact that Williams seems to be saying that Daniels should be blamed for anything he thinks was bad (the treatment of Young), and that Ryan should get credit for everything that was good.)

I don’t think I’m going to get to many people calling me to do their taxes or represent them in court.

I might call you up to serve taters in Toronto...

What's taters, precious? What's taters?

If mitch is using the fact the ryan was a great player and thatade them great then they are just fine sonce greg maddux (much better pitcher they ryan) is working with the team. Credit his brother for that one

Sandy Alderson never played pro ball.

Does defecating on his credibility as the sellout I mean GM for the Mets hurt his case the way Andre Dawson's last four seasons hurt his?

As noted, we don't have clear evidence that Ryan can evaluate talent. Just as relevantly, it's not generally the team president's job to evaluate or even acquire talent -- that's the job of the GM and his underlings. Now, I'll be honest, I'm not real clear on who the president of baseball operations is president of other than the GM (one direct report?) but, in general, if the president was involving himself heavily in talent decisions then there's always going to be a power struggle ... and it's also not clear why this would be considered the GM's fault. Now some teams, maybe the Cubs, might be set up such that the president is the de facto GM ... and presumably the president is the first one with a yes/no say over a GM's recommendations.

I wonder if we're shifting to where the president of baseball ops will have several direct reports with maybe an ML "GM" and a mL "GM" and a draft "GM" -- i.e. some split into product, development and acquisition. O'Dowd sharing power could be a move in this direction (or it's O'Dowd being pushed aside).

John Wooden? UCLA? Basketball HOF as a player as well?