Eric, my point is that your methodology of arguing against "the players tuned out Wash" was to (a) twist that idea into a straw man of "the players tanked" - not the same concept - and then argue against the straw man, and (b) offer an argument that (no matter what you believe about the Rangers) is transparently wrong, the idea that attitudes can never change.

I agree that my criticism of your arguments doesn't prove or disprove the idea that the players "tuned out" Wash. But if you want to argue against the concept, all I'm saying is don't twist the argument into something different or use nonsense.

Is the idea that the players "tuned out" a subjective one? Sure. There's no way to read minds. I see what I saw, it regularly looked to me like a case of a team lacking focus and intensity and going through the motions, and my conclusion is that they tuned out Wash. That to me is the best explanation of what happened in 2012.

I also think your latest arguments against the concept are way too simplistic. Life is never as black and white as you are asserting here.

1 "If the Rangers' front office knew that the players sucked at the end of the year because they stopped believing in Wash, we would have a new manager in 2013. No question about it."

The idea that the front office ABSOLUTELY would have fired Wash if the players were tuning him out, is very overstated. While it's true that his return could have indicated they didn't think that had happened, it's also possible that they could have concluded what I did while deciding that a lesser consequence than firing him is preferable.

Instead of firing, they could have discussed changes with him (or mandated some) that they believe might fix the problem. Or they could have decided that the massive shakeup in players would be enough to do the trick. I think there's a loyalty factor at play, based on the fact that the team was successful under Wash in the past, combined that with the fact that the team got to a playoff game (in the general vicinity of what they aimed for).

Let's see what happens in 2013. I wouldn't be surprised if we see changes in approach by Wash, or a short leash.

2 "If you have players texting upper management in Boston to tell them they don't want to play for Bobby Valentine, then you would hear whispers of the same from Texas if they didn't want Wash anymore."

Again, way too absolute, in trying to turn "tuned out" into some sort of all-out mutiny like they had in Boston. No one has postulated there was a mutiny where players were saying "He has to go." My belief is that they simply decided they are smarter than him, so they don't believe that the quirky decision making will lead to positive results, as they once did.

Steal second or H/R, then Wash has a more flexible foundation.
It's not as simple as that, even. It's obviously a risk/reward move.
More factors involved over just moving the runner in scoring position.

There are 100 devotee's in here, that can expound on this subject.
Wash can play small ball. With said roster in 2013, he'll have to hone
that edge even more. I suspect we won't be leading MLB in runs scored
in 2013. Maybe even 1-2 runs less p/game than last years average, sigh.

I'm having a hard time seeing Maddux as the manager, if only because I can't imagine him getting into a heated argument with an umpire.

And you can imagine Wash getting into a heated argument? Its happened like twice in 5 years. IMO, you'd see Maddog heated more often than Wash if he were the manager. One guy I definitely wouldnt be worried about is Gary Pettis. I could see him going all lou pineilla alot.

Horse shit. It happens several times a year.

Pettis would be good, though, in terms of anticipated theatrics. I could see that too.