Royals Confidence Index - December Results

by NYRoyal on Dec 6, 2008 5:30 PM EST Comment 43 comments

The first Royals Confidence Index (RCI)* for the 2009 season is 6.42.

	Sept. 2008	Dec. 2008	Change
Royals Confidence Index	4.64	6.42	28%
1. Team	3.6	6.3	43%
2. Pitching	5.4	6.9	22%
3. Hitting	2.7	5.3	49%
4. Defense	3.6	5.6	36%
5. Dayton Moore	6.4	7.1	10%
6. Trey Hillman	4.1	5.7	28%
7. Minor league system	6.4	7.0	9%
8. Future	6.1	7.7	21%

With a new season, hope springs eternal. Confidence is up across the board, especially with regard to the hitting (which had really cratered by early September when the last RCI was taken) and defense. Confidence in the team doing better next year makes sense. On paper, the 2009 team should be better, due to additions (like Crisp), subtractions (like significant playing time from TPJ and Gload) and the continued development of young players (like Gordon and Butler). On the other hand, a significant spike in the confidence in Trey Hillman doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Is he really going to get much better?

The greatest variance in opinion was seen in our opinions of the Royals defense and the Royals manager (standard deviations = 1.6). The most agreement was with regard to our feelings on the Royals pitching (SD = 0.8) and the team overall (1.0).

Bonus questions (these have no bearing on the RCI):

A. Considering everything, how would you rate the Jacobs-Nunez trade on a 1-10 scale?

Average = 5.5

B. Considering everything, how would you rate the Crisp-Ramirez trade on a 1-10 scale?

Average = 6.6

C. Do you think the following players will be traded by July 31, 2009?

1. Teahen Yes 58%, No 42%

2. DeJesus Yes 9%, No 91%

3. Butler Yes 5%, No 95%

4. Greinke Yes 16%, No 84%

5. Others

Buck 17 votes

Guillen 14

Mahay 14

Gload 10

Shealy 6

German 5

Bannister 4

Gathright 4

Callaspo 2

Ka’aihue 2

Peralta 2

Hochevar 1

Jacobs 1

Meche 1

Olivo 1

Rosa 1

Yabuta 1

D. How many games will the following players play for the Royals in 2009?

1. Grudzielanek 2.0 (average) – only one respondent said more than zero

2. Gload 35.3 – 39% of respondents said zero

3. Shealy 61.4

4. Ka’aihue 34.6

E. Do you think the Royals will make any trades during the winter meetings next week?

Yes 89%

No 11%

F. Do you think the Royals will acquire any player in the Rule 5 Draft on Dec. 11?

Yes 86%

No 14%

G. What is your best estimate of how many games the Royals will win in 2009?

Average = 80.9

Apparently Teahen goes, along with perhaps Buck, Guillen and Mahay. Even though, or perhaps because Moore has been active already, we expect a lot more action. Sounds good. I hope he makes the right moves. Almost no one expects Grudz back. We’ll get our answer on whether he’s accepted arbitration very soon. We’re all pretty wishy-washy on the playing time of Gload, Shealy and Kila, and with good reason. Who knows what’s going to happen. And so far, we think the Royals will be about a .500 team. Seems fair to me.

Hopefully the RCI will be back in January, and we’ll have a lot of new moves which may or may not change our opinion of the 2009 team.

* Without going into too much detail, the RCI is computed by taking each of the above averages, weighting them appropriately (the team number is weighted highest, then piching and hitting, then the rest) and crunching them into an overall average.

4 recs | Comment 43 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

A Whopping 170%

Of respondents said the Royals will acquire a Rule 5 player……..or not. Which is the typo?

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 6, 2008 9:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Blast you and your perfectionism!

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 6, 2008 10:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

pretty fascinating

I guess the positive vibes from the hot close and the general hope with the new season coming are enough to overcome the much maligned jacobs trade

or maybe its all coco

considering that we’ve lost two pitchers, the pretty large bump in the opinion of the pitching staff is especially interesting

by royalsreview on Dec 6, 2008 9:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

it's Yabuta time

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 6, 2008 10:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Davies' HR rate cannot regress until April

by Gopherballs on Dec 7, 2008 1:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

regress???

Davies will win the Cy Young next year. He just needs to pitch every game like his last three.
What could possibly go wrong?

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Dec 7, 2008 2:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My Confidence In

The pitching staff is a reflection of my belief in Moore’s ability to find pitching both on the FA market and on the waiver wires. He’s had his misses, but he has an at least acceptable success rate.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 7, 2008 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point

I have faith that the bullpen will be at least good in 2009.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 7, 2008 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it can be good,

I just think it’s a long shot (not impossible, of course) to be as good as 2008. For me, a lot of it depends on what role and how healthy Rosa is. I’m sure there will be waiver pickups and cheap free agents, too, naturally… still, a bird in the hand…

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 7, 2008 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I think it is unlikely to be as good as 2008

….but still good. Of course, relievers are volatile, so a couple unexpected down years from key players could make the bullpen turn ugly. I just think the most likely outcome is a good bullpen. I like the guys they have right now to make for a decent pen. Add some of Moore’s usual additions and you have another good pen.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 7, 2008 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

so you're saying there's a chance Yabuta won't have a sub-3 tRA?

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 7, 2008 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I hope he won't be needed in the 2009 bullpen

But maybe he’d finally figure something out if he is.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 7, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I Worry About

Mahay because of age and shaky performance at the end of last year. That type of foot injury could well be chronic, especially at his age.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 7, 2008 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

double solution

Let Yabuta’s personal massuse work on Mahay’s foot

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 7, 2008 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I don't think he'll be lights out in 2009

And he really wasn’t in 2008. I think he will, again, be competent. I hope Bale is tendered and comes through with a decent season in relief.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 7, 2008 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And then there's the rotation

Let’s compare 2008 rotation slots to what I expect in 2009

Rotation slot – 2008 – 2009

- Greinke – Same
- Meche – Same
- Hochevar – Better
- Bannister – Better
- Davies/Tomko/Duckworth – A full season of Davies = Better

Now, Davies could implode. Bannister could fall off the face of the earth. Hochevar could fail to develop. but I think my above predictions are more likely. And Greinke/Meche could go down with an injury. There is downside potential. But I think the rotation should be better overall. Combine a rotation improvement with a smallish step back from the bullpen, and I think the 2009 pitching staff is at least as good overall as 2008.

One more thing about the bullpen. The 1-4 spots in the bullpen were very, good. But Nunez wasn’t playing much of the time, which left them with only 3 good relievers a lot of the time. For most of the season, the 5-7 (and sometimes 4-7) spots in the bullpen were awful. So it wasn’t like the Royals bullpen was decent top to bottom in 2008. My point here is that while I think that a couple of the 2, 3, 4 spots in the bullpen will be worse in 2008, the 5-7 spots should be better (by the law of averages and regression to the mean, if nothing else).

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 7, 2008 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

by I need more Esteban on Dec 7, 2008 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A Greinke Trade

Would change the moundscape drastically.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 7, 2008 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Indeed

…and likely throw the 2009 season in the tank, but hopefully help in the future.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 7, 2008 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2009 Is On

The edge of the tank with Greinke. Trade him for immediate help and it probably moves us no further from the edge, so yeah, if he’s traded it must be for young talent that’s almost MLB ready. Either approach has inherent risks, but I much prefer the young talent approach. I hope GMDM can identify young position player talent as well as pitching. We should get both if we deal Greinke.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 7, 2008 8:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I like the idea of trading Greinke this offseason (of course I like the alternative of signing to a long-term deal as well). Such a trade would likely give us prospects one or two of which would be ready to perform at a high level in 2011. And while I think the Royals might contend in 2010, I think the most likely season for the Royals to actually get to the playoffs (with or without Greinke) is 2011 or 2012.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 7, 2008 9:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think a lot of the bumps are about the optimism that comes in the offseason

When you haven’t lost a game yet, all things are possible.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 6, 2008 10:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it is because of one thing and one thing only

The easter bunny will arrive prior to the next season and put us back at 500, 0-0. And since we are not 15 games out of first, we have a better chance of winning. Even though we won’t.

I caught some slack for having “low” scores when i filled out my RCI. That makes no sense to me, as my scores were just slightly higher than my scores in sept. If anything my modestly higher scores make more sense than those of you who boosted confidence and what not by 50 to 100 percent.

Yes the Royals might be slightly better next year. I disagree with the great expectations of butler and gordon, and am skeptical of being able to rebuild the bullpen overnight, but I’ll accept the slightly better angle.

The problem is the other teams in the division. Cleveland will be much better, as will the biggest disappointment in recent memory, detriot. The twins have shown that they seem to always be around the lead, and the white sox i expect to be slightly worse, but who knows.

Due to the other teams, even if the royals have a good season, they will still be like Oklahoma state and finish fourth in their own divisions due to circumstances.

At least Wally Joyner's not on the team....

by tcon125 on Dec 8, 2008 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I caught some slack for having "low" scores when i filled out my RCI. That makes no sense to me,

What makes no sense is your RCI scores. You are entitled to your opinion but it eschews logic and rational thought. You think the Royals will be slightly better next year and yet you predict them to win two games fewer? Their second order wins for 2008 (which is a better luck-neutral measure than a simple Pythag.) was just under 75 wins. So if the Royals are only a little better, then they should be more like 76 or 77.

Yes it is a good division. Cleveland will be much better. Detroit will probably perform somewhat better. The Twins will be about the same and the Chisox will be significantly worse. At the same time, the Royals offense, defense and rotation should be better. 73 wins? Did you really think about that?

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 8, 2008 7:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm going to predict everyone in the AL Central to go 81-81

that way at least I’ll beat Buster Olney

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 8, 2008 9:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

just under 75

and i bet the worse bullpen blows some of the games that we would have previously won. Does the Pythag consider we lost our bullpen or just assume our team is the same?

The division being better was a big decision factor for me too. Just because you are better doesnt always translate to wins, wins will always be reletive to competition.

At least Wally Joyner's not on the team....

by tcon125 on Dec 8, 2008 11:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

my title should read...73 is just under 75

i bet the royals do slightly worse than their predicted wins based on runs scored/runs allowed differential this year, so predicting them to win slightly fewer games than their prediction makes sense to me.

We actually should have lost more games when looking strictly at runs allowed/scored in 2008 than in 2007, but we gained 6 wins.

Were we lucky in 2008, or unlucky in 2007. I’m not sure, but i’m sure you know (Ny royal) which was closer years expected wins was closer to its true result, but I can’t find it. Where can you find this?

At least Wally Joyner's not on the team....

by tcon125 on Dec 8, 2008 11:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and i bet the worse bullpen blows some of the games that we would have previously won. Does the Pythag consider we lost our bullpen or just assume our team is the same?

The Royals Pythag. record for 2008 is just an attempt at creating a luck-neutral record for the team based on Runs Scored and Runs Allowed. Looking forward at the moment, I think the Royals offense should be better, the rotation should be better and the bullpen should be worse.

We actually should have lost more games when looking strictly at runs allowed/scored in 2008 than in 2007, but we gained 6 wins.

As I mentioned above, there is a more complicated and precise measure for luck-neutral records called the “Second Order Wins”. And that had the Royals at something like 74.6 wins. So essentially the Royals actual win total was at their luck-neutral level. They were genuinely a 75-win team in 2008.

i bet the royals do slightly worse than their predicted wins based on runs scored/runs allowed differential this year, so predicting them to win slightly fewer games than their prediction makes sense to me.

When a team underperforms their RS/RA, it is essentially about luck. So why is it that you expect the Royals to have bad luck next year?

Also, you think the Royals will have difficulty winning more games because the division will be so much better next year. It was good in 2008. It will be similarly good in 2009. The Indians were pretty good this year. Both their Pythag record and their Second Order Wins show that. They might be better in 2009, but not by a lot (probably enough to get them to 88-91 wins). Detroit should be better, but not by a lot. That team has serious problems involving the age/decline of key players and significant pitching woes. There’s little reason to believe the Twins will be better. There is every reason to believe the Chisox will be worse. And NO team in the division is likely to make significant additions in the offseason, although that could change. I think you are way off base about the Royals and the AL Central. But the good news is that the Royals 2009 season should be a pleasant surprise to you.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 9, 2008 1:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Great job, NY

it’s a lot more work on your end than it looks like tabulating those ballots manually — seriously…

I don’t get the spike in confidence in the pitching staff. I think they’re good, but I’m not sure why people think they’re better now than in September, especially since the two best middle relievers got traded.

Do you keep track of numbers of ballots cast from vote to vote? That would be interesting on a number of levels.

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 6, 2008 10:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

it’s a lot more work on your end than it looks like tabulating those ballots manually — seriously…

Not really. I just have my upstairs maid do it. She’s a whiz with spreadsheets. (that’s at least a double entendre, maybe triple)

I don’t get the spike in confidence in the pitching staff.

As I said above, I think a significant portion of the increases across the board is about offseason optimism. The numbers on Hillman give that away. And the September number was supposed to be about how people felt about the 2008 season as a whole (what had happened and what was going to happen for the rest of the season). And it was taken in early September, most before the spectacular month of winning happened.

Do you keep track of numbers of ballots cast from vote to vote? That would be interesting on a number of levels.

Feb – 45
Mar – 25
May – 27
June – 36
Sept – 31
Dec – 44

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 6, 2008 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

we need reliability scores!

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 6, 2008 10:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My upstairs maid doesn’t do reliability scores. :(

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 6, 2008 10:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pitching bump

I think there might actually be good reason to bump up the confidence in the pitching staff despite losing Ramirez and Nunez. Coming out of August, the Royals were losing every game, and the rotation looked like utter crap behind Greinke and Meche. Bannister had been terrible all year, Hochevar was being replaced with Duckworth due to injury, and Davies looked like a lost cause. Now, Hoch is back and Duckworth is in Omaha, Davies looks like he could maybe have legit #3 upside, and we expect Banny to regress to somewhere between 2007 and 2008. That’s 3/5 rotation spots that look significantly better today than they did at the start of September.

by kcdc1 on Dec 7, 2008 12:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

quick question,

I saw someone say that someone giving a team a 3 or something in hititng was dumb, because no one is as bad as a three.

So that made me wonder what the numbers really meant. Do they mean that 5 is the average as in the hitters on the team batted/scored/whatever the league average? Or does it mean that they were in the 50th percentile or so. That doesnt make a difference at the average but it does make a difference for the other numbers.

For example lets say the royals hitters were 10% less productive than the average. If we looked at percentages they would be a 4. But if we looked at percentile they could be anywhere. For example they might be the worst hitting team in the league and all the other teams were higher than 10% less productive, and therefore they deserve a 1.

The person who chose the 3 might have just believed that 2/3 of the teams have better hitters than the royals. If this was the thought process, the 3 makes better sense.

If we did everything by averages pretty much all numbers outside of 4-6 would make no sense.

At least Wally Joyner's not on the team....

by tcon125 on Dec 8, 2008 11:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Can't speak for everyone else

but I took the numbers as a measure of our subjective “feeling” about it — I understand the RCI (and this may or may not be what NYRoyal intends) as a gauge of the fanbase’s feelings about the Royals, not so much about the Royals themselves.

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 8, 2008 11:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that makes sense

we’ll view it like a teacher evaluation.

At least Wally Joyner's not on the team....

by tcon125 on Dec 8, 2008 11:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

A few general notes

- I’m surprised the Crisp trade ranked as high as it did. I think devil_fingers has helped faciliate the emphasis on defense here at RR, recently. I’m less of a defensive stalwart. The offensive game still heavily outweighs the defensive game in baseball, IMO.

- Gload sits at 35 games played, roughly, for the Royals on average in ’09. sigh Not that I think that prediction is too high or low, but it speaks volumes that he is now sixth, apparently, on our first base depth chart – behind Kaaihue, Shealy, Teahen, Butler, and Jacobs….well, you get the idea.

- I think the 6.9 average is pretty founded, actually. I’m optimistic about our starting pitching staff, next season.

- Hope always springs eternal, in the offseason.

The Nation at large.

by Royals Nation on Dec 9, 2008 2:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I’m less of a defensive stalwart. The offensive game still heavily outweighs the defensive game in baseball, IMO.

For all intents and purposes, a run saved is of the same value as a run scored. Any serious evaluation of any position player has to take into account how many runs the player will help score and how many he’ll help save.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 9, 2008 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Obviously

However, there are many, many more chances to add runs than prevent them.

The Nation at large.

by Royals Nation on Dec 9, 2008 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right

but that’s why you have to have a baseline other than absolute zero — e.g., replacement level and league-average

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 9, 2008 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And, it costs a lot more to add runs than to prevent them

And that is important for a small market team.

This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

by NYRoyal on Dec 9, 2008 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Credit should really go to Gopherballs and others

I’m always a follower, just a more verbose one.

I think Crisp looks like an average player, all things considered. From a pure performance move, this trade looks like a good one for the Royals, although when salaries are figured, it’s less clear. A lot of things have to shake out in the offseason (and of course, next season has to be played) yet..

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 9, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs