Royals Confidence Index - September results

by NYRoyal on Sep 12, 2008 1:07 AM EDT Comment 25 comments

The last Royals Confidence Index (RCI)* for the 2008 season is a season low 4.64.

	Feb. 2008	Mar. 2008	May 2008	June 2008	Sept. 2008	Change
Royals Confidence Index	6.97	6.99	6.43	5.56	4.64	-20%
1. Team	6.9	6.9	6.3	4.7	3.6	-31%
2. Pitching	7.6	7.1	8.0	6.4	5.4	-19%
3. Hitting	5.4	5.6	3.7	3.5	2.7	-30%
4. Defense	7.4	7.1	6.9	6.1	3.6	-69%
5. Dayton Moore	8.1	8.3	7.8	7.2	6.4	-13%
6. Trey Hillman	7.1	7.6	5.8	5.2	4.1	-27%
7. Minor league system	5.7	5.8	5.6	5.8	6.4	9%
8. Future	7.9	7.9	7.8	6.6	6.1	-8%

A slow decline in most categories has turned into a steep drop off. Confidence is down across the board, except for the minor league system, undoubtedly because of a productive draft and the signings of Melville and Hosmer. The greatest variance was seen in our opinions of the Royals defense and the Royals future (standard deviation = 1.7). The most agreement was with regard to our feelings on the Royals hitting (SD = 1.0) and pitching (1.1).

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

A. Which positions do you think should be the Royals top three priorities for offseason acquisitions. (Please rank the top priority #1, the second #2 and the third #3).

Outfield 27 (35%)

Starting pitcher 24 (31%)

First base/Designated hitter 12 (16%)

Middle infield 7 (9%)

Catcher 4 (5%)

Relief pitcher 3 (4%)

Using MVP scoring (#1 – 3 pts, #2 – 2 pts, #3 – 1 pt)

Outfield 70 pts

Starting pitcher 39 pts

First base/Designated hitter 27 pts

Middle infield 11 pts

Relief pitcher 5 pts

Catcher 5 pts

B. How many plate appearances do you think Kila Kaaihue will have with the KC Royals in 2008?

Average = 17

C. How many plate appearances do you think Kaaihue will have with the KC Royals in 2009?

Average = 220

D. What is the percentage chance that Eric Hosmer’s contract gets voided? (0-100%)

Average = 7.4%

Well, that’s it for the RCI for the 2008 season. Starting with October, the RCI questions will be about the 2009 season.

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

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

cool

I would also be interested in the number of ppl who take the survey each time just to look at general interest

by ZeppelinDZ on Sep 12, 2008 10:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It actually followed the RCI pretty well

Slow drop off in the first half of the season, big drop off towards the end.

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

by NYRoyal on Sep 12, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

xBABIP question for Zeppelin

I should have asked when you were doing the threads, but I didn’t want to start a whole ’nother post just to ask a question about the formulas and their uses and push other posts down.

I was just messing with the formula [(0.73LD% + 0.24GB% + 0.15FB), I wanted to get a bit more “exact” than the quick LD +.12] earlier to look at some players, and certain players looked a lot “luckier” than I thought they would — even if their BABIP had been “lucky” for a few years in a row. For example, Curtis Granderson.

The problem is, I’m sure, my lack of knowledge re: the use of statisics, specifically what “doing a regression” really means. I think 0.59LD% + 0.30GB% + 0.17FB% was your regression formula, but I’m to stupid to know how to use it/incorporate it.

I guess I’m not asking for a bunch of theory (although I would find that interesting), but wondering if I could just get some basic instruction on how to use these formulas properly to gauge a players “true” performance. Or something.

Thanks.

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

by devil_fingers on Sep 12, 2008 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry -- if anyone else understands this stuff, feel free to fill me in with any helpful tips

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

by devil_fingers on Sep 12, 2008 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

regression is simply fitting a line/equation to a data series

those 2 equation should be the same. but they diverge because 1) the first is 2007 data only vs. 2002-2007 for the 2nd 2) without making it too complicated, the first is actual results whereas my regression is fitting a line to qualified batters only.

what I did is just average the two. with the exception of guys with extreme batted balls profiles, it shouldn’t effect things to much.
as for what is extreme, i would go with something like these for norms (1 Stdev from mean of my sample):

LD 16-22%
GB 40-56%
FB 24-40%

there are other things that matter which makes batter luck/defense factors harder to calculate than pitchers, but like most stats, its move about a better understanding than a perfect one.

by ZeppelinDZ on Sep 12, 2008 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

But (sorry), I guess I have a more basic question: how would I simply use each equation (together or separately) to figure out xBABIP more accurately? Or should I simply have a “go between” for each?

Also, did you mean 2008 and 2002-2008 (or 2002-2007?).

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

by devil_fingers on Sep 12, 2008 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the simplest way

take a reported babip value from someone like fangraphs (or any site that uses the info solutions data which is pretty much everybody) and their BB profile.

just go BAbip-(.66*LD+.27*GB+.16*FB%) and that should get u close enough to do some basic analysis. if you want to go further with it, let me know and I might be able to help on some more advanced stuff. my spreadsheet got a lot more advanced after those posts and i reflected on some of the comments. if you are looking at just a few names, I could easily get much more in depth.

by ZeppelinDZ on Sep 12, 2008 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

of course

a positive result is lucky; negative is unlucky on average.

by ZeppelinDZ on Sep 12, 2008 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for now

I’ll mess with it and ask you as I go along.

Well, I guess I do wonder about Granderson — a quick glance at LD% + .12 makes him look pretty lucky the last three years re: BABIP… Any thoughts?

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

by devil_fingers on Sep 12, 2008 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh, something i just thought about

using the equation, multiply all percentages by 100, a LD% of 20% should be entered as a 20, not .20

by ZeppelinDZ on Sep 12, 2008 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

actually, nevermind, it depends on how you handle the BABIP number in the first place

do it both ways one will obviously be right, i forget how i do it on my own sheets sometimes

by ZeppelinDZ on Sep 12, 2008 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

for granderson

i bet some luck plays into it.

i also would consider some park factors playing a roll there. both detroit and even some away games in chicago where 2008 PF are very hitter friendly likely inflates it a fair amount. he also gets an above average number of infield hits, which really isnt that big of a boost, but those small things can add up.

consider those things with the fact that his LD% is down this year and his past BABIP arent that unreasonable, and it becomes more reasonable that this is year is the aberration.

by ZeppelinDZ on Sep 12, 2008 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and no, i meant 2007

no 2008 stuff was used in creating the equations

by ZeppelinDZ on Sep 12, 2008 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Royals have a small bit of flexibility

Meaning they could get a 3B and move Gordon to the OF per Rany’s suggestion, or they could get a 2B and leave Aviles at short, or get a SS and move Callaspo to utility… We all know the options.

So having said that, priority #1 is a bat. Any bat. If it’s in the OF, great. Leave Gordon at 3rd, Aviles at short, Callaspo at 2nd.

If it’s in the infield, particularly the left side of the infield, even better, as it improves our defense too.

I think it would be narrow minded, however, to say “SS is our #1 priority” as it would be much more beneficial to get a solid bat in the OF than a wimpy bat at SS. Pat Burrell (not that we have a shot at him) is a hundred times better than Orlando Cabrera. So prioritizing by position is not as good an exercise as priortizing by player. If we want to have fun, we could prioritize by OPS.

Priority #1: An .850 OPS outfielder OR a .750 OPS shortstop IF (and only if) his defense is good.
Priority #2: an .800 OPS outfielder if you already locked up a .750 OPS shortstop OR a .700 OPS SS if you already locked up an .850 outfielder.
Priority #3: Starting pitcher

I follow the Tao of Steve (Balboni)

by jackie ballgame on Sep 12, 2008 1:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Flexibility

You are right about flexibility. There are really only four key returning hitters (Gordon, Butler, DeJesus, and Aviles), and they can move around to make room for new acquisitions (Gordon at 3B, 1B, or maybe OF, Butler at 1B or DH, DeJesus at CF, LF, or RF, Aviles at SS or 2B).

Adjusting for position and defense, Burrell is only worth something like 10 runs more than Cabrerra — Burrell is 15-25 runs better with the bat, but he gives back 10-20 runs on defense. Not that I would sign either one as a free agent considering what they will get.

by Gopherballs on Sep 12, 2008 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If the Royals sign Cabrera, I'm going to wear a black arm band for a year

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

by NYRoyal on Sep 12, 2008 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just think how the Royals official scorers will fell

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

by devil_fingers on Sep 12, 2008 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cabrera has "3-year deal from Toronto" written all over him

I thought about writing him up as another free agent landmine, but given the scarcity of players throughout baseball who can play a near major league average SS and hit almost as well as a major league average SS, he will be more of a free agent disappointment than landmine. Cabrera still has some value as a league average defender, but his bat has slipped below average even for a SS. He really has entered the period of his career where he would be fine as a year-to-year stopgap for teams that do not need production from SS, but I bet one of the less shrewd GMs gives him at least three years and $20 million.

by Gopherballs on Sep 12, 2008 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of FA middle infielders

Outside of team context and potential salaries, and position, GB and anyone else, who do you think is the better player (who would have the highest total value above league average going forward, perhaps): Orlando Hudson or Rafael Furcal?

While I think Furcal would be a better overall fit for KC because of the Royal’s particular positional needs and salary structure (I think Furcal would be cheaper), in the abstract I think O-Dog is maybe a bit better defensively and offensively. They both have some injury concerns, but Furcal’s seem a bit more pressing.

[Just for the record — I’d rather see the Royals put their money into a slugging Corner OF before a MI]

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

by devil_fingers on Sep 12, 2008 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My opinon

I say Furcal because of the nature of the positions they play. I think they are similar hitters and similar plus fielders. And that kind of hitting and fielding is worth more at SS than 2B.

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

by NYRoyal on Sep 12, 2008 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mark Ellis

Well maybe not Mark Ellis, but prior to his injury, he was in the conversation.

For the Royals, I would go with Furcal too, but just barely. His bat actually has been almost as good as Hudson over the last few years once you factor in park effects (which hurt Hudson). Furcal has been average to slightly above average with the glove in recent years (0 to +5 runs), while Hudson has been more like +10 to +15 until this year — both Dewan and RZR/OOZ have him way down this year, and I have not watched enough D-Backs games to tell you why. I would still put Hudson 5 runs or so ahead of Furcal defensively, but Hudson gives those right back for positional adjustment. But with the Royals flush with second basemen, Furcal makes more sense even if Hudson might be worth a few runs more than him per year. Historically, Furcal would be expected to cost more because while teams will pay a premium for a SS, they usually do not for 2B. But Furcal’s injury will probably scare more teams off, so I would expect Hudson to get the more lucrative deal as the safer choice.

by Gopherballs on Sep 12, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs