Royals Confidence Index - April Results

by Scott McKinney on Apr 16, 2009 5:08 AM EDT

The final preseason Royals Confidence Index has been computed. The RCI for April 2009 is 6.34.

	Dec 2008	Feb 2009	April 2009	Change
Royals Confidence Index	6.42	6.54	6.34	-3.2%
1. Team	6.3	6.4	6.3	-1.6%
2. Pitching	6.9	7.3	6.8	-7.4%
3. Hitting	5.3	5.4	5.9	8.5%
4. Defense	5.6	5.8	5.2	-11.5%
5. Dayton Moore	7.1	6.6	5.9	-11.9%
6. Trey Hillman	5.7	5.8	5.5	-5.5%
7. Minors	7.0	7.3	7.1	-2.8%
8. Future	7.7	7.8	7.7	-1.3%

So the numbers are a bit down, which I think has a lot to do with the roster and role decisions for Ponson, Ramirez and TPJ, which all happened in the last week before the season started, at the same time the RCI votes came in. Given those roster and pitching rotation decision, the numbers for pitching, DM and TH are all down. Defense took a significant hit, which I guess has to do with Teahen at second base. Overall, the fanbase felt somewhat optimistic but trepidatious going into the season.

Bonus questions and Big Prediction Contest averages below the fold...

A. Considering everything, how would you rate the free agent signing of Juan Cruz on a 1-10 scale?

Average = 8.3

B. Which of the following best reflects your feeling about Tony Pena, Jr.'s inclusion on the opening day 25-man roster?

1. I'm very happy about it. 0%

2. I'm somewhat happy about it. 0%

3. I don't care either way. 8%

4. It sucks but it's impact on the team will be minor. 72%

5. It sucks and it's impact on the team will be major. 20%

C. Which of the following best describes what you think will happen with the Mark Teahen second base experiment?

1. He'll fail pretty quickly and go back to being a 4-corner player only. 0%

2. He won't entirely embarrass himself, but he'll prove he's not good enough at the position for more than occasional spot starts and backup duty. 20%

3. He'll be decent enough to share the position in some kind of platoon or rotation with Callaspo and/or Bloomquist. 50%

4. He'll be good enough to get the vast majority of starts at second base, essentially becoming a nearly full-time starting second baseman. 30%

D. How many major league starts will each of the following pitchers make with the KC Royals in 2009?

Sidney Ponson 8

Horacio Ramirez 8

Luke Hochevar 22

Brian Bannister 13

Brandon Duckworth 3

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

Average = 79.5

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big Prediction Contest

Record - 81.6

Division finish - 2.8

Runs scored - 759

Runs allowed - 753

Batting average - .271

OPS - .739

HR - 147

ERA - 4.43

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

FIRST

"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"

Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split

by DCRoyals on Apr 16, 2009 9:53 AM EDT reply actions

big thanks for compiling all of this information

i am surprised at the downward trend for DM’s approval rating. Not that he doesn’t deserve somewhat of a hit for the Farnsworth signing (and others, possibly) but I just think it’s a little ironic that the minor league and future numbers are so high and holding somewhat steady, but his rating has declined.

I hereby resign from this post.

by Home Run Tony Cogan on Apr 16, 2009 10:38 AM EDT reply actions

but I just think it’s a little ironic that the minor league and future numbers are so high and holding somewhat steady, but his rating has declined.

The minor leagues (and therefore, to a significant extent the Royals future) is the big thing that Dayton Moore appears to be good at, so it makes sense that those numbers are fairly high and there’s no reason at this point for at least the number for the minors to go down. But events both this offseason and in recent weeks do not shine a positive light on Dayton Moore. In addition to some very bad FA signings, it sure looks like he made some poor decisions with regard to the 25-man roster. I think Moore’s rapidly declining numbers in the RCI are well earned.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 16, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions

I love this boards consistancy

Poll A: How many games do the Royals win-79.5
Poll B: How many games do the Royals win-81.6

WTF?

I refuse to set up a signature....DAMMIT

by RoyalPug on Apr 16, 2009 11:15 AM EDT reply actions

Well, for example, I didn't particpate in Poll B

And I gave a pretty low number for Poll A. I know I’m just one person, but I’m sure different people answered different polls.

Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!

by mazoboom on Apr 16, 2009 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, there was a different population of respondents

There was an overlap, but there were significant differences. The RCI actually got fewer responses as it was visible on the front page for a shorter period of time. Thus, is got a higher proportion of responses from regular and frequent posters than infrequent posters and lurkers. And the regular/frequent posters tend to be less optimistic.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 16, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions

And I assume with the amount of respondents that the difference between 79.5 and 81.6 isn’t statistically significant? That’s gotta be less than one standard deviation.

Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!

by mazoboom on Apr 16, 2009 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions

Correct

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 16, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions

It's also a bit like the stock market

Today you’d be willing to pay $79.50 for a share of Royals Corp. Tomorrow, when you know a little bit more information, you’re willing to pay $81.60. Had we signed Orlando Hudson or made a significant trade, the price would have spiked in early trading ($100!!) and settled back to a more realistic level ($84-$90).

Just out of curiousity, what is one standard deviation for wins from RCI? My guess is that it’s fairly small, maybe even less than 5, as most people are probably guessing a win total between 75-85.

by AxDxMx on Apr 16, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions

I realize that you are trying to keep this concise as possible

and thanks very much for putting this all together

but maybe for the next one we could split pitching into starters/relief?

Apologies if this has been brought up before.

"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"

Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split

by DCRoyals on Apr 16, 2009 12:31 PM EDT reply actions

Conceptually, I don’t have a problem with that. But since I like comparing the various RCI numbers to past numbers, changing the composition of the RCI would make it comparing apples to oranges. Now, since all of the various elements of the RCI are weighted to compute the total RCI, I could split SP and RP so that they add up to the total weight of the current pitching element. But how do I split them? 50-50? That doesn’t seem right because starting pitching and relief pitching aren’t equally important. And the relative importance of SP and RP is highly debatable. Given these challenges, I think I’d rather have people just judge the relative weight of the Royals SP’s and RP’s together and come up with their own estimation of the Royals overall pitching.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 16, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions

I was actually thinking

that they could kind of just be a subset, and wouldn’t factor into the overall RCI. People would vote on them just to gauge people’s confidence in those subsets. Just “pitching” would factor into RCI.

I realize that there’s a slippery slope here in the sense that we could further subdivide until we’re doing confidence levels of individual players, but the SP/RP split seems reasonable to me.

"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"

Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split

by DCRoyals on Apr 16, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions

That's a possibility

That’s worth considering.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 16, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions

It is possible that this is entirely unnecessary

and the RCI as it stands is very clean and intuitive

It may be an “if it ain’t broke…” kind of thing. Like Soria, right?

"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"

Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split

by DCRoyals on Apr 16, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Well done

lmao

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 16, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Look, I understand that RCI is a dominant feature...

of RR as it currently stands. But it has been pretty well established that the value of a more comprehensive and detailed polling system for sports bloggers and commenters provides about 1.5 – 3.2 Value Posts Above Replacement (VPAR) for a blog (over the course of a full blogging season). As compared to a basic poll.

If the improved RCI could even get RR another 1.0 VPAR, then it’s worth giving the more complicated RCI a shot. There are plenty of good, simple polls that could take RCI’s place at the back end of the blog.

"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae

by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 16, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs

But if the poll gets too complicated

and ends up failing in its new role, I don’t think it will be able to revert back to the dominant RCI it was before.

Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!

by mazoboom on Apr 16, 2009 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I liked Sweep's argument, but mazoboom checkmated him

We can’t afford to tinker with success. Hell, I could be working on tweaking the RCI and have an aneurysm from the mental strain of it and then what would come of the RCI, Royals Review and America?

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 16, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Why would it be so hard going back to simple polling to close out the blog?

Because NYRoyal will press too hard in trying to maintain his nasty stuff on the more complicated poll? I think the fear that NYRoyal’s polling mechanics will break down and lead to a brain or finger (typing) injury are completely unfounded. I haven’t seen anything in The Book, at Driveline, THT, or anywhere else that would point to an increased injury risk. Somebody get devil_fingers on this ASAP.

"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae

by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 16, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions

But some don't like my thinking mechanics, and I have had brain surgery in the past

So there’s risk.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 16, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions

CONFUSION IN THE POLLING BOOTH

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 16, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions

147 HRs?

by Freneau on Apr 16, 2009 12:57 PM EDT reply actions

I’m guessing more HR’s than last year from Butler, Gordon and Teahen at least, and the addition of Jacobs HR’s.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 16, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions

I know you don't get paid enough to keep track of this as it is, but...

I like seeing the trend over that last three RCIs. But would it also be possible to include the RCI from a year ago (or the one closest to a year ago if there wasn’t one in the same month)? I don’t think we need to see everything in between, but I think it would be interested to compare how the fanbase feels now to how the fanbase felt a year ago at this time.

Of course, we’d have to keep in mind that a year ago, our expectations for the Royals may have been different, and therefore we may have had different internal definitions for what constituted a 10. In other words, I’m saying if we were to see lower results than a year ago, it may be that our younger selves were grading the Royals on a curve.

by cbrett42 on Apr 16, 2009 3:55 PM EDT reply actions

Good idea

And I agree about how the “grading curve” is different every season. Basically, I’m happy with a nice improvement every year. So I’d be happy with a 81-win team. But if the Royals improved to be a perennial playoff contender and then went down to 81 wins, that wouldn’t be acceptable.

Anway, I did a RCI in late March of last year and the results were:

RCI 6.99
Team 6.9
Pitching 7.1
Hitting 5.6
Defense 7.1
DM 8.3 (oh, how the mighty have fallen)
TH 7.6 (him too)
Minors 5.8 (big improvement here after a very good draft)
Future 7.9

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 16, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions