Most of us are pessimists now, but it's important to remember that it hasn't always been that way. The truth is, Dayton Moore had posted an iffy record for at least two years heading into last season. Yet, even after the winter of Farnsworth & Bloomquist, there was still a lot of residual belief that the Royals were turning it around and that a mid-division finish was highly possible.
About this time last year, we went through the AL Central one by one, asking if you felt the Royals were better than each team. As we head into the 2010 season, we'll be doing the same thing. Before we get into that, let's take another look back at whatwe thought last year.
RR Readers Asked "Are the Royals Better than the ___"
| Yes % | No% | Wins Difference Over Royals | |
| Twins | 23 | 77 | +21 |
| Tigers | 63 | 37 | +21 |
| White Sox | 42 | 58 | +14 |
| Indians | 18 | 81 | 0 |
I don't know what looks worse: 63% of us thinking the Royals were better than the Tigers (who were coming off of a bad season) or 23% thinking the Royals would be better than the Twins. Heck, 42% saw the Royals as better than the White Sox, who finished with 14 more wins.
And weirdly, we we're most pessimistic about the Royals being better than the Tribe, and they ended up with the same record.
I'll be interested to see how we vote this year.