Tuesday, June 26, 2007

RSTN, part II

About a month ago, I posted some findings regarding whether Kansas City played better when they were on TV than they did when they were not televised. I found that they did indeed have a higher winning percentage in televised games. This was as of May 30:
When Royals games are televised on RSTN (including games that are aired only on Channel 38 in KC), their winning percentage is .400, compared to a .214 winning percentage when they're not on TV and an overall .352 wpc. It took them until May 17 to win a game that was not televised. Tomorrow night's game will be televised, so I have some hope that the losing streak will end.


Today I'm bored and not working, so I repeated the research, then took it a little further. Here's what I found:

The Royals are still winning more when they're on television. Their win percentage when they're on either RSTN or Channel 38 in KC is .452, compared to just a .200 wpc when they're not televised. Since I last looked at these stats, the Royals have not won a non-televised game (though they've played only one). Their overall win percentage right now is .403.

Furthermore, the Royals avergae more hits and more runs per game when they're in front of the cameras.

Average hits/game

Not on TV: 7.8
On TV: 9.1
Overall: 8.9


Average runs/game

Not on TV: 3.3
On TV: 4.6
Overall: 4.4

The number of runs they allowed was the only one which has been worse on TV, as opponents score 5.2 runs on KC during televised games, and only 5.1 per game without TV.

You now have learned a few things:
RSTN still helps the Royals win.*
RSTN still makes the Royals get more hits.*
I have way too much free time on my hands.** If only I took homework this seriously.

*I know that correlation is not the same as causation. But when you're a Royals fan, you have to clutch on to anything that seems to help boost that winning percentage.
**Not to worry; I'm returning to work for the O-Royals tomorrow. Is my ankle ready? Probably not. Am I pumped anyway? You betcha!

1 comment:

Haley said...

Very interesting