The RI Confidence Graph will appear every Monday and is a look at how much confidence we have in the Tampa Bay Rays at this moment. The graph is designed to give us a look at how our emotional bias as Rays fans fluctuates through time. The “confidence” in the team is an inexact measure of how we feel about the team’s current strength as well as how much confidence we have in the Tampa Bay Rays in the near-future. You can think of a “confidence” rating of 10 as an indication that we believe the team is “playoff-caliber”. A rating of 0 is a strong indication that we need to start reevaluating the process that led to us becoming Rays fans…



  1. Robert Rittner says:

    He did not set a goal of 81 wins, and you know he did not do any such thing.

  2. Devil Ray Guevara says:

    At least 81, from what manager Joe Maddon envisions. "I think it's a reasonable goal," Maddon said. "But of course I don't want us just to stop there."

    Sounds like his goal is .500

    If he wants more, then why isnt "more" his and the team's goal?

  3. Jake says:

    A "reasonable goal", in my mind, is a goal that Maddon thinks that the Rays should easily get. However due to some Rays fans(namely you), you read far too much into it and think that 81 wins is his top goal for the year. Maybe, just thinking, you should email the Rays PR guru Rick Vaughn and try to put together an interview with Joe. Sounds like an easy way to settle what he meant and something to put into your writing resume.

    Shows the lack of material in January for some people.

  4. The Professor says:

    Jake, you are always so sensitive.

    I know what Joe said and I know what he meant. Papa Joe just has this habit, that many including myself find very annoying. He tries to put a positive spin behind everything. Personally I dont think it is very conducive to being a successful big league manager, especially of a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears kids. By setting his goal at 81 wins, he is setting himself up after the season to tell us how well the team performed, no matter what actually happens between the white lines.

    On a side-note, I have no interest in interviewing Joe Maddon. I will save that for the people that are paid to do such things, or for the people that actually want to get paid doing this in the future. I am neither.

  5. Big Mike says:

    Jake, I suppose you think giving all the Rays players wrestling nicknames at DRB qualifies as "material" in January?

  6. Jake says:

    Nope, but you can't possibly post an interview every day of the week.

    Mitch Lukevics, this week, and Keith Law next week.

    I'm trying for a Maddon interview, sounds like a possible funny one.

  7. Devil Ray Guevara says:

    What no Darcy Raymond? Crap! i've been eagerly awaiting part 2 of that interview.

    and that Joe Maddon interview will be AWESOME! Nothing but cliches and talk about how well everything is going. If you ask him one tough question I would be surprised. If he answers it, I will keel over and die.

  8. Robert Rittner says:

    I will post something I said on another site regarding the analysis of the Maddon quotation:
    "No, the entire statement was irrelevant. It really has to be a slow news day to hone in on it at all. It’s a kind of micro-analysis that is really a form of intellectual masturbation."
    To parse a simple public statement like the one Maddon made is like the act of some lunatic looking for biblical clues to Armageddon and finding them in obscure numerological analysis of the number of letters in the names of the prophets. It would be just laughable and harmless if some people did not take it seriously.

    As for interviews with Maddon, I know that when he was in California reporters sought him out because his previews of other teams were so precise and insightful. I find much of what he says peculiar because his diction can be strange at times, but if read attentively, he is quite often very incisive and informative.

  9. I took your lunch money, deal with it... says:

    Seriously Jake,
    You were that kid that had to gloat when your mommy and daddy spoiled you and boughtyou new toys and clothes snd games, you were that kid that ran and told thier mommy and daddy that your lunch money got stolen, and couldn't do anything about it- and your still a snotty nosed brat at this moment, quit acting like you are the smartest guy in the room sll the time-most peaople HATE that. Take a joke weakling-

  10. Jake says:

    "Seriously Jake,
    You were that kid that had to gloat when your mommy and daddy spoiled you and boughtyou new toys and clothes snd games, you were that kid that ran and told thier mommy and daddy that your lunch money got stolen, and couldn't do anything about it- and your still a snotty nosed brat at this moment, quit acting like you are the smartest guy in the room sll the time-most peaople HATE that. Take a joke weakling-"

    It's kind of funny that Cork says that I'm "sensitive" and you(who, for some unforseen reason, make yourself anonymous) say that I'm not man enough to "take a joke", yet I comment and try to explain my reasoning (to some, it makes me look like a "snotty-nosed" brat). If I were to hold grudges, I wouldn't be here...would I?

    I blog for fun, as you can see by my posts. At DRays Bay, we post the news because it's not as if our official beat writer reports transactions. Hell, look at the depth chart of the team on the official site. Last time I checked, it had Josh Wilson on it. However, when you see the "breaking news" posts at DRays Bay, how many do you see with my name as being the poster of it? Few to none, seeing as I'm usually at work when the news breaks.

    My problem with Cork's post is that he continually says he doesn't take things seriously, posting in what seems to be a very "Deadspin"-like manner, but he's got a "media kit" page on his site and continually will put his best efforts in making team previews for magazines. If you're not getting paid for it and not wanting to make money for it as a career, why do you still do it?

  11. Scott says:

    For the same reason that MOST people keep doing it, I'm sure... because he enjoys it.

  12. The Professor says:

    I got into this because i love baseball. I have a passion for the Rays. I like to write. and I felt that the coverage of the Rays was very poor. I found myself wanting certain things in the Rays coverage that was not to be found, so i decided to quit bitching and do it myself.

    As for the Media Kit. there are several reasons for it.
    1. I have been interviewed on several occasions
    2. Till now i have resisted the thought of putting advertising on this site, and i am not actively seeking advertising. I like the minimalist, non-cluttered nature of RI. Some people prefer Google. Some prefer Yahoo. I am a Google-guy. DRB seems more like Yahoo to me. That works for some. Not for me. But i am also not so dumb to think i dont have a price. If somebody really wants to put advertising on my site and make me an offer i cant refuse, i will seriously consider it. The Media Kit gives them information they need to make an informed decision.
    3. While i have no intentions of ever being a full-time sports writer, I am open to small projects, such as The Hardball Times projects that i have worked on. And i am always willing to listen to offers if somebody were so inclined.
    4. To date i have turned down numerous offers to join sports networks similar to SN. So far, none of the offers appealed to me. I like the autonomy and love complete control. I am not against the idea, even though I would be shocked if we ever made that jump.

    In the end, Scott summed it up best. I do this because I enjoy it.

  13. Robert Rittner says:

    This is your site Professor, and you can make it what you like.

    To me, you injure your credibility when you use sensationalist type headlines or clearly rib-poking statements to stimulate interest.

    When I go to FJM or Deadspin, I know what to expect. Since the purpose there is either polemic or humor, I can enjoy the satire, even the exaggeration and nastiness and overlook the simplistic thinking behind much of it.

    But when I come here to read, I am frankly put off by same. It is not a lack of appreciation for humor or satire, but a sense that a blog intended to inform, provoke and analyze (and one that often does such a good job of it) stoops to creating faux controversy for the sake of stirring things up rather than to encourage thinking.

    When you make what I see as small-minded attempts to critique the minutae in articles by local columnists or quotations from baseball executives or managers or other blogs, I do not interpret that as insight but as pettiness. It's like "reporters" and TV news shows that evaluate the latest episode in Britney Spears love life and then call in an expert to critique it.

    I think it admirable to hold journalists, public figures and even bloggers up to public scrutiny, and even ridicule if deserved. But I also think it needs to be done with a sense of proportion and fair-mindedness and not simply out of some pre-conceived distaste or desire to prove that one is tough-minded.


Leave a Comment