PDA

View Full Version : Cingrani is our best pitching prospect IMO



Pages : [1] 2

Blitz Dorsey
06-09-2012, 11:05 AM
I'd take him over Corcino right now (even though I like both of them) and I'd have to put him over Robert Stephenson too since he hasn't even made his pro debut yet. Love everything about Cingrani, other than the fact he "only" throws 3 pitches. But I'm convinced he will remain as a starter in the big leagues. He'll likely add a pitch or two to his arsenal down the line, but even if he doesn't he'll be just fine. A 6-4 lefty with good velocity and command. He was the steal of the 2011 draft.

Top 6 Reds Pitching Prospects (IMO):

1. Tony Cingrani
2. Daniel Corcino
3. Donnie Joseph (reliever)
4. Robert Stephenson
5. Nick Travieso
6. Kyle Lotzkar

dougdirt
06-09-2012, 11:30 AM
Have you seen him pitch?

Benihana
06-09-2012, 11:40 AM
I've said it before but I'll say it again- the parallels between Cingrani and Zach Stewart are striking- both college relievers drafted by the Reds in the 3rd round out of Texas schools. Both converted to starters and had dominant debuts and second seasons that include somewhat delayed promotions. Yet despite overwhelming success in numbers, questions remain(ed) about both players' ability to stick to starting.

I wouldn't be surprised if the parallels continue and Cingrani is the key piece in a trade to bolster the Reds' playoff run later this summer.

Kc61
06-09-2012, 11:44 AM
Have you seen him pitch?

Doug, here's a question for you. Of these top Reds pitching prospects, which has the plus pitch, the "out" pitch, the stuff that you think will succeed against major league hitting?

I've come to appreciate that success against minor leaguers from the mound can be a sign of maturity, command, and reasonably decent pitches. But sometimes it just doesn't project to the big leagues.

I know the stats for these prospects, but I don't know how they will translate to the big leagues. I can see who is likely to GET to the big leagues, but do you see any of them likely to be successful there?

Obviously you have some concerns about Cingrani, but do any of the others figure to be average or above major league pitchers?

bellhead
06-09-2012, 11:45 AM
I've said it before but I'll say it again- the parallels between Cingrani and Zach Stewart are striking- both college relievers drafted by the Reds in the 3rd round out of Texas schools. Both converted to starters and had dominant debuts and second seasons that include somewhat delayed promotions. Yet despite overwhelming success in numbers, questions remain(ed) about both players' ability to stick to starting.

I wouldn't be surprised if the parallels continue and Cingrani is the key piece in a trade to bolster the Reds' playoff run later this summer.

If we trade Tony for a aging all star 3rd baseman would this be a good trade???

dougdirt
06-09-2012, 12:14 PM
I've said it before but I'll say it again- the parallels between Cingrani and Zach Stewart are striking- both college relievers drafted by the Reds in the 3rd round out of Texas schools. Both converted to starters and had dominant debuts and second seasons that include somewhat delayed promotions. Yet despite overwhelming success in numbers, questions remain(ed) about both players' ability to stick to starting.

I wouldn't be surprised if the parallels continue and Cingrani is the key piece in a trade to bolster the Reds' playoff run later this summer.

Eh, Cingrani started in junior college and one year in 4 year college. I do agree with the overall premise though, Cingrani is a 50-50 starter/reliever to me right now until he shows me something more. I am just not sold at all that he can keep starting.

dougdirt
06-09-2012, 12:21 PM
Doug, here's a question for you. Of these top Reds pitching prospects, which has the plus pitch, the "out" pitch, the stuff that you think will succeed against major league hitting?

I've come to appreciate that success against minor leaguers from the mound can be a sign of maturity, command, and reasonably decent pitches. But sometimes it just doesn't project to the big leagues.

I know the stats for these prospects, but I don't know how they will translate to the big leagues. I can see who is likely to GET to the big leagues, but do you see any of them likely to be successful there?

Obviously you have some concerns about Cingrani, but do any of the others figure to be average or above major league pitchers?

Corcino's slider. Lotzkars curve. Sulbarans curve. All above-average MLB pitches when they are on.

Benihana
06-09-2012, 12:22 PM
If we trade Tony for a aging all star 3rd baseman would this be a good trade???

You mean like an aging all star 3rd baseman from an AL East team who has local ties to the region and is a FA-to-be? A guy who has won a WS championship but has back issues that are threatening his career? It's like deja vu all over again...

Scrap Irony
06-09-2012, 06:32 PM
If Stewart is all we give up, sign me up.

For a future Cy Young Award winner, he's been less than stellar.

lollipopcurve
06-09-2012, 08:34 PM
For a future Cy Young Award winner, he's been less than stellar.

Pitching out of the pen these days.

JaxRed
06-09-2012, 10:01 PM
Cingrani's got that 3rd pitch

http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120609&content_id=33018022&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_milb

dougdirt
06-09-2012, 10:38 PM
Cingrani's got that 3rd pitch

http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120609&content_id=33018022&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_milb

Now he just needs to use it more. And his second pitch more.

camisadelgolf
06-10-2012, 01:53 AM
Now he just needs to use it more. And his second pitch more.
True. The problem is that he's so good with his first pitch that he hasn't needed to rely much on anything else. Hopefully there are enough AAA and/or AA hitters who can make him realize he has some things left to learn about pitching before he learns the hard way in the majors like Homer Bailey did.

camisadelgolf
06-10-2012, 03:06 AM
Does Cingrani remind anyone of Matt Maloney? I'm just curious.

Vottomatic
06-10-2012, 09:56 AM
Same old same old. The guy who has "potential" and the guy whose stats say he's the guy.

I'm with Cingrani until his stats say otherwise. Saw this with Cueto and Bailey in the minors for years. Everyone sucked up the hype on Bailey, and Cueto simply did better.

Blitz Dorsey
06-10-2012, 11:14 AM
Does Cingrani remind anyone of Matt Maloney? I'm just curious.

Jeez, I sure hope not. Maloney did have good K numbers in the minors, but never as good as Cingrani's. Also, Cingrani's ERA and WHIP are much better. It's been a small sample size, but I still think Cingrani will be far better. Also, Cingrani's velocity is better than Maloney's. Other than being 6-4 lefties, I don't think they're much alike.

camisadelgolf
06-10-2012, 11:17 AM
Same old same old. The guy who has "potential" and the guy whose stats say he's the guy.

I'm with Cingrani until his stats say otherwise. Saw this with Cueto and Bailey in the minors for years. Everyone sucked up the hype on Bailey, and Cueto simply did better.
When it comes to stats minor league stats, Cingrani looks like a future Hall of Famer compared to Cueto.

dougdirt
06-10-2012, 11:30 AM
Same old same old. The guy who has "potential" and the guy whose stats say he's the guy.

I'm with Cingrani until his stats say otherwise. Saw this with Cueto and Bailey in the minors for years. Everyone sucked up the hype on Bailey, and Cueto simply did better.

And if you paid attention to what people were saying, everyone was saying 'Cueto is better now, Bailey has more potential".

OGB
06-10-2012, 01:04 PM
I haven't seen him pitch, and I can't say I'm aware of how often he goes away from his fastball, but what does a 6'4" lefty who throws in the low to mid 90's, with his numbers, have to do to be considered a top prospect?

Seriously, does it come down to him getting guys out with more than just his fastball, or is there more to it than that? I can't imagine there are many pitchers in the entirety of the minor leagues putting up better numbers than him right now.

dougdirt
06-10-2012, 01:10 PM
I haven't seen him pitch, and I can't say I'm aware of how often he goes away from his fastball, but what does a 6'4" lefty who throws in the low to mid 90's, with his numbers, have to do to be considered a top prospect?
Have more people convinced he can actually start in the major leagues. If he is a reliever, he is likely a set up guy at best. There is some value there, but that value is akin to that of a #4/5 pitcher.



Seriously, does it come down to him getting guys out with more than just his fastball, or is there more to it than that? I can't imagine there are many pitchers in the entirety of the minor leagues putting up better numbers than him right now.

A lot of guys put up dominant numbers in the minors and can't replicate them in the majors. It takes a different skillset to make that transition at times. But in Cingrani's case, yes, it comes down to him being able to get more guys out with his secondary pitches. Major Leaguers will be all over him if he is throwing 80% fastballs with moderate at best (at least as it sits right now) secondary pitches.

Blitz Dorsey
06-10-2012, 01:23 PM
You can't teach a 95-MPH fastball. You CAN teach secondary pitches. Sounds like Cingrani is coming along quite well in terms of his secondary pitches.

Also, he has excellent command. We're not talking about someone who just throws a hard fastball but doesn't know where it's going. His K/BB numbers have been off-the-charts good from the moment he entered pro ball last summer. The big question was how he was going to adjust to Double-A when the time came. Well, so far, so good. (Albeit a very small sample size.)

Also, we're talking about a guy that was taken in the third-round last year. You'd think we were talking about a top-10 overall pick or something. Steal of the draft.

dougdirt
06-10-2012, 01:57 PM
You can't teach a 95-MPH fastball. You CAN teach secondary pitches. Sounds like Cingrani is coming along quite well in terms of his secondary pitches.

Also, he has excellent command. We're not talking about someone who just throws a hard fastball but doesn't know where it's going. His K/BB numbers have been off-the-charts good from the moment he entered pro ball last summer. The big question was how he was going to adjust to Double-A when the time came. Well, so far, so good. (Albeit a very small sample size.)

Also, we're talking about a guy that was taken in the third-round last year. You'd think we were talking about a top-10 overall pick or something. Steal of the draft.
You can't always teach secondary pitches. It is why guys with 99 MPH fastballs and clean mechanics wind up as relievers.

Cingrani only winds up the steal of the draft if he can turn into a really good starting pitcher at the MLB level. That is far from a certainty.

bellhead
06-10-2012, 04:31 PM
You can't always teach secondary pitches. It is why guys with 99 MPH fastballs and clean mechanics wind up as relievers.

Cingrani only winds up the steal of the draft if he can turn into a really good starting pitcher at the MLB level. That is far from a certainty.

Any see him spending time next spring training with a guy named Soto???

MikeS21
06-11-2012, 02:02 PM
So, Cingrani has a 92-94 mph fastball, a decent change (BA calls it a "solid change"), and a developing slider (that he appears to be making progress with)? And he's a lefthander to boot.

Sounds like someone to keep an eye on.

dougdirt
06-11-2012, 02:09 PM
So, Cingrani has a 92-94 mph fastball, a decent change (BA calls it a "solid change"), and a developing slider (that he appears to be making progress with)? And he's a lefthander to boot.

Sounds like someone to keep an eye on.

More like 89-92 and can touch higher than that.

OesterPoster
06-11-2012, 02:11 PM
So, Cingrani has a 92-94 mph fastball, a decent change (BA calls it a "solid change"), and a developing slider (that he appears to be making progress with)? And he's a lefthander to boot.

Sounds like someone to keep an eye on.

I think you basically described Cory Luebke, circa 2010. 6'4", lefty, college guy, threw low to mid 90s with his heater, but worked hard to develop his slider and change.

If Cingrani turns into Luebke in another year or two, I'll take it (minus the Tommy John).

UCBrownsfan
06-12-2012, 12:57 PM
Obviously he needs to continue, but it seems odd to me that guys like Massett are said to have stuff and never have a high K rate in the minors while Cingrani with a very good K rate, and even better K/BB is said not to have stuff. Even if he's just a reliever, he seems to have potential to be our best reliever not named Chapman.

Just looking at guys last 2 minor league seasons with decent IP.
Cingrani 11/12
120.2 IP, 165 K, 23 BB
Homer Bailey
200.2 IP, 178 K, 73 BB
Nick Masset 05/06 Minor League numbers
272.2 IP, 210K, 109 BB, approx 280 BAA
Ondrusek 08/09
153 IP, 106K, 55 BB,
Arrendondo 06/07
213.2 IP, 226K, 82 BB
Hoover
260 IP, 269K, 90 BB
Simon
204.2 IP, 139K, 68 BB

dougdirt
06-12-2012, 02:38 PM
Homer Bailey is only 3 years older than Cingrani is right now. Homer Bailey struck out 100 Major Leaguers in 109 innings three years ago. What would he have done in A+/AA?

bellhead
06-12-2012, 02:54 PM
Homer Bailey is only 3 years older than Cingrani is right now. Homer Bailey struck out 100 Major Leaguers in 109 innings three years ago. What would he have done in A+/AA?

Ouch, throw at iceberg of water at him:laugh::laugh::laugh:

powersackers
06-13-2012, 04:05 PM
MiLB article today on his transition to SP and his self grade of his repertoire.

http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120608&content_id=32988042&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_milb&tcid=tw_share

Edd Roush
06-13-2012, 04:15 PM
MiLB article today on his transition to SP and his self grade of his repertoire.

http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120608&content_id=32988042&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_milb&tcid=tw_share

Great article. Thanks for posting, powersackers.

klw
06-13-2012, 05:32 PM
Obviously he needs to continue, but it seems odd to me that guys like Massett are said to have stuff and never have a high K rate in the minors while Cingrani with a very good K rate, and even better K/BB is said not to have stuff. Even if he's just a reliever, he seems to have potential to be our best reliever not named Chapman.

to play the Devil's advocate,see Guevara, Carlos whose leaving the Reds organization was criticized by some (ie me). Not a stuff guy, crazy k/9 stats .
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=guevar001jos


He never did lose a MLB game however.

UCBrownsfan
06-15-2012, 11:02 PM
to play the Devil's advocate,see Guevara, Carlos whose leaving the Reds organization was criticized by some (ie me). Not a stuff guy, crazy k/9 stats .
http://www.baseball-reference.com/mi...d=guevar001jos

Interesting stat line, I'd be curious as to his story, Advantages Cingrani has clearly by stats though: Lefty, 6'4 v 5'11, younger for his level, starter vs relief, 7.7 K/BB v 3.3, .89 v 1.23 WHIP.

I think it just frustrates me how many bullpen guys we have had besides chapman that have low K numbers, even in the minors.

camisadelgolf
06-16-2012, 12:03 AM
I think it just frustrates me how many bullpen guys we have had besides chapman that have low K numbers, even in the minors.
If you think the Reds are lacking in minor league relievers with high K numbers, you haven't looked at the Bakersfield Blaze bullpen. There are a decent amount of pitchers who can miss bats scattered elsewhere throughout the organization, too. Btw, the Reds bullpen leads MLB in K/9 by a landslide, and even if you omit Aroldis Chapman, they're only slightly behind San Diego for 2nd best in the Majors.

malcontent
06-16-2012, 06:55 AM
I can't follow his logic here:

"I threw the curveball until my junior year in college and then started throwing the slider 'cause the curveball doesn't really go with how I throw right now. If I had a slider, then I could throw a curveball, but I don't have a consistent slider. If I have a curveball, hitters can sit back on it, hit it, because it would be so much slower."

:confused:

dougdirt
06-16-2012, 11:48 AM
I can't follow his logic here:

"I threw the curveball until my junior year in college and then started throwing the slider 'cause the curveball doesn't really go with how I throw right now. If I had a slider, then I could throw a curveball, but I don't have a consistent slider. If I have a curveball, hitters can sit back on it, hit it, because it would be so much slower."

:confused:

Well, he is kind of right. Good hitters are going to be able to adjust and make contact on a curveball easier than they will a slider, if they are seeing fastball. A slider is coming in 10-12 MPH slower, the curve is coming in about 15-20 MPH slower. Gives you just a little extra time to slow that bat down/adjust if you recognize at 40 feet that you aren't getting a fastball.

UCBrownsfan
06-16-2012, 01:59 PM
If you think the Reds are lacking in minor league relievers with high K numbers, you haven't looked at the Bakersfield Blaze bullpen. There are a decent amount of pitchers who can miss bats scattered elsewhere throughout the organization, too. Btw, the Reds bullpen leads MLB in K/9 by a landslide, and even if you omit Aroldis Chapman, they're only slightly behind San Diego for 2nd best in the Majors.

Sorry, didn't mean currently in the minors, I meant guys like Massett and Ondrusek's K Rates weren't that great even in the minors.

fearofpopvol1
06-16-2012, 02:03 PM
i'll believe he's the reds best pitching prospect if redsof72 says he is. interestingly enough, it doesn't look like he's even opened this thread.

klw
06-16-2012, 08:48 PM
to play the Devil's advocate,see Guevara, Carlos whose leaving the Reds organization was criticized by some (ie me). Not a stuff guy, crazy k/9 stats .
http://www.baseball-reference.com/mi...d=guevar001jos

Interesting stat line, I'd be curious as to his story, Advantages Cingrani has clearly by stats though: Lefty, 6'4 v 5'11, younger for his level, starter vs relief, 7.7 K/BB v 3.3, .89 v 1.23 WHIP.

I think it just frustrates me how many bullpen guys we have had besides chapman that have low K numbers, even in the minors.

Guevara was a screwball thrower who was seen by critics as someone with the trick pitch to succeed against lower level hitters who would hit a ceiling with higher competition. Critics were correct IIRC and I was wrong.

Eric the Red
06-16-2012, 11:57 PM
Kevin Goldstein‏@Kevin_Goldstein

Very weird prospect. How long can he pitch like that w/ below average breaking ball? RT @dbert: @Kevin_Goldstein Tony Cingrani?

Interesting comments from Goldstein via twitter this evening when asked about Tony Cingrani. Hopefully it's not if he can improve on the breaking ball but when he does.

Blitz Dorsey
06-28-2012, 11:24 AM
LOL at the people worrying about his breaking ball. That can be taught. What CAN'T be taught is all the other impressive attributes Cingrani brings to the table: 6-4 lefty with a powerful fastball that he commands well.

Back of the baseball card (even at AA) doesn't lie. Dude is our top pitching prospect IMO. And what I love is there are plenty of others real close to him like Corcino, Lotzkar and Stephenson.

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 11:28 AM
Lol at the people who think a breaking ball can be taught to everyone. If it could be taught there would be a whole bunch of really good starting pitchers.

And no, back of the baseball cards don't lie*

*When the back of the card has Major League stats on it

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 11:29 AM
Last night, according to Cingrani himself, was the best his offspeed stuff has ever been. He threw about 5 good breaking balls in the game. He threw about 5 really poor ones too. That is the BEST they have ever been.

Blitz Dorsey
06-28-2012, 12:19 PM
Last night, according to Cingrani himself, was the best his offspeed stuff has ever been. He threw about 5 good breaking balls in the game. He threw about 5 really poor ones too. That is the BEST they have ever been.

In other words Doug ... "He's being taught how to throw it."

Now pay attention. Ha.

Blitz Dorsey
06-28-2012, 12:23 PM
Lol at the people who think a breaking ball can be taught to everyone. If it could be taught there would be a whole bunch of really good starting pitchers.

And no, back of the baseball cards don't lie*

*When the back of the card has Major League stats on it

Please show me where I said a breaking ball can be taught to "everyone." I said it CAN be taught. I also said what CAN'T be taught is the ability to throw 95 with good command. You also CAN'T teach being 6-4 and left-handed.

But can you possibly teach someone how to throw a good breaking ball? Yes. Everyone that walks the planet? No. Hopefully this clears it up.

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 12:26 PM
Cingrani sat 90-91 last night. Touched 92 twice.

You are speaking as if you can even teach professional pitchers a good breaking ball with ease. You can't.

Right now, there is absolutely no way that Cingrani with at best, inconsistent breaking ball and change up is the Reds best pitching prospect. Sorry, there just isn't. There is a reason scouts still don't know if he is a starter or a reliever. If that kind of guy is the best pitching prospect we have, we are in a lot of trouble.

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 12:27 PM
In other words Doug ... "He's being taught how to throw it."

Now pay attention. Ha.

He is 22 years old and still has a very inconsistent breaking ball and change up. That is why he isn't the Reds best pitching prospect.

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 12:28 PM
How many times have you seen him pitch Blitz?

Benihana
06-28-2012, 12:31 PM
Cingrani is a very nice asset to have in the system. I look forward to him continuing to improve (especially his secondary stuff) and being able to contribute meaningfully to the big league team in a couple years.

He is not currently our best pitching prospect, in my opinion.

camisadelgolf
06-28-2012, 12:37 PM
:bang:

klw
06-28-2012, 12:40 PM
Doug-
It sounds like you have been able to watch Cingrani at least a few times. What is the problem(s) with his off speed stuff? You said its inconsistent. Does this mean he is inconsistent with ability to locate the breaking ball, is it that the amount of break is inconsistent, or is it a bit of both?

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 12:43 PM
Doug-
It sounds like you have been able to watch Cingrani at least a few times. What is the problem(s) with his off speed stuff? You said its inconsistent. Does this mean he is inconsistent with ability to locate the breaking ball, is it that the amount of break is inconsistent, or is it a bit of both?

Both. But the control doesn't bother me so much as I think eventually that can improve. It is the fact that sometimes it doesn't break much at all.

klw
06-28-2012, 12:53 PM
Both. But the control doesn't bother me so much as I think eventually that can improve. It is the fact that sometimes it doesn't break much at all.

thanks for the info, Hopefully both will improve with repetition.

Superdude
06-28-2012, 12:58 PM
Cingrani sat 90-91 last night. Touched 92 twice.

You are speaking as if you can even teach professional pitchers a good breaking ball with ease. You can't.

Right now, there is absolutely no way that Cingrani with at best, inconsistent breaking ball and change up is the Reds best pitching prospect. Sorry, there just isn't. There is a reason scouts still don't know if he is a starter or a reliever. If that kind of guy is the best pitching prospect we have, we are in a lot of trouble.

So if he sits at 90MPH and has terrible off-speed stuff, where is this dominance coming from? I know it's only AA, but that doesn't sound like a repertoire that would work anywhere.

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 01:04 PM
So if he sits at 90MPH and has terrible off-speed stuff, where is this dominance coming from? I know it's only AA, but that doesn't sound like a repertoire that would work anywhere.

Left hander with big deception, outstanding late downward movement on his fastball and pinpoint control of his fastball. Despite the 'low' velocity of his fastball, it is probably one of the best fastballs I have seen from a Reds minor leaguer because of the movement, deception and his ability to throw it anywhere he wants.

And his offspeed stuff isn't terrible, it is inconsistent. There is a big difference.

bellhead
06-28-2012, 01:17 PM
Left hander with big deception, outstanding late downward movement on his fastball and pinpoint control of his fastball. Despite the 'low' velocity of his fastball, it is probably one of the best fastballs I have seen from a Reds minor leaguer because of the movement, deception and his ability to throw it anywhere he wants.

And his offspeed stuff isn't terrible, it is inconsistent. There is a big difference.

Hopefully Doug he needs time to refine his offspeed pitches, which he has 2 years to do. The 2 years time line comes from how long it will take him to build innings in the minors, he needs to be able to go 150 to 170 innings before he is ready to be a mlb starter.

Blitz Dorsey
06-28-2012, 01:46 PM
:bang:

Roger Goodell says you need to sit out for at least 4 weeks after that. Don't go concussing yourself! It's simply not worth it.

Cingrani is out-performing his teammates that are supposedly better pitching prospects. Sorry, I'll take the results. Is Corcino good? Absolutely. Am I thrilled he's a Reds prospect? No question. Do I think Cingrani is better? Yes. (Same deal for Lotzkar. Very good prospect. I like Cingrani better.)

Doug, every pitcher in MLB history that has added/perfected their breaking balls the deeper they get in their career is laughing at your assessment that it's so tough to teach breaking balls. It's not easy. But when you have everything else in place like Cingrani does, don't insult my intelligence and pretend as if he can't add to his arsenal as it pertains to his off-speed stuff.

Can Mike Leake be taught to throw 95? No. Can Tony Cingrani be taught better breaking stuff? You better believe it.

(As for Cingrani's fastball, I've read numerous places he's touched 95 during his pro career. It's kind of like saying Travieso can touch 99. He doesn't usually sit there, but he can reach it.)

M2
06-28-2012, 03:08 PM
Everyone prospect should be burdened with Cingrani's problems.

bubbachunk
06-28-2012, 03:33 PM
How many times have you seen him pitch Blitz?

Still awaiting Blitz to quit dodging this question

Also Blitz, its the minor leagues so results are not king! If they were then Brandon Larson would still be your Reds everyday third baseman.

fearofpopvol1
06-28-2012, 04:59 PM
For what it's worth, Kevin Goldstein of BP wrote on ESPN.com today about "10 prospects moving to fast track" and Cingrani was listed in that 10.


Only hitters are supposed to dominate in the California League, but Cingrani went against the grain by putting up a 1.11 ERA in 10 starts for high-A Bakersfield, with 71 strikeouts in 56 2/3 innings. A third-round pick last June as a senior out of Rice, scouts wondered how well Cingrani's arsenal would work at the upper levels. His fastball and changeup are both plus pitches, but his slider is well below average. He's been good, but not nearly as dominant in four starts at Double-A Pensacola; a majority of talent evaluators believe he could be in the big leagues next year with a move to the bullpen.

Benihana
06-28-2012, 05:33 PM
For what it's worth, Kevin Goldstein of BP wrote on ESPN.com today about "10 prospects moving to fast track" and Cingrani was listed in that 10.

That quote has me thinking...could Cingrani replace another 6'4" lefty with a dominant fastball who's last name also begins with a C next year- freeing up that pitcher to work in the rotation?

In a perfect world, both of these guys would start, and leave bullpen duties to the Donnie Josephs of the world. But is this a perfect world?

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 05:39 PM
Kevin Goldstein, two days ago:

Many still see a reliever in the end. RT @BubbaStutes: @Kevin_Goldstein Thoughts on Tony Cingrani?

That is why he isn't our top pitching prospect.

Benihana
06-28-2012, 05:42 PM
Kevin Goldstein, two days ago:

Many still see a reliever in the end. RT @BubbaStutes: @Kevin_Goldstein Thoughts on Tony Cingrani?

That is why he isn't our top pitching prospect.

To be totally fair to the other side of the coin, many said that about Cueto for many years too. Not necessarily because of his stuff, but because of his height.

Fortunately you don't hear that as much with Corcino this time around.

Speaking of Corcino, it's interesting to note that if he had about 10 fewer walks and 10 more strikeouts, he would have almost exactly identical numbers in AA this year to what he did in A last year- that is quite impressive for a 21 year old who skipped a level.

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 05:45 PM
Roger Goodell says you need to sit out for at least 4 weeks after that. Don't go concussing yourself! It's simply not worth it.

Cingrani is out-performing his teammates that are supposedly better pitching prospects. Sorry, I'll take the results. Is Corcino good? Absolutely. Am I thrilled he's a Reds prospect? No question. Do I think Cingrani is better? Yes. (Same deal for Lotzkar. Very good prospect. I like Cingrani better.)

Doug, every pitcher in MLB history that has added/perfected their breaking balls the deeper they get in their career is laughing at your assessment that it's so tough to teach breaking balls. It's not easy. But when you have everything else in place like Cingrani does, don't insult my intelligence and pretend as if he can't add to his arsenal as it pertains to his off-speed stuff.

Can Mike Leake be taught to throw 95? No. Can Tony Cingrani be taught better breaking stuff? You better believe it.

(As for Cingrani's fastball, I've read numerous places he's touched 95 during his pro career. It's kind of like saying Travieso can touch 99. He doesn't usually sit there, but he can reach it.)

And every relief pitcher who couldn't develop a good one is crying somewhere too wondering why they couldn't get the contract that CC Sabathia got.

Tony Cingrani started 3 of his 4 years in college. You think his coaches in Juco and at Rice didn't try to teach him a breaking ball? Sure, they aren't the Reds guys who are without a doubt better, but it isn't like those guys are knothole coaches.

So far in AA, I haven't heard of one report of Cingrani hitting 95. Heck, I have only heard a few 93's. Last night he was 90-91, sometimes below, a few times he hit 92. That is fine. That will work, especially with the movement he gets.

Outperforming someone in the minors doesn't mean you will do so in the Majors. Bruce and Votto were in AAA together. Bruce outhit him, significantly. Minor League production only means so much. You can get away with things in the minors that you can't in the Majors.

And I will ask again..... how many times have you seen Cingrani pitch? I am at 7 times now (if we include several innings of games) as a pro.

bellhead
06-28-2012, 06:13 PM
Doug,

Phat Tony completely revamped his delivery prior to his senior season. Here is the article on this below. Maybe that is why he needs to work on his breaking pitch. He only spent one year at Rice prior to be drafted.

http://www.foxsportshouston.com/06/07/11/Owls-lefty-Cingrani-drafted-by-Reds/landing_rice.html?blockID=531226

Of all the reclamation projects undertaken by Rice coach Wayne Graham and Pierce, Cingrani might be their most rewarding yet. Stunningly ineffective as a starter following his transfer from South Suburban College (South Holland, Ill.) last season, Cingrani submitted himself to reconstructing his mechanics, put forth the effort during the offseason to make those tweaks feel natural, and then experienced a rebirth when Graham relocated him from the rotation to the back of the Rice bullpen.

Cingrani first realized his potential as a closer on March 23 against the Houston Cougars at Reckling Park. After all the energy expended to change his mechanics, to create more deception during his delivery and to improve the command of his fastball, Cingrani touched 97 miles per hour on the radar gun. For a left-hander that's rarified air, and that accomplishment offered Cingrani a quick glimpse of what was possible.

"That was incredible," Cingrani said. "I never dreamed that I could hit 96 and 97, and then it happened. This whole year has just been crazy and awesome. It's been a great year."

That moment didn't come easy. Even after Cingrani logged countless hours making the adjustments to his delivery there was trial and error, innumerable sessions spent in the bullpen waiting for everything to click. In addition, Cingrani had to display the mettle necessary to close, particularly after Graham made the decision to move sophomore closer Tyler Duffey into the setup role, essentially clearing a path for Cingrani.

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 06:15 PM
I know about that. But Cingrani spent two years at Rice.

bellhead
06-28-2012, 06:33 PM
I know about that. But Cingrani spent two years at Rice.

From the article they made it sound like one...

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 06:35 PM
From the article they made it sound like one...

He was there in 2010 as a starter and then in 2011 as a reliever. Spent the other two years in JUCO starting.

Blitz Dorsey
06-28-2012, 08:52 PM
Doug, I didn't know you had to see someone pitch live in order to read their statistics. I've seen Cingrani pitch on video and I like his mechanics. Sorry I missed his career at Rice. I also didn't make it to as many games in Billings, Bakersfield and Pensacola that I usually do. That crazy work sked I tell ya!

So, tell me, what part about his stats are confusing? I need to see him pitch live to better understand the fact he's dominated since the first time he took the mound as a pro?

Yeah, didn't think so. Nice try though.

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 08:59 PM
Doug, I didn't know you had to see someone pitch live in order to read their statistics. I've seen Cingrani pitch on video and I like his mechanics. Sorry I missed his career at Rice. I also didn't make it to as many games in Billings, Bakersfield and Pensacola that I usually do. That crazy work sked I tell ya!

So, tell me, what part about his stats are confusing? I need to see him pitch live to better understand the fact he's dominated since the first time he took the mound as a pro?

Yeah, didn't think so. Nice try though.

None of his stats are confusing. But stats don't just hop on over to the Majors. What you need to actually SEE from him is HOW he is getting the strikeouts. Donnie Joseph in 2010 was dominant. Here is what I wrote about him, after watching him a whole bunch, after the season:

The one thing that could slow down his rise is his inconsistencies in throwing his slider for strikes at times and more advanced hitters were able to lay off of the pitch when it was clearly out of the zone.

Fast forward to the 2011 season and what happened? He went up a level and there were a lot more guys who were able to find his weakness and exploit it. He walked a ton of guys and gave up a ton of hits.

What has he done in 2012? Figured out how to throw his slider in the strikezone and he is back to dominating.

But if you simply looked at his stats from 2010, then there was no way his 2011 was possible or predictable.

You need to watch minor leaguers play to accurately assess them. So you do need to actually watch them play to have a good idea of what they will be able to do at the MLB level.

Blitz Dorsey
06-28-2012, 09:09 PM
What has he done in 2012? Figured out how to throw his slider in the strikezone and he is back to dominating.

Translation: Donnie Joseph has improved his off-speed pitches.

The prosecution rests, your honor.

M2
06-28-2012, 09:14 PM
A few thoughts on Cingrani:

1) I recall when we were promised that Homer Bailey was going to be a much better pitcher than Johnny Cueto (everybody who knew what was what and had watched them said so). In reality what it reflected was that a lot of people were so invested in Bailey being the guy that they couldn't see that Cueto was the guy.

2) Along those lines, the guy who's dominating even though he wasn't supposed to is usually a guy worth keeping an eye on. You want outliers. Outliers can be awesome. Cingrani was converted from a college reliever to a starter. That was supposed to be slow going, but he dominated. Cingrani jumped two levels up to the Cali league start this season. That was supposed to be too much too soon according to some, but he dominated. Now he's up in AA a year after he got drafted and he's dominating again.

3) If you want precedent on a LH pitcher who made hay on an awesome fastball/change combo along with a slider that can be problematic, look no farther than Johan Santana.

WebScorpion
06-28-2012, 09:21 PM
He just struck out the side to start a game, then proceeded to pitch 8 shutout (the first six without a hit) innings on 100 pitches. 3 hits, 15 Ks, 1 BB! I wouldn't give up on him starting just yet. :eek:
Full story (http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120628&content_id=34075434&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_milb)

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 09:39 PM
A few thoughts on Cingrani:

1) I recall when we were promised that Homer Bailey was going to be a much better pitcher than Johnny Cueto (everybody who knew what was what and had watched them said so). In reality what it reflected was that a lot of people were so invested in Bailey being the guy that they couldn't see that Cueto was the guy.

2) Along those lines, the guy who's dominating even though he wasn't supposed to is usually a guy worth keeping an eye on. You want outliers. Outliers can be awesome. Cingrani was converted from a college reliever to a starter. That was supposed to be slow going, but he dominated. Cingrani jumped two levels up to the Cali league start this season. That was supposed to be too much too soon according to some, but he dominated. Now he's up in AA a year after he got drafted and he's dominating again.

3) If you want precedent on a LH pitcher who made hay on an awesome fastball/change combo along with a slider that can be problematic, look no farther than Johan Santana.

1. No one ever said Cueto wasn't better than Bailey at the time, it was just expected that Bailey would keep improving and that Cueto probably wouldn't since he was more polished.

2. Cingrani started 3 years in college. Not exactly a reliever to starter. He only relieved his senior year.

3. That would be nice and all, except that Cingrani is more of a FB/SL than FB/CH guy even though his CH is better than his slider.

camisadelgolf
06-28-2012, 09:44 PM
Translation: Donnie Joseph has improved his off-speed pitches.

The prosecution rests, your honor.
In other words, once Cingrani improves his off-speed pitches, he'll be the organization's best pitching prospect. I think that's what Doug's trying to say. You can't just bank on a big improvement happening like that. If so, you must think Yorman Rodriguez is one of the best prospects in baseball.

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 09:52 PM
Translation: Donnie Joseph has improved his off-speed pitches.

The prosecution rests, your honor.

No, translation: Donnie Joseph improved his control. Joseph had a 70-80 slider and has for a while. But until he was able to throw it for strikes, it didn't matter much against advanced competition.

BTW, you see what happened to Chapman when he stopped throwing his slider? He got rocked. A great fastball only goes so far. Need to keep guys honest. 95% of starting pitchers need 3 pitches to do that. Right now, Cingrani needs more out of his 3 pitches.

Blitz Dorsey
06-28-2012, 10:00 PM
In other words, once Cingrani improves his off-speed pitches, he'll be the organization's best pitching prospect. I think that's what Doug's trying to say. You can't just bank on a big improvement happening like that. If so, you must think Yorman Rodriguez is one of the best prospects in baseball.

Great analogy, considering YRod is also putting up great stats.

Oh wait, he's putting up dismal stats, never mind.

Not sure of your point there? This analogy would make sense if YRod was dominating, but people said "Yeah, but he doesn't hit off-speed pitches well." You see the difference?

Cingrani is really good. That's my point.

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 10:05 PM
Great analogy, considering YRod is also putting up great stats.

Oh wait, he's putting up dismal stats, never mind.

Not sure of your point there? This analogy would make sense if YRod was dominating, but people said "Yeah, but he doesn't hit off-speed pitches well." You see the difference?

Cingrani is really good. That's my point.

Fine, how about Brandon Larson? Or Juan Francisco? How about Matt Maloney? How about Elizardo Ramirez? How about Danny Ray Herrera? What about Brandon Wood?

I could keep going on and on. But it wouldn't matter because I and others have told you 'the difference' and you just point back to the numbers and say 'nope!'. We told you about the "can't hit offspeed pitches well" with Cingrani. You don't seem to care to hear it because he is still producing.

Blitz Dorsey
06-28-2012, 10:13 PM
Fine, how about Brandon Larson? Or Juan Francisco? How about Matt Maloney? How about Elizardo Ramirez? How about Danny Ray Herrera? What about Brandon Wood?

I could keep going on and on. But it wouldn't matter because I and others have told you 'the difference' and you just point back to the numbers and say 'nope!'. We told you about the "can't hit offspeed pitches well" with Cingrani. You don't seem to care to hear it because he is still producing.

I think you are wrong about Cingrani.

You think I'm wrong.

You know what's fun? We'll get to find out who's right before too long.

Nathan
06-28-2012, 10:59 PM
Let's say you went to a Major league game where Juan Castro went 3-3 with three bloop singles in no mans land barely behind the second basemen. Babe Ruth went 0-3 with three line drives that were miraculously caught on the warning track. It was minor league game, and nobody had heard of either of them. Would you say that Castro would have the better career, or he was the better player, simply because he outperformed the Babe that game?

When evaluating talent, and proclaiming them the greatest prospects in the organization, you have to look at other things besides stats. It's more of a projection, you can't say for sure.

I've never seen Cingrani pitch, so, I can't say with a credible opinion what kind of prospect he is, but, stats can be misleading when it comes to evaluating talent.

Blitz Dorsey
06-28-2012, 11:03 PM
Let's say you went to a Major league game where Juan Castro went 3-3 with three bloop singles in no mans land barely behind the second basemen. Babe Ruth went 0-3 with three line drives that were miraculously caught on the warning track. It was minor league game, and nobody had heard of either of them. Would you say that Castro would have the better career, or he was the better player, simply because he outperformed the Babe that game?

When evaluating talent, and proclaiming them the greatest prospects in the organization, you have to look at other things besides stats. It's more of a projection, you can't say for sure.

I've never seen Cingrani pitch, so, I can't say with a credible opinion what kind of prospect he is, but, stats can be misleading when it comes to evaluating talent.

Babe Ruth with 3 ABs compared to some journeyman with 3 ABs. You can do better than that. (Hopefully.)

No one is talking about seeing Cingrani for one inning (or taking one inning of his stats) and being impressed. We're talking about a full year in pro ball now. The guy has serious game. His doubters will look foolish soon.

M2
06-28-2012, 11:10 PM
1. No one ever said Cueto wasn't better than Bailey at the time, it was just expected that Bailey would keep improving and that Cueto probably wouldn't since he was more polished.

2. Cingrani started 3 years in college. Not exactly a reliever to starter. He only relieved his senior year.

3. That would be nice and all, except that Cingrani is more of a FB/SL than FB/CH guy even though his CH is better than his slider.

1. Plenty of people said Bailey was better and was guaranteed to be better. Frankly, the overestimation of Bailey, underestimation of Cueto, and the flat out lousy projections and comparisons that got made is the stuff of high comedy. Cueto surged past Bailey in 2006 and a large number of people dedicated years to missing what was right in front of them.

2. And when Cingrani got drafted the knock on him was it was likely going to take some time for him to develop into a functional starter. Supposedly he didn't have a starter's repertoire. Hell, I'm still seeing versions of that argument in this thread. That turned out to be wrong. Whether his repertoire can be effective in the majors is another question, but it's working better than anyone expected. I'm of the view that's a good thing.

3. If his change is better than his slider then by definition he's more of a FB/CH guy.

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 11:10 PM
Babe Ruth with 3 ABs compared to some journeyman with 3 ABs. You can do better than that. (Hopefully.)

No one is talking about seeing Cingrani for one inning (or taking one inning of his stats) and being impressed. We're talking about a full year in pro ball now. The guy has serious game. His doubters will look foolish soon.

Except that you HAVEN'T SEEN HIM. You saw some video of his mechanics.

camisadelgolf
06-28-2012, 11:11 PM
Blitz, please let me know if you disagree with any of this:

There's no denying that Cingrani has excellent stats and a high ceiling. But he will come nowhere near reaching that ceiling until his off-speed stuff improves considerably, which is far from a given.

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 11:12 PM
2. And when Cingrani got drafted the knock on him was it was likely going to take some time for him to develop into a functional starter. Supposedly he didn't have a starter's repertoire. Hell, I'm still seeing versions of that argument in this thread. That turned out to be wrong. Whether his repertoire can be effective in the majors is another question, but it's working better than anyone expected. I'm of the view that's a good thing.

3. If his change is better than his slider then by definition he's more of a FB/CH guy.

2. When scouts talk about developing a starters array of pitches, they are referring to one in the Majors, not one that might work in the minors. So no, it isn't wrong at this point.

3. Not really, because he is throwing his slider a lot more often than his change up. If he isn't throwing his change up, it doesn't matter how good it is. He is 90-95% FB/SL.

M2
06-28-2012, 11:19 PM
We're talking about a full year in pro ball now. The guy has serious game. His doubters will look foolish soon.

For sure I think more attention needs to be paid to what he's doing right. Also, some credit ought to go to the Reds development folks for cranking what he does up to 11 so far.

Here's my question about all Reds pitching prospects: can anyone name one that doesn't have some serious work to do before he's ready to deal in the majors?

Nathan
06-28-2012, 11:23 PM
For sure I think more attention needs to be paid to what he's doing right. Also, some credit ought to go to the Reds development folks for cranking what he does up to 11 so far.

Here's my question about all Reds pitching prospects: can anyone name one that doesn't have some serious work to do before he's ready to deal in the majors?

Hoover?

Blitz Dorsey
06-28-2012, 11:32 PM
Blitz, please let me know if you disagree with any of this:

There's no denying that Cingrani has excellent stats and a high ceiling. But he will come nowhere near reaching that ceiling until his off-speed stuff improves considerably, which is far from a given.

I'm with you on this point. Well said. :beerme:

camisadelgolf
06-28-2012, 11:33 PM
I could see Pedro Villarreal becoming the next Sam LeCure. If you put Kyle Lotzkar in the bullpen, he could probably move up the ladder pretty quickly, too. Dat curve . . .

Blitz Dorsey
06-28-2012, 11:33 PM
Except that you HAVEN'T SEEN HIM. You saw some video of his mechanics.

Ahh, Dougie, you're so sweet. Please let me know next time you watch him live so I can come with you. I'll bring the Now n' Laters.

Then I'll know why his LIGHTS OUT STATS are so freakin' tricky for you. "Man, I can't believe this Double-A pitcher one year removed from college ball hasn't perfected his breaking pitches yet. Never mind his incredible stats since he's turned pro. He just doesn't have that curve down yet. I see reliever in his future. No way he'll be able to improve on his breaking pitches at his old age."

[sarcasm off]

M2
06-28-2012, 11:38 PM
2. When scouts talk about developing a starters array of pitches, they are referring to one in the Majors, not one that might work in the minors. So no, it isn't wrong at this point.

3. Not really, because he is throwing his slider a lot more often than his change up. If he isn't throwing his change up, it doesn't matter how good it is. He is 90-95% FB/SL.

2. When scouts talk it's often not out of their mouths. And can you point to the scouts who thought Cingrani was ready to rocket into AA at this point in his career? He's doing better than his mom probably expected. About the only person I can think of who thought Cingrani deserved serious prospect consideration is Sickels. Anyway, Cingrani is ahead of where pretty everyone thought he'd be and I'm not interested in your goal post shifting.

3. So you're saying he could be even better if he threw the change more? I don't care about pitch frequency. If his change is better, then he's got an ace up his sleeve. It's all semantics I suppose, but I define prospects by their best pitches, not their pitching patterns. For instance, maybe he's throwing the slider more in an effort to develop it. On a side note, if he's throwing the slider that much and he's doing this well then I'm going out on a limb and guessing his slider at least has some promise if not necessarily the consistency it ultimately needs.

Blitz Dorsey
06-28-2012, 11:41 PM
2. When scouts talk it's often not out of their mouths. And can you point to the scouts who thought Cingrani was ready to rocket into AA at this point in his career? He's doing better than his mom probably expected. About the only person I can think of who thought Cingrani deserved serious prospect consideration is Sickels. Anyway, Cingrani is ahead of where pretty everyone thought he'd be and I'm not interested in your goal post shifting.

3. So you're saying he could be even better if he threw the change more? I don't care about pitch frequency. If his change is better, then he's got an ace up his sleeve. It's all semantics I suppose, but I define prospects by their best pitches, not their pitching patterns. For instance, maybe he's throwing the slider more in an effort to develop it. On a side note, if he's throwing the slider that much and he's doing this well then I'm going out on a limb and guessing his slider at least has some promise if not necessarily the consistency it ultimately needs.

And there's this.

:beerme:

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 11:45 PM
Ahh, Dougie, you're so sweet. Please let me know next time you watch him live so I can come with you. I'll bring the Now n' Laters.

Then I'll know why his LIGHTS OUT STATS are so freakin' tricky for you. "Man, I can't believe this Double-A pitcher one year removed from college ball hasn't perfected his breaking pitches yet. Never mind his incredible stats since he's turned pro. He just doesn't have that curve down yet. I see reliever in his future. No way he'll be able to improve on his breaking pitches at his old age."

[sarcasm off]

Meet you in Florida in 5 weeks. Be there.

Blitz Dorsey
06-28-2012, 11:49 PM
Meet you in Florida in 5 weeks. Be there.

Florida? Dude, are you flying? If you're driving, I'll meet up with you in Dayton, Cincy, wherever.

Trust me, a road trip with Blitz > Your usual roadie.

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 11:51 PM
3. So you're saying he could be even better if he threw the change more? I don't care about pitch frequency. If his change is better, then he's got an ace up his sleeve. It's all semantics I suppose, but I define prospects by their best pitches, not their pitching patterns. For instance, maybe he's throwing the slider more in an effort to develop it. On a side note, if he's throwing the slider that much and he's doing this well then I'm going out on a limb and guessing his slider at least has some promise if not necessarily the consistency it ultimately needs.

I am not even going to address #2. Doesn't make sense to do so since you don't want to actually continue the conversation.

And I am saying he would be more successful against Major Leaguers if he threw his change up more. But he, for whatever reason, doesn't trust the pitch. He hardly ever throws it.

At points earlier this season Cingrani was literally 90% fastball. So he is moving in the right direction. His slider can be a good pitch when it is on. But it is also a very flat fastball like pitch when it is off.

Right now, Cingrani simply has a fastball that is too good for a lot of these guys. He can throw it exactly where he wants it 80% of the time. I mean literally, the catcher doesn't move his glove at all and he hits the pocket with the thing. With deceptive arm action and good, late sink to it. That alone is going to get a whole bunch of guys out. But he needs to use his other pitches more and in the case of his slider, improve upon it, or he is going to wind up in the bullpen regardless of what his stats say about him.

dougdirt
06-28-2012, 11:52 PM
Florida? Dude, are you flying? If you're driving, I'll meet up with you in Dayton, Cincy, wherever.

Trust me, a road trip with Blitz > Your usual roadie.

I don't fly. And you can find your own transportation, I already have a passenger.

Blitz Dorsey
06-29-2012, 12:00 AM
I don't fly. And you can find your own transportation, I already have a passenger.

Listen, the tranny you're friends with can sit in the back seat. I'm riding shotgun or driving. Or else, I will continue to confuse you by making you read Cingrani's statistics and memorize them.

:p

M2
06-29-2012, 12:22 AM
I am not even going to address #2. Doesn't make sense to do so since you don't want to actually continue the conversation.

Plus, where else are you going to shift the goal post to? His slider isn't ready to get him to the HOF? The point is he's doing way better than anyone expected. Embrace that.


Right now, Cingrani simply has a fastball that is too good for a lot of these guys. He can throw it exactly where he wants it 80% of the time. I mean literally, the catcher doesn't move his glove at all and he hits the pocket with the thing. With deceptive arm action and good, late sink to it. That alone is going to get a whole bunch of guys out. But he needs to use his other pitches more and in the case of his slider, improve upon it, or he is going to wind up in the bullpen regardless of what his stats say about him.

I haven't noticed anyone arguing with that last point. However, that is spectacular work with the #1. I'm guessing he can add and subtract on it too, maybe even get it to sink in or out a bit. Anyway, that kind of fastball is the foundation for a dynamite pitcher. "He's only doing so well because he has a mind-boggling fastball" is the kind of criticism I'd like to see more often when it comes to Reds prospects.

nate1213
06-29-2012, 12:56 AM
Doug, where does Cingrani compare to Travis Wood? Do you think he has more promise than Wood?

Billy Hamilton's Legs
06-29-2012, 01:13 AM
I understand the skepticism considering he lacks a solid third pitch, but I was wondering if there are any good examples of guys with similar K/BB ratios throughout their minor league careers that didnt pan out. Travis Wood had a similar level of success in the minors, but his K/BB wasnt nearly as impressive as Cingrani's is.

dougdirt
06-29-2012, 06:52 AM
Doug, where does Cingrani compare to Travis Wood? Do you think he has more promise than Wood?

More promise, not as likely to stick as a starter though, so there are two sides to the coin.

One interesting similarity with the two though is their fastball command. When Travis Wood was dominating in the minors and pitching well that first year in the Majors, he was doing so by dominating with his fastball by being able to throw it exactly where he wanted it. Wood eventually lost that command and he began to struggle. Now Wood was working mostly with a cutter and Cingrani is working with just your normal fastball (though it has outstanding life and movement). Cingrani might throw a tick harder as well and given his size advantage his pitches probably get on you a tad quicker as well.

dougdirt
06-29-2012, 07:02 AM
I haven't noticed anyone arguing with that last point. However, that is spectacular work with the #1. I'm guessing he can add and subtract on it too, maybe even get it to sink in or out a bit. Anyway, that kind of fastball is the foundation for a dynamite pitcher. "He's only doing so well because he has a mind-boggling fastball" is the kind of criticism I'd like to see more often when it comes to Reds prospects.

It is a great foundation to work with. But you still need a #2 and #3. Until he starts showing them more and is more consistent with them, he isn't the Reds best pitching prospect. He has arguably the best fastball of any of the Reds pitchers. His 2nd pitch though, despite it being a plus change up, would rank 5th on the list of the other guys secondary pitches. His slider would also rank in that 4-5 range (with the change up of Stephenson and just ahead of the change up of Travieso).

dougdirt
06-29-2012, 07:03 AM
Listen, the tranny you're friends with can sit in the back seat. I'm riding shotgun or driving. Or else, I will continue to confuse you by making you read Cingrani's statistics and memorize them.

:p

You aren't confusing me at all with the stats. And I bet I know the stats better than you do.

lollipopcurve
06-29-2012, 07:31 AM
that kind of fastball is the foundation for a dynamite pitcher. "He's only doing so well because he has a mind-boggling fastball" is the kind of criticism I'd like to see more often when it comes to Reds prospects.

How many times have we heard " a well-located fastball is the best pitch in baseball"? You add in that Cingrani has some funkiness/deception and you've got a legitimate starting pitching prospect. I imagine the Reds will give him every opportunity to start. It's going to take some time for him to develop and establish consistency with secondary stuff, but the fact he can locate a good fastball with precision and deception means once the secondary stuff is OK he'll be ready.

15 Ks (and what? 1 walk?) against a good AA team is no joke. Personally, I like him better than Corcino, because I think the upside is higher.

UCBrownsfan
06-29-2012, 11:17 AM
Fine, how about Brandon Larson? Or Juan Francisco? How about Matt Maloney? How about Elizardo Ramirez? How about Danny Ray Herrera? What about Brandon Wood?

I could keep going on and on. But it wouldn't matter because I and others have told you 'the difference' and you just point back to the numbers and say 'nope!'. We told you about the "can't hit offspeed pitches well" with Cingrani. You don't seem to care to hear it because he is still producing.

Doug this is where your argument loses some beef I think - as I keep searching for the Cingrani stat comp in the minors. Yeah stats don't always translate, and maybe most often they don't to the minors, but Juan Francisco was never great, none of those guys listed were near as effective given age and level as Cingrani is.

I'd be interested to know how many Reds pitching prospects in the past 20-30 years can match Cingrani in all of these categories. So yeah maybe it won't translate, maybe he can't keep it up, but what he's doing so far is pretty rare and special, and potentially the best a Red's minor league pitcher has done in a few generations.

A year from being drafted: AA, over 100 minor league IP at a 7 K:BB ratio, under 1 WHIP - 6'4 or taller.

M2
06-29-2012, 11:35 AM
Side question, where does a guy who lauded Juan Francisco and Elizardo Ramirez on their way up get off using them as examples of why folks should be dubious about Cingrani?

dougdirt
06-29-2012, 12:37 PM
"Lauded them". Sure, in very weak Reds systems Francisco lauded, to the extent that he never ranked higher than #5. Elizardo Ramirez was never a prospect when I was creating prospect lists. But hey, lets just keep talking about stuff from 2004, since that is obviously how you get off.

If you don't have something of value to add to the conversation, then don't get into it. Your petty reply isn't needed. I am sure if I wanted to be cool like you I could search around for something you said about a player and toss it back at you. But I don't care much about that. We have all said incorrect things before. I am not the type of person to bring them back up to try and put them in someone's face. You apparently are. Big tough guy I bet.

kearns and dunn
06-29-2012, 12:39 PM
Zach Steward is still waiting on his Cy Young.






/I had to do it.
//I'm enjoying the squabble between all of you grown "men".

powersackers
06-29-2012, 12:45 PM
Someone please answer me this:
A MLB SP Prospect must have X, else RP. X=?

Asking because "scouts" and some on here still think he may be a RP despite statisical performance at high A and now AA that is obviously showing Cingrani to be a sucessful SP.

dougdirt
06-29-2012, 12:48 PM
Someone please answer me this:
A MLB SP Prospect must have X, else RP. X=?

Asking because "scouts" and some on here still think he may be a RP despite statisical performance at high A and now AA that is obviously showing Cingrani to be a sucessful SP.

A starting pitcher generally needs 3 pitches. Relievers generally can get away with just 2.

Patrick Bateman
06-29-2012, 12:50 PM
"Lauded them". Sure, in very weak Reds systems Francisco lauded, to the extent that he never ranked higher than #5. Elizardo Ramirez was never a prospect when I was creating prospect lists. But hey, lets just keep talking about stuff from 2004, since that is obviously how you get off.

If you don't have something of value to add to the conversation, then don't get into it. Your petty reply isn't needed. I am sure if I wanted to be cool like you I could search around for something you said about a player and toss it back at you. But I don't care much about that. We have all said incorrect things before. I am not the type of person to bring them back up to try and put them in someone's face. You apparently are. Big tough guy I bet.

Well I don't think the sense of entitlement helps your case.

Just because you have seen much of these guys does not make you any more viable in terms of evaluating these guys. For all we know, you could be the world's worst scout. M2's examples I think show that scouting in the past has led to just as many "incorrect conclusions" as anyone here. It's fine to help craft your arguments based on what you have seen, but you can't throw everything Blitz has to say simply because you have seen Cingrani pitch more.

dougdirt
06-29-2012, 01:02 PM
Well I don't think the sense of entitlement helps your case.

Just because you have seen much of these guys does not make you any more viable in terms of evaluating these guys. For all we know, you could be the world's worst scout. M2's examples I think show that scouting in the past has led to just as many "incorrect conclusions" as anyone here. It's fine to help craft your arguments based on what you have seen, but you can't throw everything Blitz has to say simply because you have seen Cingrani pitch more.

I am not throwing what he has to say out. Cingrani has incredible stats. Not arguing that at all. Simply that good stats in the minors don't always just translate to the Majors. Then I backed that up with why, based on things I (and others) have seen.

M2
06-29-2012, 02:16 PM
From today's BA Hot Sheet (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/prospect-hot-sheet/2012/2613626.html), on Cingrani: "He went eight shutout innings while striking out 15 and allowing three hits and a walk, a performance that added up to the best game score (90) we've seen this year in the minors. It's yet another reminder that the pre-draft scouting report that pegged Cingrani as a future reliever may have been a little light."

fearofpopvol1
06-29-2012, 02:24 PM
I like Cingrani a lot, but I'm not sure I'd put him ahead of Corcino at this juncture, as Corcino is younger. Corcino looks very similar to Cueto. He may not ever become Cueto, but if he's in the same neighborhood, that's a very valuable guy to have on your club.

lollipopcurve
06-29-2012, 02:32 PM
Simply that good stats in the minors don't always just translate to the Majors.

This is very true. It wasn't so long ago that some thought Calvin Medlock was the best starting pitching prospect in the system and Carlos Guevara was a can't miss reliever. Everybody misfires on prospects.

Blitz Dorsey
06-29-2012, 02:50 PM
For sure I think more attention needs to be paid to what he's doing right. Also, some credit ought to go to the Reds development folks for cranking what he does up to 11 so far.

Here's my question about all Reds pitching prospects: can anyone name one that doesn't have some serious work to do before he's ready to deal in the majors?

That's a great question. For everyone that ranks Corcino ahead of Cingrani, are you suggesting that Corcino doesn't need to improve greatly on his command? Also, Corcino has a good fastball, but not one that blows hitters away by any means. His K rate is good in the minors. I bet his K rate will be average in MLB.

So, who are all these "finished product" (or close) pitching prospects we have? Exactly. We don't have any. All of them have work to do. Right now, I think Cingrani will be the best of the current excellent trio in Pensacola (Cingrani, Corcino, Lotzkar). Happy to have all three of them though.

Also, it's too early to tell on Robert Stephenson, but I'm very excited by the early results (and from all the comments in general about him from Goodyear during EST). He could be the Reds' best pitching prospect for all we know. But of all the guys that have pitched at least a full year of pro ball in the Reds' organization, Cingrani is my No. 1 prospect. I'd rank him as the Reds' No. 2 overall prospect behind the obvious No. 1, William Hamilton, aka "Slidin' Billy."

And it's waaaaaaay too early to tell about Travieso. I like the pick though (after being skeptical at first).

Benihana
06-29-2012, 02:52 PM
I like Cingrani a lot, but I'm not sure I'd put him ahead of Corcino at this juncture, as Corcino is younger. Corcino looks very similar to Cueto. He may not ever become Cueto, but if he's in the same neighborhood, that's a very valuable guy to have on your club.

This pretty much sums up how I feel as well.

I see too much Cueto in Corcino to rank another pitcher in the system ahead of him at this point. Cingrani is certainly close, and Stephenson and even Lotzkar (on his good days) aren't all that far behind. Right now that's how they line up for me. Looking forward to Travieso making his debut and joining these four to round out the top five pitching prospects in the organization.

M2
06-29-2012, 02:58 PM
Doug, hopefully you've changed into a fresh pair of pants by now. I honestly don't know if you've come around in your thinking to where you're not constantly over-valuing guys like Francisco and Ramirez (happened to run across some old posts on the Lizard because of an old thread that got dredged up on ORG, and you were highly complimentary of Ramirez back in the day). That was your M.O., thus what I'm guessing have become the endless references to Zach Stewart.

And that's fine, but for those of us with anything like, you know, a basic memory it's a bit jarring to see you throwing guys you praised out as examples of players who got undone by glaring, fatal flaws. Like I said, maybe you've learned from those days. I certainly don't frequent the board that often and I stuck you on ignore years ago. Maybe your position these days is "I used to get way overhyped about guys like this and now I know that you've got to be more skeptical." Haven't seen that in this thread, but if it's the case then that's a fair argument.

However, if it's "People like me who know what to look for see the problems with Cingrani just like with these others guys (some of whom I completely whiffed on)," then I'm not inclined to buy into your appeal as an authority. I'm not going to take your word for it, especially when you just reminded me of specific examples where your judgment has been shaky. I didn't pick that list of names. You did.

Main thing is I came into this thread because I've become genuinely excited about Cingrani and thought it might be nice to read some more about the kid (even cracked open some of your posts). To my surprise you're the guy who seems to be the least impressed with him. Maybe it's the whole "best pitching prospect" framework of the thread which is upending some delicately ordered balance of things you have constructed inside your head. I could care less about "best" designations. Those sort of things are fluid.

Cingrani's doing really well. He merits enthusiasm. I don't know what he's ultimately going to be, but he's definitely been more than anyone expected so far. Good for him. Good for the Reds. Good for us.

Blitz Dorsey
06-29-2012, 02:59 PM
The Cueto-Corcino comparisons are borderline hilarious. I sure hope you guys are right though. Another Johnny Cueto? Sign me up for that. However, I think it's naive to assume Corcino will be even close to as good as the current ace of the Reds' staff.

Might some fans draw the "Corcino is the next Cueto" conclusion simply because they're similarly built and from the same country? Corcino is 5-11, 205 ... Cueto is 5-10, 220. (And I bet Cueto was right at 205 when he was 21/22 years old.)

I would love to see Corcino develop into a pitcher that's almost as good as Cueto. That's asking for a lot though. I think people see two Dominicans who look alike and even have last names that sound somewhat alike and just assume that Corcino is going to follow in Cueto's footsteps.

And I don't want to seem as if I'm criticizing Corcino. Thrilled he's a Reds' prospect. He's definitely one of the top pitching prospects in all of baseball. It's just Johnny Cueto is pitching at an All-Star level in MLB. Chances are good we won't see another Cueto come along for a while. You can't teach the kind of "moxie" he has on the mound. Usually I hate that word, but it describes Cueto to a T.

Benihana
06-29-2012, 03:04 PM
The Cueto-Corcino comparisons are borderline hilarious. I sure hope you guys are right though. Another Johnny Cueto? Sign me up for that. However, I think it's naive to assume Corcino will be even close to as good as the current ace of the Reds' staff.

Might some fans draw the "Corcino is the next Cueto" conclusion simply because they're similarly built and from the same country? Corcino is 5-11, 205 ... Cueto is 5-10, 220. (And I bet Cueto was right at 205 when he was 21/22 years old.)

I would love to see Corcino develop into a pitcher that's almost as good as Cueto. That's asking for a lot though. I think people see two Dominicans who look alike and even have last names that sound somewhat alike and just assume that Corcino is going to follow in Cueto's footsteps.

And I don't want to seem as if I'm criticizing Corcino. Thrilled he's a Reds' prospect. He's definitely one of the top pitching prospects in all of baseball. It's just Johnny Cueto is pitching at an All-Star level in MLB. Chances are good we won't see another Cueto come along for a while. You can't teach the kind of "moxie" he has on the mound. Usually I hate that word, but it describes Cueto to a T.

Their numbers are quite similar to this point as well. Look at Cueto's 20 and 21 year old seasons, then look at Corcino's. Cueto's numbers are slightly better, but they are pretty similar.

Blitz Dorsey
06-29-2012, 03:08 PM
Doug, hopefully you've changed into a fresh pair of pants by now. I honestly don't know if you've come around in your thinking to where you're not constantly over-valuing guys like Francisco and Ramirez (happened to run across some old posts on the Lizard because of an old thread that got dredged up on ORG, and you were highly complimentary of Ramirez back in the day). That was your M.O., thus what I'm guessing have become the endless references to Zach Stewart.

And that's fine, but for those of us with anything like, you know, a basic memory it's a bit jarring to see you throwing guys you praised out as examples of players who got undone by glaring, fatal flaws. Like I said, maybe you've learned from those days. I certainly don't frequent the board that often and I stuck you on ignore years ago. Maybe your position these days is "I used to get way overhyped about guys like this and now I know that you've got to be more skeptical." Haven't seen that in this thread, but if it's the case then that's a fair argument.

However, if it's "People like me who know what to look for see the problems with Cingrani just like with these others guys (some of whom I completely whiffed on)," then I'm not inclined to buy into your appeal as an authority. I'm not going to take your word for it, especially when you just reminded me of specific examples where your judgment has been shaky. I didn't pick that list of names. You did.

Main thing is I came into this thread because I've become genuinely excited about Cingrani and thought it might be nice to read some more about the kid (even cracked open some of your posts). To my surprise you're the guy who seems to be the least impressed with him. Maybe it's the whole "best pitching prospect" framework of the thread which is upending some delicately ordered balance of things you have constructed inside your head. I could care less about "best" designations. Those sort of things are fluid.

Cingrani's doing really well. He merits enthusiasm. I don't know what he's ultimately going to be, but he's definitely been more than anyone expected so far. Good for him. Good for the Reds. Good for us.

Anyone who follows Doug knows for a fact that he revels in playing the role of the contrarian. Tell him that Drew Stubbs was a bad pick, he'll argue he was good pick. Tell him Billy Hamilton isn't necessarily a great baseball player, but is absolutely a "great athlete" and he'll argue with you that Hamilton is not a great athlete. (And will argue and argue and argue, even when it's clear he's wrong. He won't back down. I somewhat respect him for that. It's also highly annoying when a man never admits he's wrong.) Tell him Homer Bailey is overrated by some Reds fans, he'll argue that he's actually underrated.

On this topic, I think he genuinely believes Cingrani is NOT the Reds' best pitching prospect. So, in this thread, he's not just playing the role of the contrarian. But make no mistake about it: Doug loves being the contrarian in most debates. It's a character trait I've noticed about him for quite some time.

But hey, he's OUR contrarian and we love him. We love you Dougie! (And we also like pointing out when you're incorrect. Elizardo Ramirez, man? I've been wrong a lot, but I can honestly say I thought Ramirez would never make it long-term as a starter in MLB. You know we were in dire straits when Reds fans were actually excited about having the Lizard. He was awful and proved it to everyone before long.)

:beerme:

Blitz Dorsey
06-29-2012, 03:19 PM
Their numbers are quite similar to this point as well. Look at Cueto's 20 and 21 year old seasons, then look at Corcino's. Cueto's numbers are slightly better, but they are pretty similar.

I know their numbers are relatively similar (with Cueto's being a bit better) but what happened to the "minor league numbers don't always translate to Big League success"?

Just kind of joking with you there. Cueto is just a special pitcher and I think people are setting themselves up for disappointment if they think Corcino is the next Cueto.

Also, back to the "Minor league numbers don't always translate into success at the MLB level" statement that many have made. Well, duh! Of course there are a bunch of players that perform well in the minors that are busts in the Majors. No one is saying Cingrani will DEFINITELY be a good MLB pitcher. None of the prospects in the organization are a sure thing.

But the bottom line is that of all the pitching prospects the Reds have right now (not counting Stephenson and Travieso; need more info) I'm the most-excited about Cingrani. Kid has dominated from the moment he took the mound for the first time as a pro last year. It's been a full year now and he isn't slowing down. Dominated at high-rookie ball, fresh out of college. Then skips a level and goes to high-A the following year. Dominates. Best pitcher by far in the entire Cal League, which is a "hitter's league" no less. Then gets promoted to Double-A. Continues to dominate. Outstanding K rate. It's not like he's getting by with finesse pitches or getting lucky. This is a young man with serious game. Get on board, y'allz! Don't be the foolish one who waits a few years to finally jump aboard the Cingraniwagon.

fearofpopvol1
06-29-2012, 03:33 PM
I know their numbers are relatively similar (with Cueto's being a bit better) but what happened to the "minor league numbers don't always translate to Big League success"?

Just kind of joking with you there. Cueto is just a special pitcher and I think people are setting themselves up for disappointment if they think Corcino is the next Cueto.

Also, back to the "Minor league numbers don't always translate into success at the MLB level" statement that many have made. Well, duh! Of course there are a bunch of players that perform well in the minors that are busts in the Majors. No one is saying Cingrani will DEFINITELY be a good MLB pitcher. None of the prospects in the organization are a sure thing.

But the bottom line is that of all the pitching prospects the Reds have right now (not counting Stephenson and Travieso; need more info) I'm the most-excited about Cingrani. Kid has dominated from the moment he took the mound for the first time as a pro last year. It's been a full year now and he isn't slowing down. Dominated at high-rookie ball, fresh out of college. Then skips a level and goes to high-A the following year. Dominates. Best pitcher by far in the entire Cal League, which is a "hitter's league" no less. Then gets promoted to Double-A. Continues to dominate. Outstanding K rate. It's not like he's getting by with finesse pitches or getting lucky. This is a young man with serious game. Get on board, y'allz! Don't be the foolish one who waits a few years to finally jump aboard the Cingraniwagon.

He may not be Cueto ultimately, but he hasn't shown he can't perform similarly yet and his numbers look good.

Benihana
06-29-2012, 04:32 PM
From today's BA chat:


ttnorm (CT): That is a lot of bats Cingrani missed this week at AA. Aberration or is he better than a lot of us thought going into 2012.

J.J. Cooper: Better than we thought.

Doug, perhaps he's better than YOU thought.

medford
06-29-2012, 04:56 PM
Also, back to the "Minor league numbers don't always translate into success at the MLB level" statement that many have made. Well, duh! Of course there are a bunch of players that perform well in the minors that are busts in the Majors. No one is saying Cingrani will DEFINITELY be a good MLB pitcher. None of the prospects in the organization are a sure thing.


Well we know there are a bunch of players who put up great minor league numbers and were bust in the majors. Has there ever been anyone that put up pedestrian numbers in the minors, then go on to excel in the majors? I have my doubts, but there are might be a few who click once they reach the show after meandering their way thru the minors.

I find the debate if Cigrani is the best pitching prospect or not kind of silly. I think Joey Votto put it best a few weeks back when he said he didn't worry about who was the best hitter, b/c a few weeks back it was Kemp, then it was Hamilton, then it was Votto, and sooner or later it was going to be someone else. Its a rather subjective classification anyways when it comes to a team sport like baseball where failure (ie a .300 batting average is considered good, or a 4.5 ERA is a "good start") is the norm. Does it really matter if Cigrani or Corcino or Stephenson or anyone else is the "best" pitching prospect, I just hope they all continue to post great numbers while developing their game so they can make an impact with the reds someday or be shipped away in a trade for something that helps the Reds in the near term.

dougdirt
06-29-2012, 06:52 PM
From today's BA chat:



Doug, perhaps he's better than YOU thought.

He is better than EVERYONE thought or he wouldn't have gone in the 3rd round. Still doesn't change the fact that just three days ago Kevin Goldstein was still quoting scouts who thought he was a reliever.

Right now, I still have him as the #11 prospect in the system, but he could move up quite a bit depending on how that secondary stuff looks moving forward. At this point, I haven't seen enough of it to rank him any higher than that.

M2, blah blah blah. I am not going to be bothered by the fact that in a weak system I ranked Francisco, a Major Leaguer, inside the top 10. But the rankings only mean so much. Did you care to ever read what I had said about him? Basically it was 'incredibly high risk/high reward' due to his terrible plate discipline, but that there were times (in AA/AAA) where he seemed to go through stretches where he seemed to get the idea of plate discipline, leaning toward a chance he could get it.

As for the Billy Hamilton 'athlete' comment... I stand by what I said. People continue to miss my point. Hamilton isn't a super athlete. He isn't the kind of athlete that Josh Hamilton is. Billy Hamilton might be the most athletic player in the Reds organization (including the Majors). That still doesn't make him a super athlete IMO on par with the kind of athlete that say Josh Hamilton or Mike Trout are.

mth123
06-29-2012, 09:09 PM
Not sure who is the best pitching prospect. Don't know if its Corcino, Lotzkar, Cingrani, Sulbaran, Stephenson, Travieso, Rogers, or somebody else, but I'm glad there are enough to debate about it.

I'd be perfectly happy if one of them was dealt to address the major league OF picture.

Nathan
06-29-2012, 09:20 PM
As for the Billy Hamilton 'athlete' comment... I stand by what I said. People continue to miss my point. Hamilton isn't a super athlete. He isn't the kind of athlete that Josh Hamilton is. Billy Hamilton might be the most athletic player in the Reds organization (including the Majors). That still doesn't make him a super athlete IMO on par with the kind of athlete that say Josh Hamilton or Mike Trout are.

That don't makes any senses.

dougdirt
06-29-2012, 09:23 PM
That don't makes any senses.

It does if I consider guys like Josh Hamilton and Mike Trout super athletes who are fast, explosive and strong. Billy Hamilton is two of those things. Two out of three doesn't put you in the same group.

Blitz Dorsey
06-30-2012, 12:30 PM
Let's not get into the ridiculous "Is Billy Hamilton a great athlete?" debate again. For those that think the "Is Cingrani our best pitching prospect?" debate is "silly" ... you must think the "Is Slidin' Billy a great athlete?" debate to be the silliest thing of all time.

Benihana
06-30-2012, 12:30 PM
It does if I consider guys like Josh Hamilton and Mike Trout super athletes who are fast, explosive and strong. Billy Hamilton is two of those things. Two out of three doesn't put you in the same group.

Is Allen Iverson a super athlete? How about Muggsy Bogues or Spudd Webb?

Blitz Dorsey
06-30-2012, 12:34 PM
Doug, if you care about the integrity of your rankings (which I know you do) you won't have Cingrani ranked as the "11th-best prospect in the organization" for long. He's way better than that IMO.

I know you have Lotzkar ranked ahead of him. Two things on that: Cingrani has out-performed Lotzkar at every level, and Lotzkar has a bad history of injuries for such a young pitcher. Sorry, but no way is Lotzkar a better prospect than Cingrani. I don't care that he was selected for the Futures Game. Cingrani's numbers are better and he hasn't had his arm cut open already. Also, Cingrani is a lefty with just as much velocity as the right-handed Lotzkar.

dougdirt
06-30-2012, 01:01 PM
Doug, if you care about the integrity of your rankings (which I know you do) you won't have Cingrani ranked as the "11th-best prospect in the organization" for long. He's way better than that IMO.

I know you have Lotzkar ranked ahead of him. Two things on that: Cingrani has out-performed Lotzkar at every level, and Lotzkar has a bad history of injuries for such a young pitcher. Sorry, but no way is Lotzkar a better prospect than Cingrani. I don't care that he was selected for the Futures Game. Cingrani's numbers are better and he hasn't had his arm cut open already. Also, Cingrani is a lefty with just as much velocity as the right-handed Lotzkar.

I stand firmly with my rankings at the time that I make them. I don't just draw names out of a hat. I put in hundreds of hours of research. I talk to scouts. I look at the numbers. I look at video. I break it down and look at it. When I make my rankings, I am perfectly comfortable with their integrity.

Lotzkars injuries all came when he had atrocious mechanics. He doesn't have them anymore. I don't care that he was selected for the Futures Game either. That has zero bearing on his value as a prospect.

Cingrani does not have just as much velocity as Lotzkar does. Lotzkar sits higher and touches higher than Cingrani does. He has a better secondary pitch, though Cingrani does have the better fastball.

Lotzkar does need to see that walk rate come down though or Cingrani might push his way ahead of him (assuming that is secondary stuff stays exactly where it is today). Cingrani's continued improvement of his secondary stuff would also push him ahead of Lotzkar (if Lotzkar stays about where he is right now). But as it stands right now, I have more faith in Lotzkar being a MLB starting pitcher than Cingrani because he has the better array of pitches and I am not that concerned about his health at this point in the game.

And for the record, Billy Hamilton is a great athlete. He isn't a super athlete. At least by my definitions of such.

dougdirt
06-30-2012, 01:03 PM
Is Allen Iverson a super athlete? How about Muggsy Bogues or Spudd Webb?

To me? No, they aren't.

Let's pretend we are in a lab and can create the best athlete ever. Would he weigh 170 pounds and not have good strength? Of course he wouldn't.

When I think of a super athlete it is a combination of size (both height and weight), strength, explosiveness, speed and coordination.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-30-2012, 02:09 PM
Willie Mays weighed 170.

By the way, what does Josh Hamilton have over and Allen Iverson besides brute strength?

To not include an Iverson or someone that weighs 170 (Mays) as a gifted athlete is extremely shortsighted and, frankly, kind of alarming for someone that rates baseball prospects for a living.

dougdirt
06-30-2012, 02:16 PM
Willie Mays weighed 170.

By the way, what does Josh Hamilton have over and Allen Iverson besides brute strength?

To not include an Iverson or someone that weighs 170 (Mays) as a gifted athlete is extremely shortsighted and, frankly, kind of alarming for someone that rates baseball prospects for a living.

In his time, Willie Mays was probably bigger than most guys too. He is also listed anywhere between 170-190 depending on where you look.

Hamilton might not have anything over Iverson besides brute strength, but the difference between the two in that is rather large, where as the difference between what Iverson has over Hamilton is rather small (quicker feet is probably the only thing Iverson has over Hamilton).

Again, pretend you are a mad scientist creating an ideal super athlete who would be good across the spectrum of all kinds of athletic endeavors. Are you starting with a guy who is built like Allen Iverson or a guy who is built like Josh Hamilton? That is the difference to me between a super athlete and a very good one.

Superdude
06-30-2012, 02:39 PM
This super athlete conversation is hilarious. :laugh: RedsZone has reached a new low when the arguments have deconstructed themselves into semantics.

Nathan
06-30-2012, 03:15 PM
http://katchop.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/super-hamilton.jpg


I know I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but, blame it on a lack of sleep. I stayed up too late watching the game and had to be at work at 5 this morning.

klw
07-03-2012, 09:43 AM
Cingrani needs to improve off speed pitches to get the next level says a Cingrani expert.

http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120702&content_id=34356506&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_milb


Though his secondary pitches were inconsistent at times, the southpaw still tried to use them to keep Jacksonville off balance.

"The changeup's fine," he said. "Against lefties, I threw a couple good sliders and struck them out. It's there, but it's just hit or miss sometimes."

How can he develop the slider into a more reliable pitch?

"Throw it more," said Cingrani, who will turn 23 on Thurday. "That's what I need to do to get to the next level."


Overall, the product of Rice University leads full-season Minor Leaguers with a 1.36 ERA and ranks second with 118 strikeouts in 92 2/3 innings.

"If you make mistakes [in Double-A], they generally hit it. But for the most part, it's about the same," Cingrani said. "They're not as aggressive as they were in High-A, but for the most part, get the fastball in there, get ahead and you'll be pretty successful."

membengal
07-03-2012, 01:45 PM
Since when is plus command of a 90s velocity fastball something to be pooh poohed?

Plus Plus
07-03-2012, 01:47 PM
Since when is plus command of a 90s velocity fastball something to be pooh poohed?

I don't think that anyone here is pooh poohing his fastball command, but are rather pointing out that most starters - including those with equal or better command to Cingriani - need to have at least a three-pitch mix, because at the MLB level hitters can hit a perfectly located fastball if they know that they only have to look for a fastball.

It's simply testament to the fact that baseball is really, really hard. :)

membengal
07-03-2012, 01:50 PM
Mario Soto was pretty much a two pitch starter.

Give me a guy with huge command of a plus fastball and I will take my chances.

dougdirt
07-03-2012, 02:08 PM
Mario Soto was pretty much a two pitch starter.

Give me a guy with huge command of a plus fastball and I will take my chances.

This isn't 1980 anymore either. For as bad as people think offense is these days, you send Zack Cozart back in time and he would crush those pitchers from that time despite being a below average hitter today.

There are very, very few guys who can get away as a starter in todays game with 2 pitches. The good news though, is that Cingrani does indeed have 3 pitches.

membengal
07-03-2012, 02:13 PM
Um, what? Nolan Ryan, JR Richard, Steve Carlton etc... cozart what now?

dougdirt
07-03-2012, 02:28 PM
Um, what? Nolan Ryan, JR Richard, Steve Carlton etc... cozart what now?

So essentially guys that were among the best ever and then a guy who could have been if he never hurt his back? Way to pull out the extremes.

What about the rest of the league?

The average shortstop had a .627 OPS in 1980. The average first baseman a .767 OPS. The average second baseman a .652 OPS.

Your power positions are similar. But your 'light hitting' positions are all WAY up. It is a lot easier to deal with 2 pitches when you have 4 automatic outs in the NL and 3 in the AL (2B/SS/C) in most line ups. Much tougher to get away with that in todays game.

Scrap Irony
07-03-2012, 04:06 PM
The reason the 'light' positions are all WAY up is because baseball personell have finally figured out that big guys don't necessarily have to move off middle of the field positions. Too, it helps that baseball players, like human beings as a whole, have gotten a whole lot larger. (Back in the late part of the 20th century, team trainers actually told players lifting weights was a bad idea that would lead to back problems and a lack of flexibility. Bobby Richardson was told to take up smoking, in the hopes that he would then gain weight.)

Add smaller dimensions to the parks, better lighting, better travel, and more awareness of health, and, yeah, it makes sense that hitters today are better. But, were Cozart to move back to yesteryear, he'd have been a 3B too. Add Astroturf to kill his knees, parks with poor lighting, et al, and, IMO, he'd have been right around average for then, maybe a bit more.

powersackers
07-03-2012, 04:28 PM
Cozart is a rookie. I am not ready to call him average yet. Cingrani needs a third pitch according to everything I read.

Vottomatic
07-03-2012, 04:32 PM
This isn't 1980 anymore either. For as bad as people think offense is these days, you send Zack Cozart back in time and he would crush those pitchers from that time despite being a below average hitter today.

There are very, very few guys who can get away as a starter in todays game with 2 pitches. The good news though, is that Cingrani does indeed have 3 pitches.

I'll chalk that up to your youth and never having seen those pitchers pitch.

And I strongly disagree with that statement.

membengal
07-03-2012, 05:26 PM
So essentially guys that were among the best ever and then a guy who could have been if he never hurt his back? Way to pull out the extremes.

What about the rest of the league?

The average shortstop had a .627 OPS in 1980. The average first baseman a .767 OPS. The average second baseman a .652 OPS.

Your power positions are similar. But your 'light hitting' positions are all WAY up. It is a lot easier to deal with 2 pitches when you have 4 automatic outs in the NL and 3 in the AL (2B/SS/C) in most line ups. Much tougher to get away with that in todays game.

You LITERALLY wrote the following:


This isn't 1980 anymore either. For as bad as people think offense is these days, you send Zack Cozart back in time and he would crush those pitchers from that time despite being a below average hitter today.

Give me an effin' break Doug. Stop taking outlandish positions and then getting sad when people note them.

dougdirt
07-03-2012, 05:36 PM
So hitters today aren't better than hitters in 1980? Is that really what you guys are trying to argue?

Guys being bigger, faster and stronger at the plate and guys having more pitches and being able to throw them harder today yet offense is better today than it was then doesn't support that guys today are better hitters than then? Not to mention that guys today are also generally better fielders because they are faster and have much better scouting reports.

Mem, I must be missing the point you were trying to make with my two quotes. I said guys weren't good hitters then. And that we could send a below average hitter today (Cozart) to 1980 and he could be a very good hitter. What was the point you were trying to make there?

dougdirt
07-03-2012, 05:37 PM
I'll chalk that up to your youth and never having seen those pitchers pitch.

And I strongly disagree with that statement.

Which pitchers?

Guys who barely threw 90 MPH? Yeah, some guys threw a lot harder. But 80% of the league topped out below 92 MPH.

Every generation has better players than the one before it.

The Rage
07-03-2012, 05:47 PM
Next year will be the big year for Cingrani. Those AAA guys should give a good indication if his secondary stuff is up to snuff.

Cingrani sits solidly in the low 90's and can dial it up to the mid-90's going by his fx. Not bad at all. Will he be better or worse than Travis Wood?

fearofpopvol1
07-03-2012, 06:52 PM
Next year will be the big year for Cingrani. Those AAA guys should give a good indication if his secondary stuff is up to snuff.

Cingrani sits solidly in the low 90's and can dial it up to the mid-90's going by his fx. Not bad at all. Will he be better or worse than Travis Wood?

He certainly doesn't have that cutter or changeup that Wood has. I do think Cingrani's fastball is way better than Wood's though.

RedlegJake
07-04-2012, 04:15 AM
So hitters today aren't better than hitters in 1980? Is that really what you guys are trying to argue?

Guys being bigger, faster and stronger at the plate and guys having more pitches and being able to throw them harder today yet offense is better today than it was then doesn't support that guys today are better hitters than then? Not to mention that guys today are also generally better fielders because they are faster and have much better scouting reports.

Mem, I must be missing the point you were trying to make with my two quotes. I said guys weren't good hitters then. And that we could send a below average hitter today (Cozart) to 1980 and he could be a very good hitter. What was the point you were trying to make there?

Please. Add me to the list of disagreers. Go back to 1960 or 1950 yes. But not 1980. That's not far enough back. Jay Bruce would not outhit Dave Parker if you sent him back to 1984. Probably have more homers but not by much and Parker would outhit him in every other category. It's just not enough time Doug. You need 3 or 4 generations to make that a true statement. Players do get bigger, faster and stronger and athletically just overall better but it doesn't occur in a single generation.

dougdirt
07-04-2012, 10:27 AM
Please. Add me to the list of disagreers. Go back to 1960 or 1950 yes. But not 1980. That's not far enough back. Jay Bruce would not outhit Dave Parker if you sent him back to 1984. Probably have more homers but not by much and Parker would outhit him in every other category. It's just not enough time Doug. You need 3 or 4 generations to make that a true statement. Players do get bigger, faster and stronger and athletically just overall better but it doesn't occur in a single generation.
Yes, it does happen in a generation (sans one generation using drugs and the other one not). Check out Olympic records. Aside from the long jump, each new record is being broken by the next generation of guys. Every generation.

RedsfaninMT
07-04-2012, 10:34 AM
Yes, it does happen in a generation (sans one generation using drugs and the other one not). Check out Olympic records. Aside from the long jump, each new record is being broken by the next generation of guys. Every generation.

Hey Doug, phone call you from Michael Johnson regarding his 43.18 400 Meter time from 1999.

dougdirt
07-04-2012, 10:48 AM
Hey Doug, phone call you from Michael Johnson regarding his 43.18 400 Meter time from 1999.

Oh man, you got me. 13 years ago is still pretty close to 'this generation'.

Yes, there are some outliers to things, but more than half of the athletic records were set in the last 5-10 years. It is because we are better athletes now than we were even 10 years ago.

RedsfaninMT
07-04-2012, 11:15 AM
Oh man, you got me. 13 years ago is still pretty close to 'this generation'.

Yes, there are some outliers to things, but more than half of the athletic records were set in the last 5-10 years. It is because we are better athletes now than we were even 10 years ago.

Agreed. BUT (!) Johnson broke Butch Reynolds record from 1988. Nobody has touched either of their times since. And that's certainly a generation (24 years).

lollipopcurve
07-04-2012, 12:33 PM
Jay Bruce would not outhit Dave Parker if you sent him back to 1984. Probably have more homers but not by much and Parker would outhit him in every other category. It's just not enough time Doug. You need 3 or 4 generations to make that a true statement. Players do get bigger, faster and stronger and athletically just overall better but it doesn't occur in a single generation.

Agreed 100%. And I feel confident in saying that Dave Parker was a better hitter than Jay Bruce is now. Bruce has plenty of time to improve, but for now there's no doubt in my mind that at his peak the Cobra could do a lot more at the plate. Parker was the type of hitter that I think Bruce would like to be -- used his hands without sacrificing much power and sprayed the ball around, amassing EBHs across the board -- doubles, triples, homers.

dougdirt
07-04-2012, 12:35 PM
Jay Bruce has as many home runs today as Dave Parker had in all of 1980. He also has more walks. I bet Bruce would out hit Parker in 1980.

RedlegJake
07-04-2012, 01:27 PM
Yes, it does happen in a generation (sans one generation using drugs and the other one not). Check out Olympic records. Aside from the long jump, each new record is being broken by the next generation of guys. Every generation.

Across the entire spectrum of baseball I would agree. But take any single player and move him back a single generation, like Cozart, to 1980 and NO he doesn't make any appreciable gain in his game. Take him back to 1950 and yes, he becomes a stud player. And we are not talking track and field here. We are talking baseball. Talk about apples and oranges. T&F is pure athletic talent - speed and power period. Baseball also involves a very difficult skillset that transcends generations. Learning to recognize a curve coming out of a pitcher's hand doesn't get much easier in 2012 than it was in 1982.

Vottomatic
07-04-2012, 02:26 PM
My ex-wife still has the her high school record in the Butterfly from back in the early 80's, and she went to a school in Indiana that had 2,000 kids and still does today.

How's that for every generation getting better? ;)

Vottomatic
07-04-2012, 02:30 PM
Across the entire spectrum of baseball I would agree. But take any single player and move him back a single generation, like Cozart, to 1980 and NO he doesn't make any appreciable gain in his game. Take him back to 1950 and yes, he becomes a stud player. And we are not talking track and field here. We are talking baseball. Talk about apples and oranges. T&F is pure athletic talent - speed and power period. Baseball also involves a very difficult skillset that transcends generations. Learning to recognize a curve coming out of a pitcher's hand doesn't get much easier in 2012 than it was in 1982.

I agree.

Doug chalks everything up to better fitness and strength.

Brains and baseball smarts make up for alot.

It's like with basketball, no one will ever convince me that Lebron or Kobe are better than Jordan. Saw it with my own eyes. Jordan went 1 on 5 nearly every night and still got it done. Best there ever was. And today's b-ball players are more "fit" and "stronger". Hehehe.

Nope.

rgslone
07-04-2012, 03:02 PM
Jay Bruce has as many home runs today as Dave Parker had in all of 1980. He also has more walks. I bet Bruce would out hit Parker in 1980.

Doug, I don't want to jump to a conclusion that you didn't say - so I'll just ask: Are you saying that Bruce is already a better player than Parker? If so, I can't agree with that, certainly not as of today in regard to hitting. I would suggest comparing Parker's age 24 stats (1975 - his 1st full year) with Bruce's last year (2011 - his 3rd full year). Moreover, in his prime I remember Parker being one of the most feared hitters in baseball and a tough out. I think currently Bruce is feared, but he's not a particularly tough out.

dougdirt
07-04-2012, 03:56 PM
Doug, I don't want to jump to a conclusion that you didn't say - so I'll just ask: Are you saying that Bruce is already a better player than Parker? If so, I can't agree with that, certainly not as of today in regard to hitting. I would suggest comparing Parker's age 24 stats (1975 - his 1st full year) with Bruce's last year (2011 - his 3rd full year). Moreover, in his prime I remember Parker being one of the most feared hitters in baseball and a tough out. I think currently Bruce is feared, but he's not a particularly tough out.

Not saying that at all. Parker had better seasons than Bruce has had thus far. I still think if we had a 'go back' machine Bruce would be able to out perform him though. Sorry,pitchers simply weren't nearly as good then. Bruce would be able to feast on a whole slew of 90 MPH fastballs.

lollipopcurve
07-04-2012, 04:36 PM
I still think if we had a 'go back' machine Bruce would be able to out perform him though. Sorry,pitchers simply weren't nearly as good then. Bruce would be able to feast on a whole slew of 90 MPH fastballs.

I don't buy this for a second. Parker was simply more skilled, and just as powerful. Keep in mind that if you put Bruce in that era, you'd have to adjust him to the environment 100% -- meaning he'd have the same training regimen as those guys did -- same workout/nutrition knowledge as held sway at that time. You got to level the playing field if you want a fair comparison.

dougdirt
07-04-2012, 04:43 PM
I don't buy this for a second. Parker was simply more skilled, and just as powerful. Keep in mind that if you put Bruce in that era, you'd have to adjust him to the environment 100% -- meaning he'd have the same training regimen as those guys did -- same workout/nutrition knowledge as held sway at that time. You got to level the playing field if you want a fair comparison.

No, my point was if we had a time machine. Of course athletes going back and being born in those times would be different.

rgslone
07-04-2012, 04:44 PM
Not saying that at all. Parker had better seasons than Bruce has had thus far. I still think if we had a 'go back' machine Bruce would be able to out perform him though. Sorry,pitchers simply weren't nearly as good then. Bruce would be able to feast on a whole slew of 90 MPH fastballs.

Ok, I understand what you're saying and you may be right. But I still just don't think Bruce would be as good a hitter as Parker even if they were the same age and Parker was playing today (especially if Parker didn't have any drug issues). Nevertheless, I'm very happy Bruce is our RF.

RedlegJake
07-04-2012, 06:42 PM
Doug, its an interesting point to discuss. I don't think we're really that far off anyway. I agree each generation overall gets better than the one before. I only disagree that any one athlete sent back 25 years would have much of an advantage. Send him back 50 years though and he'd have a big advantage. I think it would be far more likely to work against the hitters or pitchers of a generation past to be brought forward than the reverse.

JaxRed
07-04-2012, 08:17 PM
We sure are off the topic.

Scrap Irony
07-04-2012, 08:20 PM
Travel, Astroturf, trainers insisting he not lift weights, managerial decisions in which Bruce would bunt runners over-- often.

Nope. Still not buying the 70s Bruce love. (And especially not the 60s Bruce love. He'd have been relegated to fourth OF status simply because he'd K too much. And the big old parks! Pitching inside, no armor, poor lighting, heavier, hotter uniforms-- not then either.)

Every generation has crosses to bear. The crosses, IMO, of past generations outweigh the increases in body mass and bioengineering we've been able to create today.

Some players, of course, could cross over. IMO, Ted Williams could play in any generation. Same with Walter Johnson. Joey Votto would be great no matter when he played. Mickey Mantle, too. (Likely even better today, considering the advances in medicine that would hav fixed his knee after he stepped in an irrigation ditch in Yankee Stadium early in his career.)

Poor lighting and poor fastball (comparatively) equal out, IMO. So you're then left with tools. And Bruce's 2012 tools just aren't as impressive.

rgslone
07-04-2012, 08:45 PM
Scrap Irony: "He'd have been relegated to fourth OF status simply because he'd K too much."

I think this is an interesting statement. When I look at the stats from the 70s, it seems to me that none of the good (or even decent) players ever struck out at anything close to the rate Bruce does. Of course, Bruce's K rate is not that unusual in this era. I think that higher Ks have been more acceptable since the steriod era and home-run craze. I suspect before that time players would have been embarrassed with the K rate Bruce has and would have made whatever adjustments were necessary to decrease it (maybe at the expense of some HRs). Now, the emphasis is so much on HRs that K rates that may have been considered unacceptable in other eras are now shrugged off.

dougdirt
07-04-2012, 08:59 PM
Of course Jay wouldn't strike out nearly as much facing lesser pitchers.

membengal
07-04-2012, 09:30 PM
Of course Jay wouldn't strike out nearly as much facing lesser pitchers.

Oh dear lord.

Its almost like you are now trolling.

fearofpopvol1
07-04-2012, 11:43 PM
Of course Jay wouldn't strike out nearly as much facing lesser pitchers.

Pitchers throwing Bruce an offspeed pitch off the plate would strike Bruce out in any era.

Blitz Dorsey
07-04-2012, 11:57 PM
Way to take this thread in a terrible direction, gents. Try again.

Here's the deal: Doug (and many others) have disrespected Cingrani with their misguided rankings. If anyone thinks Kyle Lotzkar is a better prospect than Tony Cingrani, I will be happy to explain the sport of baseball to them.

dougdirt
07-05-2012, 12:03 AM
Way to take this thread in a terrible direction, gents. Try again.

Here's the deal: Doug (and many others) have disrespected Cingrani with their misguided rankings. If anyone thinks Kyle Lotzkar is a better prospect than Tony Cingrani, I will be happy to explain the sport of baseball to them.

Ok, please explain the sport to me. I expect an explanation of every single rule and regulation in the game. No copy and pasting.

Fact is, I don't think I have seen anyone aside from Redszone, claim that Cingrani is the Reds best pitching prospect. Either all of the experts or wrong, or a small portion of the fans are.

camisadelgolf
07-05-2012, 12:40 AM
Jeez, guys. Can't you agree to disagree and let time decide who's being stupid about this? And when that day comes, feel more than free to say, "I told you so."

dougdirt
07-05-2012, 12:41 AM
The only people who say I told you so are people who aren't right that often.

camisadelgolf
07-05-2012, 01:08 AM
The only people who say I told you so are people who aren't right that often.
Alfred from Batman loves to say it to Bruce Wayne, and I don't recall him being wrong all that often.

dougdirt
07-05-2012, 09:19 AM
Alfred from Batman loves to say it to Bruce Wayne, and I don't recall him being wrong all that often.

Fictional character.

bubbachunk
07-05-2012, 09:45 AM
Way to take this thread in a terrible direction, gents. Try again.

Here's the deal: Doug (and many others) have disrespected Cingrani with their misguided rankings. If anyone thinks Kyle Lotzkar is a better prospect than Tony Cingrani, I will be happy to explain the sport of baseball to them.

Holy moly why are you trolling so hard?

Scrap Irony
07-05-2012, 09:57 AM
The only people who say I told you so are people who aren't right that often.

... And those that have an intractable opponent who often acts like he's never done or said anything wrong in his life and wouldn't say he's wrong for all the tea in China.

Patrick Bateman
07-05-2012, 10:26 AM
I think someone who is really knowledgeable about prospects undertands that there is a lot of guesswork, and each prospect is different. Some stats can be misleading, some aren't. One guy may look better from a scouting perspective, but may not have the work ethic, proper coaching, or mental fortitude to develop properly. There are just so many factors.

In total, because there is so much guesswork, I think each of Lotzkar, Corcino, Stephenson, and Cingrani have the various qualities (and flaws) that any of them could be reasonably argued to be the Reds top pitching propsect. In the end, perhaps only one of those guys becomes a valuable major league pitcher. I can tell you that each one of them is capable of doing such, but which one will do it? I have little idea, and quite frankly, I don't think anyone else here really does either.

In total, I think this whole approach of deciding who is infintely the best pitching prospect in the system is completely flawed. Everyone who is taking such a hard line stance is wrong for doing so. Everyone here has been so wrong on various pitchers, that I don't get how anyone can have the sense of entitlement that is being displayed through each post.

I'm just saying, there should be room in our opinions in relation to prospects to recognize that each of these guys are not finished products, and as such, it should be recognized that there is no definitive answer, just a "best guess approach".

Scrap Irony
07-05-2012, 11:38 AM
I think someone who is really knowledgeable about prospects undertands that there is a lot of guesswork, and each prospect is different. Some stats can be misleading, some aren't. One guy may look better from a scouting perspective, but may not have the work ethic, proper coaching, or mental fortitude to develop properly. There are just so many factors.

In total, because there is so much guesswork, I think each of Lotzkar, Corcino, Stephenson, and Cingrani have the various qualities (and flaws) that any of them could be reasonably argued to be the Reds top pitching propsect. In the end, perhaps only one of those guys becomes a valuable major league pitcher. I can tell you that each one of them is capable of doing such, but which one will do it? I have little idea, and quite frankly, I don't think anyone else here really does either.

In total, I think this whole approach of deciding who is infintely the best pitching prospect in the system is completely flawed. Everyone who is taking such a hard line stance is wrong for doing so. Everyone here has been so wrong on various pitchers, that I don't get how anyone can have the sense of entitlement that is being displayed through each post.

I'm just saying, there should be room in our opinions in relation to prospects to recognize that each of these guys are not finished products, and as such, it should be recognized that there is no definitive answer, just a "best guess approach".

Well-said.

It's all guesswork, and not one of us is any better at predicting who's better than any other. We're all amateur GMs and scouting directors looking at the pieces to try and find the whole.

camisadelgolf
07-05-2012, 01:44 PM
Fictional character.
Let me guess--you don't believe in the Tooth Fairy either? I think it's time you grow up and accept things for what they really are, Doug.

Blitz Dorsey
07-05-2012, 02:12 PM
I think someone who is really knowledgeable about prospects undertands that there is a lot of guesswork, and each prospect is different. Some stats can be misleading, some aren't. One guy may look better from a scouting perspective, but may not have the work ethic, proper coaching, or mental fortitude to develop properly. There are just so many factors.

In total, because there is so much guesswork, I think each of Lotzkar, Corcino, Stephenson, and Cingrani have the various qualities (and flaws) that any of them could be reasonably argued to be the Reds top pitching propsect. In the end, perhaps only one of those guys becomes a valuable major league pitcher. I can tell you that each one of them is capable of doing such, but which one will do it? I have little idea, and quite frankly, I don't think anyone else here really does either.

In total, I think this whole approach of deciding who is infintely the best pitching prospect in the system is completely flawed. Everyone who is taking such a hard line stance is wrong for doing so. Everyone here has been so wrong on various pitchers, that I don't get how anyone can have the sense of entitlement that is being displayed through each post.

I'm just saying, there should be room in our opinions in relation to prospects to recognize that each of these guys are not finished products, and as such, it should be recognized that there is no definitive answer, just a "best guess approach".

This type of reasonable, well-thought-out post has no business here. Please take your trash elsewhere, sir.

[sarcasm off]

Great post.

Blitz Dorsey
07-05-2012, 02:17 PM
I was careful to put "IMO" in the thread title. I can see the argument for Corcino being the best. Maybe even Stephenson as we get more and more info (lookin' good so far). But when Doug is adamant that Lotzkar is better and won't back down, I do tend to be a bit aggressive in my arguments. However, that's the only way to get Doug to admit he's wrong. Wait, he's never wrong! Haha.

Seriously Doug, have you ever admitted to being wrong on RedsZone? Not even being sarcastic. Serious question.

dougdirt
07-05-2012, 02:31 PM
Plenty of times.

Vottomatic
07-05-2012, 04:36 PM
Plenty of times.

I remember the last one back in 2006. ;)

Just trying to lighten the mood up. :D

RedlegJake
07-05-2012, 06:16 PM
Doug, you can be a bit intractable. But you know, I haven't met anyone with an opinion that mattered that wasn't a bit like that. When I don;t agree with Doug I know I will be called upon to defend my position and I best not be BSing. Best kind of guy to discuss things with. Besides, Blitz - when did you become the crown prince of reasonableness? LOL. Jerking both your chains...

Vottomatic
07-05-2012, 06:26 PM
In 3 years I have 4800 posts. In 6 years, Doug has 26,000 posts. I need to up my number of posts a day to catch up!

Not that there's anything wrong with that.........;)

dougdirt
07-05-2012, 06:30 PM
12 of those 26,000 were even good ones.

RedlegJake
07-05-2012, 07:08 PM
In 7 years I have 3300 posts. Compared to you guys I took an oath of silence or something...

Superdude
07-05-2012, 07:08 PM
The silver lining of this whole argument is the fact that the word intractable was used twice in one page. We're gettin' so smart here at RedsZone. :D

M2
07-05-2012, 07:19 PM
What was the Vegas line on a Dave Parker argument breaking out in a Tony Cingrani thread?

Parker was, arguably, the best player alive in the late 1970s. He was certainly on the short list. Much as I like Jay Bruce, common sense ought to tell you he's not yet in the conversation with best-in-their-era types.

And the argument that you need three plus pitches is at least a century old. Never been true. It's up there with these kids today don't know how to play the game.

dougdirt
07-05-2012, 07:21 PM
And the argument that you need three plus pitches is at least a century old. Never been true. It's up there with these kids today don't know how to play the game.

Who said anything about needing 3 plus pitches?

RedlegJake
07-05-2012, 08:21 PM
I'm just glad that Lotzkar and Cingrani are both Reds prospects so we're not discussing two different teams best pitcher

Blitz Dorsey
07-07-2012, 10:27 PM
Here's the deal: I love all you guys. (In a completely non-Jerry-Sandusky kind of way.)

Oh yeah, and Cingrani is some kind of good. I think we have one or two seats left on the Cingraniwagon. Who hasn't jumped aboard yet?

JaxRed
07-08-2012, 10:41 AM
Cingrani has a shutout streak of 20 2/3 innings

http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120707&content_id=34688620&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_milb

Blitz Dorsey
07-08-2012, 01:31 PM
From the story linked above:

"That 15-K game was the best one I've had here so far," Cingrani said. "My off-speed [stuff] was really working in that game, I think. I'm always trying to repeat things I did then, but all I can do is go out there and compete like I always do."

Cingrani's 1.28 ERA between Bakersfield (10 starts) and Pensacola (seven) leads all full-season Minor Leaguers. He also ranks second in the Minors with 121 strikeouts, sixth with a 0.94 WHIP and seventh with a .186 opponents' batting average.

dougdirt
07-08-2012, 01:32 PM
Yep. His stats are incredible.

Blitz Dorsey
07-08-2012, 01:36 PM
Yep. His stats are incredible.

And I know it's just the player talking (which you have to take with a grain) but I like that Cingrani feels he's off-speed stuff is improving. Yet, at the same time, he admits in the story that his slider and change must continue to improve if he's going to make it at the MLB level. Sounds like he "gets it." He's putting up the ridiculous stats, but he also knows there's a lot of work still to be done. He doesn't seem to have the attitude that he has it all figured out. I like everything about this kid. (As if you couldn't already tell. Ha.)

dougdirt
07-08-2012, 01:39 PM
Yeah, everything he has been saying is the right stuff. It seems that he understands it, the coaches get it and they are working together to try and make it better.

Plus Plus
07-08-2012, 02:15 PM
Has Cingriani been using his off-speed pitches more in AA than he had been in A+?

dougdirt
07-08-2012, 02:35 PM
Has Cingriani been using his off-speed pitches more in AA than he had been in A+?

At times yes, at times no. It is still pretty inconsistent. When it isn't there, he still leans incredibly heavy on his fastball.

Scrap Irony
07-08-2012, 03:25 PM
If he continues to dominate AA, doug, are you willing to now accept that he'll likely be a starter at the major league level, rather than the reliever you insisted he was?

Or will it take him working on those pitches until they're plus before you agree that he's a starter candidate?

dougdirt
07-08-2012, 03:29 PM
If he continues to dominate AA, doug, are you willing to now accept that he'll likely be a starter at the major league level, rather than the reliever you insisted he was?

Or will it take him working on those pitches until they're plus before you agree that he's a starter candidate?

It will take him working on those pitches until they show any kind of consistency before I think there is a good chance to be a starter. Right now he is a starter candidate, but I still think its 50-50 as to whether he starts or not. Just this past week Keith Law talked about Cingrani on his podcast and said he is likely a reliever. Last week, John Sickels talked about Cingrani as a guy who scouts were still pretty split on in terms of starting/relieving. Last week JJ Cooper of Baseball America talked about how more scouts were coming around that he could start, but of course that means that there are still plenty out there who aren't so sure about it. This isn't just some "Doug" thing. It is a whole lot of people who analyze baseball prospects for a living thing.

And let's note that I never insisted he was a reliever. I insisted that if he didn't improve his secondary stuff, he was a reliever. There is a huge difference between the two things.

membengal
07-08-2012, 04:04 PM
Yep. His stats are incredible.

Stats are for non-prospects. Real prospects, like Stubbs, have no use for stats.

Blitz Dorsey
07-08-2012, 04:15 PM
Yes! Keith Law thinks Cingrani will be a reliever. That absolutely guarantees he'll be a starter.

I would love to bet someone like Keith Law in regards to this debate. I'm 100 percent convinced Cingrani will be a starter in MLB, not a reliever.

dougdirt
07-08-2012, 04:20 PM
Stats are for non-prospects. Real prospects, like Stubbs, have no use for stats.

Stubbs isn't a prospect. And he was debated plenty with stats. And projection. And a nice mixture of both.

Scrap Irony
07-08-2012, 04:24 PM
"Scouts" is a nebulous word. Most of them don't watch specific prospects every few days or even months. Neither do the so-called experts, such as Cooper, Law, Sickels, et al.

They simply recycle the same tired lines or scouting reports from early career/ draft analysis, then change as it becomes obvious they need to change. (And then only when it's patently obvious.)

A quick example from three years ago involves Billy Hamilton and his supposedly weak arm. About half the scouts in baseball, according to various experts, thought his best position was 2B because of his weak arm. (That particular meme is still in existence even now, btw.) When told he could chuck it up to 90 mph off the mound and told by managers, coaches, and scouts that actually saw Hamilton play that his arm wasn't weak (but was inaccurate), only a few of them changed their "analysis".

Examples abound. Votto was doubted because he supposedly had a "slow bat". When I saw him in Dayton, Sarasota, then again in Chattanooga, I couldn't believe their consensus. I shouldn't have. Votto has one of the quickest bats in baseball. But the meme was put out there by one guy with lines to fill and quickly picked up by the others.

Prospect guys are all the same, really. They get some interesting information from teams, but, overall, what they write is pretty much filler you can almost always disregard. In order to balance out an article and appear like an unbiased observer/ expert, you have to find something bad about a guy.

Cingrani's been a stud. But, because they didn't call it immediately, so-called experts insist he's a reliever. (I'm guessing that started on draft day, btw. Some draftnik looked at his numbers, assumed he struggled with his secondary offerings, and made a comment. Others picked it up. It became the meme.)

Fact is, Dude's got three pitches. Two of those pitches are above average. The third is a work in progress. Since he's in the minor leagues, he still has time to work on that third pitch.

Even if it doesn't progress beyond what it is now, he's likely going to be able to start in the major leagues at a league average level. Those two pitches will carry him that far because they're so effective-- as seen in his professional career-long dominance. His numbers-- at close to age-appropriate levels-- are arguably the best the minor leagues have seen since he first started in Billings.

If he doesn't improve his slider, he'll still be okay, as his slider is already... serviceable. He can throw it. It breaks at a decent level, and hitting is among the hardest things to do in professional baseball.

membengal
07-08-2012, 04:33 PM
Stubbs isn't a prospect. And he was debated plenty with stats. And projection. And a nice mixture of both.

He was. Hence, my reference. And your slavish defense of him when he never EVER produced, at any level, befitting a prospect. But he sure looks good in a swimsuit, I guess.

Scrap Irony
07-08-2012, 04:34 PM
Stubbs isn't a prospect. And he was debated plenty with stats. And projection. And a nice mixture of both.

I remember that differently.

I remember you using line drive percentage a couple times. I remember, the rest of the argument was entirely scout-driven "analysis". That the ball jumped off his bat. That he had power he hadn't shown. That his swing was quick and that he would learn the strike zone.

I remember arguing that Heisey was at least his equal quite vociferously. And using numbers. Tons of them.

We made the bet then over who would be the better major league hitter.

I'm still feeling pretty good about my pick.

dougdirt
07-08-2012, 04:35 PM
I think you should try to find a way to go shadow the work of some of the people who do the prospect work (Sickels, Law, any of the BA guys) if you think they aren't out there talking with numerous scouts every day.

As for Cingrani, his slider can be decent at times. Of course there are other times in is a straight low 80's fastball because it doesn't break at all. And then there is the change up, which is supposedly a good pitch, but he uses like his 3rd pitch a few times a game because he simply doesn't trust it for whatever reason.

dougdirt
07-08-2012, 04:37 PM
I remember that differently.

I remember you using line drive percentage a couple times. I remember, the rest of the argument was entirely scout-driven "analysis". That the ball jumped off his bat. That he had power he hadn't shown. That his swing was quick and that he would learn the strike zone.

I remember arguing that Heisey was at least his equal quite vociferously. And using numbers. Tons of them.

We made the bet then over who would be the better major league hitter.

I'm still feeling pretty good about my pick.

I am pretty sure I would have brought up Stubbs good walk rate in the minors as well as his power potential that was just waiting to come out despite his low home run totals in the minors.

dougdirt
07-08-2012, 04:38 PM
He was. Hence, my reference. And your slavish defense of him when he never EVER produced, at any level, befitting a prospect. But he sure looks good in a swimsuit, I guess.

Produced at what level? He was an elite level defensive center fielder with a minor league OPS of .762. Sure, the guy wasn't Jay Bruce at the plate, but he never needed to be.

dougdirt
07-08-2012, 04:39 PM
And for the record, I am done talking about Stubbs here. Start a new thread on how to properly evaluate a prospect if you want to.

Scrap Irony
07-08-2012, 04:49 PM
I think you should try to find a way to go shadow the work of some of the people who do the prospect work (Sickels, Law, any of the BA guys) if you think they aren't out there talking with numerous scouts every day.

What makes you think I haven't?

I was one of those guys (in basketball). I talked to a ton of those guys in football and in baseball.

texasdave
07-09-2012, 12:18 AM
Southern League
Tony Cingrani, Pensacola
(1-0, 0.00 ERA, 1 G, 1 GS, 8 IP, 3 H, 0 R, 0 ER, 0 HR, 0 HBP, 1 BB, 15 K)
After utterly dominating the California League in the first two months of the season -- 5-1, 1.11 ERA, 71 strikeouts and 13 walks in 56 2/3 innings -- Cingrani faced some resistance in Double-A. The lefty's ERA was 5.40 after he surrendered three home runs to the Mobile BayBears in his third outing with the Blue Wahoos. Two starts later, Cingrani service has been restored to its optimum level, with the 22-year-old Rice product fanning 15 batters over eight scoreless innings Wednesday in his finest outing as a pro. Despite all the strikeouts -- he now ranks third in the Minors with 109 in 86 innings this season -- Cingrani needed just 100 pitches to get through the eight three-hit frames.

JaxRed
07-10-2012, 05:08 PM
Whoever wrote that is wrong. He had an ERA of 5.40 in ONE game. At the end of that game his ERA was 2.55. His ERA was never above 2.95 at the end of any game.

eljaymora
07-11-2012, 01:06 PM
I think imho Serrano may be creeping up close to your list...Have you seen his stats in the last month and a half? Or even his stats in his 5 starts...

dougdirt
07-11-2012, 01:08 PM
I think imho Serrano may be creeping up close to your list...Have you seen his stats in the last month and a half? Or even his stats in his 5 starts...

I like Serrano. But he is a for sure reliever. Could be a 7th inning MLB guy with his FB/SL combo. Relievers that aren't closers aren't going to be ranked that high though.

eljaymora
07-11-2012, 01:10 PM
got it, it was my first post, thanks for the quick response...

REDREAD
07-11-2012, 03:45 PM
Not saying that at all. Parker had better seasons than Bruce has had thus far. I still think if we had a 'go back' machine Bruce would be able to out perform him though. Sorry,pitchers simply weren't nearly as good then. Bruce would be able to feast on a whole slew of 90 MPH fastballs.

Doug, this is just a silly thing to say.
Parker won two batting titles and an MVP.
He got derailed by a drug problem, but he was an awesome hitter, and very consistent

Bruce is a nice player, but he's not a dominating hitter (at least not yet).
Bruce is never going to win a batting title. He'll probably never win an MVP either.. I like Bruce a lot, he's a good player, but I don't think he'll ever get to Parker's level.

Saying that Cozart would kill 80's pitching is also a bit of an exaggeration.
Cozart is a nice player, but I'm not sure he could play SS on turf. (Saying I don't know, maybe he could).. Since Cozart is a bit OBP challenged in this era, he probably would have the same OBP struggles in the 80's

Homer Bailey
07-11-2012, 03:52 PM
Doug, this is just a silly thing to say.
Parker won two batting titles and an MVP.
He got derailed by a drug problem, but he was an awesome hitter, and very consistent

Bruce is a nice player, but he's not a dominating hitter (at least not yet).
Bruce is never going to win a batting title. He'll probably never win an MVP either.. I like Bruce a lot, he's a good player, but I don't think he'll ever get to Parker's level.



All due respect, I think you're kind of missing the point. Doug is saying if you plop the 2012 version of Jay Bruce into the early 80's, he has a lot more success in comparison with the rest of the league than he does in the current era. Compared to his peers, Bruce is not a better player in his era than Parker, but if you compare Bruce's actual physical ability to Parker's (i.e., if they played in the exact same era), that Bruce would look pretty darn favorable in comparison to Parker.

REDREAD
07-11-2012, 04:03 PM
All due respect, I think you're kind of missing the point. Doug is saying if you plop the 2012 version of Jay Bruce into the early 80's, he has a lot more success in comparison with the rest of the league than he does in the current era. Compared to his peers, Bruce is not a better player in his era than Parker, but if you compare Bruce's actual physical ability to Parker's (i.e., if they played in the exact same era), that Bruce would look pretty darn favorable in comparison to Parker.

I guess I disagree. No matter what the time machine does, Parker is a better player than Bruce is right now. Maybe Bruce eventually takes the next leap, but he's not there yet.

It's all speculation though. Doug points out the average OPS for various positions in the 80's as evidence that today's hitters are better, yet also says that the 80's pitchers were inferior..

Many factors are being overlooked. Back in the 80's, teams had 10 man pitching staffs. There was a long guy to bail the disaster starters out.. not like earlier in the year where Dusty would use Simon,Hoover, LeCure to cover maybe 4-5 innings in a blowout. Turf also makes a big difference. Other people touched on other things as well.

I think it's hard to predict what someone like Cozart would do in the 80's.
Someone's guess that he'd be a 3b on turf seems reasonable. I think he'd still be a power/OBP challenged guy. But would still be valuable.

However, there's no doubt in my mind that Parker was a better player than Bruce is right now. Parker didn't disappear for weeks at a time like Bruce does. Not bashing Bruce, but he is pretty darn streaky.

Scrap Irony
07-11-2012, 05:06 PM
Parker could play in any era, including today's, and be dominant. Parker's got the edge in the hit tool, defense, arm, and speed. They're just about even in terms of power, especially considering the ballparks and lighting. I'd stack Parker's baseball IQ up against anyone from today. Dude knew the game.

Bruce? He's got power. Very good defender. Decent speed.

No contest, IMO.

membengal
07-11-2012, 10:20 PM
Dave Parker in 1978/1979 was as frightening an opposing player for the Reds to face as anyone I have seen them face in my lifetime. His size, presence at the plate, bat control, power, all of it. A beast.

Scrap Irony
07-11-2012, 10:30 PM
He seemed to... loom. I'm not a good enough writer to paint a clearer picture than that. Parker loomed in the batting box better than any batter I say from that era.

membengal
07-11-2012, 10:35 PM
He seemed to... loom. I'm not a good enough writer to paint a clearer picture than that. Parker loomed in the batting box better than any batter I say from that era.

Perfect description. He was awe-inspring and terrifying in those days.

Blitz Dorsey
07-11-2012, 11:43 PM
Cingrani starts and ends like Cincinnati.

That's another good sign. Ha.

Scrap Irony
07-11-2012, 11:50 PM
Those Pirate teams always ticked me off as a young fan. Stargell was past his prime, but always seemed to find a way to beat my Reds. Candelaria, Tekulve, Jim Bibby always seemed to pitch gems against the BRM. They never solved Madlock.

Then Johnny Ray and Tony Perez. Iron Mike Easler. (Hated to see him up to bat. Low line drive after low line drive.) Rick Rhoden. (How could I forget Rick Rhoden?)

Hated those teams.

treetops
07-14-2012, 06:46 AM
This comment from a recent Klaw chat suggests he would have Cingrani in a current top 100:

Dave (Connecticut): Just curious as to where Tony Cingrani would fall if you were to rank another 50 prospects? Thanks.
Klaw: Probably in the last 25. Scouts like him but he's doing this more or less with one pitch.

lollipopcurve
07-14-2012, 07:48 AM
He seemed to... loom. I'm not a good enough writer to paint a clearer picture than that. Parker loomed in the batting box better than any batter I say from that era.
__________________

great description

Plus Plus
07-14-2012, 10:00 AM
This comment from a recent Klaw chat suggests he would have Cingrani in a current top 100:

Dave (Connecticut): Just curious as to where Tony Cingrani would fall if you were to rank another 50 prospects? Thanks.
Klaw: Probably in the last 25. Scouts like him but he's doing this more or less with one pitch.

....Doug is Keith Law????

:eek::eek::eek:

dougdirt
07-14-2012, 10:04 AM
....Doug is Keith Law????

:eek::eek::eek:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

:laugh:

I am not a big Keith Law fan. I respect what he does, but I often disagree with his opinions.

Blitz Dorsey
07-15-2012, 01:59 AM
Keith Law is the real 40-year-old virgin.

(Sorry, Steve Carell.)

DGullett35
07-15-2012, 02:11 PM
Keith Law is the real 40-year-old virgin.

(Sorry, Steve Carell.)

Awesome:laugh:

REDREAD
07-16-2012, 01:52 PM
Keith Law is the real 40-year-old virgin.

(Sorry, Steve Carell.)

lol.. I remember talking/argueing with him on rec.sport.baseball back before he became famous.

He's actually matured a lot since then.. but that's an awesome description of him.

dougdirt
07-25-2012, 11:36 AM
From Jim Riggleman after the game last night (http://www.pnj.com/article/20120725/SPORTS/307250032/Huntsville-tops-Wahoos-series-opener?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Blue%20Wahoos)

“He has been outstanding, but he couldn’t get the ball down today and didn’t have his breaking ball,” Riggleman said. “The breaking ball has been an issue throughout, but he had a couple games where he made progress.

“We were hoping with the 10 days off, and a couple bullpen sessions, he would be sharper with his breaking ball, but it wasn’t to be.”

bellhead
07-25-2012, 04:00 PM
From Jim Riggleman after the game last night (http://www.pnj.com/article/20120725/SPORTS/307250032/Huntsville-tops-Wahoos-series-opener?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Blue%20Wahoos)

“He has been outstanding, but he couldn’t get the ball down today and didn’t have his breaking ball,” Riggleman said. “The breaking ball has been an issue throughout, but he had a couple games where he made progress.

“We were hoping with the 10 days off, and a couple bullpen sessions, he would be sharper with his breaking ball, but it wasn’t to be.”

Doug,

Hopefully a good learning experience from failure for Tony, taking from this the need to work on his secondary pitches and keep the ball down.

corkedbat
07-25-2012, 04:14 PM
Tony has two more steps ahead of him and they will become progressively tougher for without decent offspeed offerings if he remains a starter.

dougdirt
07-25-2012, 05:10 PM
Doug,

Hopefully a good learning experience from failure for Tony, taking from this the need to work on his secondary pitches and keep the ball down.

His secondary stuff wasn't really there last night, but that isn't why he got hit around. He got hit around because he was throwing his fastball at the waist to the chest after the 3rd inning. That was either the 6th or 7th start of his that I have watched and that was the first time I have seen him struggle to locate his fastball for more than 3-4 pitches in a row. He was consistently up in the zone for the second half of his outing last night and he is usually a guy who just pounds the knee caps with strikes both inside and outside corners with his fastball.

He has made strides with his breaking ball. It is still incredibly inconsistent, but has made pretty big improvements since last year.

bellhead
07-25-2012, 08:06 PM
His secondary stuff wasn't really there last night, but that isn't why he got hit around. He got hit around because he was throwing his fastball at the waist to the chest after the 3rd inning. That was either the 6th or 7th start of his that I have watched and that was the first time I have seen him struggle to locate his fastball for more than 3-4 pitches in a row. He was consistently up in the zone for the second half of his outing last night and he is usually a guy who just pounds the knee caps with strikes both inside and outside corners with his fastball.

He has made strides with his breaking ball. It is still incredibly inconsistent, but has made pretty big improvements since last year.

Converting from a reliever in college to a starter, he will need two more years to get his innings count up in order to pitch a full mlb season. Also the Reds over the next two years don't have a lot of holes in their rotation. :beerme:

dougdirt
07-25-2012, 08:20 PM
Converting from a reliever in college to a starter, he will need two more years to get his innings count up in order to pitch a full mlb season. Also the Reds over the next two years don't have a lot of holes in their rotation. :beerme:

Cingrani started his first 3 years in college, so he isn't really a converted reliever in the traditional sense.

bellhead
07-25-2012, 08:30 PM
Cingrani started his first 3 years in college, so he isn't really a converted reliever in the traditional sense.

With everybody coming back next year, we don't really need him. 2014 would be his ETA and if Chapman is converted then there are no openings..

Vottomatic
07-25-2012, 08:37 PM
Yeah, everything he has been saying is the right stuff. It seems that he understands it, the coaches get it and they are working together to try and make it better.

In terms of interviews and saying the right stuff, I hear Crash Davis has been tutoring him. ;)

Vottomatic
07-25-2012, 08:43 PM
With everybody coming back next year, we don't really need him. 2014 would be his ETA and if Chapman is converted then there are no openings..

Don't need him?

Baseball is a funny game. What happens if a couple of starting pitchers have arm or shoulder problems pop up? I think you have gotten to comfortable with the good luck our staff has had this season. Look at Madson. Look at Masset. Look at Bray. An injury can happen at any moment.

OR........a guy can be having a terrific Reds career and become the next Roy Halladay or Cole Hamels and outprice himself in Cincinnati.

And Arroyo is gone after next season. Cueto is signed through 2015 then what? Latos too, then what? Bailey and Leake will have to be extended soon, then what?

YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH GOOD PITCHING. I hope Cingrani, Corcino, Stephenson, Travieso and even the other guys - Sulbaran, Lotzkar, etc......become good if not better.

dougdirt
07-25-2012, 09:13 PM
With Corcino, Cingrani, Lotzkar, Sulbaran and Villarreal all at AA or higher right now, I am not overly concerned about us not having the depth. Just have to hope that if there is an injury, that it isn't serious.