LOL. We'll see about that. I couldn't disagree more, especially with you adding the word "nearly" in there. Yeah, Cingrani is not even close to Shelby Miller. Riiiight. You keep believing what the "analysts" say, I'll keep paying attention to their stats.
Cingrani has clearly proven himself to be a better prospect than expected, and his success at the upper minors suggests he will be a reasonable major leaguer of some point.
But you can't just "pay attention to hsi stats".
It's both. Miller has qualities in his favour that project him to improve at a higher rate going forward, while Cingrani might be close to maxing out what he can get out of his arsenal. For example, Matt Maloney had great stats at the AA/AAA levels, yet when he came up to the big leagues, his stuff just simply wasn't good enough or projectable to improve further.
Now Cingrani has much better stuff than Maloney, but at the same time, he might fit into that mold of failing to improve once he settles into the big leagues. His arsenal is likely good enough right now that he wont get roughed up at the majors, but if you asked me which guy (Miller or Cingrani) has the better chance to be an ace level pitcher, I think it's an easy choice in terms of Miller.
But if you also asked which guy would flame out into oblivion, considering his past issues, I'd probably suggest Miller has a better chance at that.
I'd take Miller over Cingrani considering the overall package, and I think it's a very incomplete analysis for either side to go purely off of projection or stats which makes the numerous condescending posts at others who happen to disagree pretty embarassing (especially without establishing any kind of reaosnable track record on prospect development in the past).