Well that is where Cingrani is right now. In the 80-100 range. And that is where I think he belongs. It doesn't mean he is no good. He is still in the top .03% of the ~4500 minor leaguers playing in the USA, plus lots more in the Latin American academies.Originally Posted by mdccclxix
Last edited by AtomicDumpling; 04-10-2013 at 02:17 PM.
The good news is that he either picked up velocity, or was throwing harder last year than we were led to believe. Either way, he's topping out at 94-95 this year (the gun at Louisville says 97 but Doug says it's a couple ticks fast) which is much-better than the 91 that was reported last year.
That came across way more snarky than I intended. I apologize. I was agreeing with your post -- giving you credit for seeing that there is middle ground in the Cingrani vs Miller argument -- but then tried to make a joke at the end. I wanted to rib you a little bit for saying you think Miller has the better chance of flaming out, and then in the next sentence saying you'd rather have Miller. Was just trying to make a joke. It came out wrong and looking back I can see how you weren't amused. My fault.Again, the constant pot shots are just embarassing. THis is the second time this month when somebody has told me "I am glad you aren't GM because of....." simply because we have a disagreement in opnion.
I also think that Chris Heisey has a better chance of being a major league player of some assortment than Shelby Miller (because he already is adding some major league value), but would I trade him for a top pitching prospect? Of course. By you're token, absolute certainty >>>>>> upside, which is not always the case. You need to weigh them.
Cingrani is more polished at this point. That is worth something. It's probably worth a lot.
But so is ace level ability. Most people on this board would prefer to roll the dice with Chapman as a starter, rather than take the certainty of being an ace level reliever.
That doesn't make that thought process completely inept, it's simply the recognition that shooting for the moon when the upside is so great and rare that it might make sense in some cases to bypass a medium level certainty in favour of playing for the biggest reward.
But I'm not sure why I bother. Can't wait to see how you spin my argument next.
Cool
I don't really think they do want a mulligan. Cingrani, today, is showing a different skillset than the one he showed last season. The rankings were based on what he had done to that point and what was likely moving forward. A guy who had a poor breaking ball and hadn't shown much step forward with in in years isn't likely to improve it. Cingrani has, at least through 2 starts. His skillset is different. You can't go back and re-write history (well, you can and it has been done... much harder in todays times though). Cingrani was ranked correctly at the time given what he was doing.
Yeah, in my opinion it is different. It is slower, has more sweep and more break than any single one he threw last year in the 800 some odd pitches I saw him throw. It is more consistent. You can argue it hasn't changed at all, but bring something to the table. You saw it this good last year. Where did you see it? Pensacola home games are on Milb.tv. We can go back and watch them. I watched them all. I watched all of the road games he pitches on Milb.tv too. I never saw this pitch. The scouting reports from BA, BP and Sickels don't talk about this pitch. If you can recall when you saw it, I would love to go back and watch it. I don't recall it at all. Neither do any of the big three scouting places.
I don't think it's a case of trying to protect one's ego. Rather it's simply a process > results kind of thing.
BA has always has a strong leaning towards tools. They tend to look at the tools that most strongly portend major league success, downplaying those that might drive minor league success but which may not translate. Guys who can locate a plus fastball can be especially successful in the low minors regardless of whether they have secondary pitchers or not, even as starters. But when you have a guy that has only that fastball (which is plus, but not Chapmanesque) and who was mediocre as a starter in college, it's pretty reasonable to doubt his ability to sustain success as a starter in the pros.
Given the choice between a Jeff Samardzija and a Tony Cingrani, I can see why they'd prefer the former.
I think they're particularly attuned to falling prey to the next Yusmeiro Petit. The numbers the guy puts up in the minors are almost irrelevant; it's a different game. It's how they put up the numbers that really matter to scouts. The numbers may help make up for blind spots and biases, but they aren't a substitution. If/when Cigrani shows a skill set that is more convincingly transferable than the one he showed previously, they'll change their minds. But if he simply continues to be successful in the minors on a skill set they don't trust, they won't ever come around until he actually has major league success.
I think one of things confused in the Moneyball movement was that it was about scouting vs. statistical analysis. It never was. Rather it was about identifying the proper uses for each. Moneyball was about a GM realizing the difference between scouting talent/projecting performance vs. properly valuing said performance. But when it comes to the minor leagues, I'd listen to the scouts over the stats pretty much every time, so long as the scouts are talking in terms of skills and not stats.
Last edited by RedsManRick; 04-10-2013 at 07:10 PM.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
Rankings are about projection. Part of that projection is an estimation of what room for growth that player has. In Cingrani's case, the question was the secondary stuff. Could he develop it adequately to complement his uber-effective fastball? Did he need it to be good, or just good enough?
Some of us thought it would happen. Some doubted. Whether he has now made the requisite improvements remains to be seen. All I know is that the more zeros he puts up, the more folks climb on the bandwagon.
To be perfectly honest, if he was out there with the exact same stats, but showing 80% fastballs again with a crappy slider, I wouldn't have changed a single thought about him. I am sure some people would have though. Not that they should have, because the numbers don't tell us enough.
Doug, any thoughts/concerns about his ability to hold up as a starter physically/mechanically?
I know Jason Parks is dubious of his potential as more than a BOR starter due to his lack of a breaking pitch -- but is that the only real concern?
Last edited by RedsManRick; 04-10-2013 at 07:21 PM.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
I don't see anything that really jumps out mechanically. I am not a pitching coach, but I know what I don't like and I don't see anything like that.
As noted earlier in this thread, there were some reports last year that his FB was better earlier in the year, but those were all second hand reports that I had gotten. He wasn't nearly in that same range in the second half in Pensacola. That is certainly something worth watching this season as well. Does he hold the same stuff over the long haul of say, 150-175 innings, which is what he should throw this season if things go according to plan.
I see you edited your post. Parks and I are on the same page. At least from his last report. I wasn't sold on him for the same reason. I am seeing things now though that I never saw before. And that is a really good thing.
As I said, some of us had confidence he could develop enough on the secondary side. Others were skeptical.if he was out there with the exact same stats, but showing 80% fastballs again with a crappy slider, I wouldn't have changed a single thought about him
But no amount of numbers should give anyone confidence about developing a pitch.
I went back through my old game notes from last year. I found "nice looking slider" and "loopy slider" and went back and created GIFs for them.
First, here is the breaking ball from 2013
Now the "nice looking slider" from 2012.
Now the "loopy slider" from 2012.
The camera angles are different, but those pitches aren't the same as the one he has thrown this year.
Also, if you have dial up or are watching on your phone.... sorry. That is about 20MB worth of GIFs. I apologize.
For all the bashing around here (including by me) on the Chapman situation, I love to see a quote like this. It would really be something if Cingrani turns out to be a dominant lefty starter while Chapman continues to be a dominant lefty closer. The Reds brass can pull a GIANT toldjaso if that happens.
Go BLUE!!!
Do you have mph on the top one and the bottom? To my untrained eye, they look a lot alike, in terms of break and "hump".
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote
