Cingrani...

[Blitz Dorsey]

So, if Prospect A had a 10 % chance of flame out, and a 90% chance of being a #1 starter, you'd chose Prospect B who has a 5% chance of flame out, and a 95% chance of being an average pitcher?

Because that is what you said, the "flame out " projection is all that you'd base your choice on.

It's not unusual that the higher upside prospect is also the higher risk to achieve that level.

GM's generally prefer the prospect with the higher upside (especially when that upside is #1 starter potential), as middle of the road players are much easier to obtain.

This has already been covered. It was a poor attempt at humor on my part. I was agreeing with his post, but then made a dig that I found it odd he would take the guy that -- by his own measure -- had the higher chance of "flaming out into oblivion."

When talking about two pitchers like Cingrani and Miller, we're discussing prospects that are very equal IMO. I think Cingrani's upside is every bit as high as Miller's and perhaps higher. Your formula does not compute in this situation because we're not talking about a fringe prospect compared to a top prospect. We're comparing two top prospects -- flat-out two of the best pitching prospects in all of MLB. They both have star potential. If one of them has a higher chance of "flaming out" ... give me the other one.

[redsfandan]

Why?

I'd prefer that a starting pitching prospect that is expected to eventually become a part of the rotation focus on things he can improve on so when he get's the call he's more likely to succeed. Why bring him up just for a spot start when he's only got one pitch that isn't a question mark?

[Scrap Irony]

I went back and looked at the video. I even provided it. The loopy slider from last year has a one plane break. The one this year breaks on both planes. Different pitch.

Is the 2012 slider not as good as the 2013 slider? Fine. Shrug. That one pitch is not indicative of the fact that Cingrani has completely remodeled his pitching repertoire and is now going with a curve or that all his sliders in 2012 were exactly like that one.

Too, if you look at his mechanics and the speed/ hump of the pitch, they look very similar. This indicates that one slider is thrown much like the other, with one breaking more. That's really all there is to your video proof.

And I showed you where after his first start this year, his current pitching coach called it a curveball, not a slider.

No, you didn't. You said he'd been working on a curve, not that he threw the curve in the game. There's an important distinction.

Tony after that game did call it a slider. Hence, all of the confusion.

There shouldn't be any confusion.

I know that BA guys don't scout their own stuff. I know KG didn't. I know that Jason Parks does. I know that the scouts the previous guys talk to, do. I know that John Sickels does. All agreed that his slider he was throwing last year pretty much sucked.

Okay. I read the same stuff you do, doug.

This is Sickels' take:

Scouting reports about his secondary pitches are mixed. His changeup is described as anywhere from below average to above average, depending on your source. The middle point with that is average of course, which is fine as long as his command is on. His slider was considered very marginal/fringy pre-season. The consensus is that the slider has improved, but is still nothing special.

Golly, he showed improvement in his slider. Isn't that what many posters on this site insisted was likely to happen?

Keith Law said he "has the weapons to start."

It wasn't really a throw away though. Hamilton did have a weak arm most nights. It wasn't because he had a truly weak arm, it was because his mechanics sucked and didn't often throw it right to show off his actual arm strength. For someone who saw him one or two series, they may never had a chance to see his strong arm in action because he didn't use it much because of the mechanics going on for 95% of the throws he made. Likewise, with Cingrani, he would flash a good slider now and then, but most of them sucked. They were flat without bite. A flat slider is just a slow fastball without movement. People saw those bad ones 50% of the time, some poor ones another 40% and a good one or real good one 10% of the time. Top it off with that he only threw 10 a game and you could see him twice in a season and only see one real nice looking slider. That is why it is good to make the phone calls and to see a guy as much as possible.

Where did those percentages of effective sliders come from? Not from anything I've read on-line. I suspect you're just making them up to make your point. If so, it's not necessary. I understand that Cingrani's slider is not a finished product. I completely disagree with your assessment that "most" of them sucked.

What evidence do I use to back this up? For one, Sickels' scouting report/ observation on improvement. Two, the milb.com article already sited in thsi discussion. Three, Cingrani's remarkable numbers. Logically, your position (that Cingrani has a very, very poor slider) would mean that his numbers would suffer for poor sliders. A flat hanging slider is almost always crushed. That's shown in slugging percentage and HR rate. However, Cingrani's HR, SLG, and H/IP rates are all incredibly low. As in Top Five in the entire minor leagues.

Even in minor league ball, flat sliders get crushed. Since Cingrani wasn't crushed (10 total HR in 210 minor league IP) at all, you can logically conclude that his slider at least has some merit to it.

Actually, there were several people who upon being drafted, called Cingrani a sleeper. More so as a reliever, but it wasn't like he was a 25th rounder. The guy was taken in the Top 100 of the entire draft for a reason.

I don't think I saw anyone insist he would put up the numbers he has. He's putting up the best numbers of anyone in minor league baseball. (He's at least among the best-- there can be debate on this.) Therefore, thy so-called experts had to find reasons why that wouldn't be sustained.

Where did this happen?

Sickels' report mentioned it. I can provide all the scouting reports if you'd like. I would think, if you won't take my word for it (and look through the archives for confirmation from other sites). I'd think you'd know them already, as we've discussed his varying scouting reports for two years now.

Yeah, he has always had a slider. But most of the time it was a terrible pitch and it had been that way for a while.

Our opinions are different.

Even as a show me pitch, which you may be right that it is all he needs with the FB/CH being that good, it is actually a show me pitch at this point. The slider he threw most of the time last year wasn't. It was a BP fastball. Straight as an arrow and 80 MPH at the belt because it wouldn't bite.

Again, that's your opinion. Mine is different.

[Patrick Bateman]

I'd prefer that a starting pitching prospect that is expected to eventually become a part of the rotation focus on things he can improve on so when he get's the call he's more likely to succeed. Why bring him up just for a spot start when he's only got one pitch that isn't a question mark?

Hilarious to read that after you were so vehemently for Chapman being moved to the rotation despite having similar question marks.

[redsfandan]

Hilarious to read that after you were so vehemently for Chapman being moved to the rotation despite having similar question marks.

Yeah, it's definitely "hilarious" since I was also for sending Chapman BACK to the minors to work on just those kinds of things. But, I guess a selective memory makes everything funny.

[dougdirt]

Is the 2012 slider not as good as the 2013 slider? Fine. Shrug. That one pitch is not indicative of the fact that Cingrani has completely remodeled his pitching repertoire and is now going with a curve or that all his sliders in 2012 were exactly like that one.

Too, if you look at his mechanics and the speed/ hump of the pitch, they look very similar. This indicates that one slider is thrown much like the other, with one breaking more. That's really all there is to your video proof.

You are right. The one pitch from 2013 doesn't show that. But the other 20 that look just like it do. I just haven't made GIFs of them. His mechanics should look the same on them. Otherwise hitters would know what is coming because he would clearly be tipping the pitch.

No, you didn't. You said he'd been working on a curve, not that he threw the curve in the game. There's an important distinction.

I never said he was working on a curve. I said the Bats radio guy called the pitch a curve. I said that Ted Power said he was throwing a curve. And I said that it looked to me like he was throwing a curve.

There shouldn't be any confusion.

And yet this thread has a whole lot of people who are saying the pitch looks a whole lot like a curveball. His pitching coach says it is a curveball and the Bats radio guys, both of them, say it is a curveball. The confusion is that he says he is throwing one thing and it looks like something else. If he said that pitch was a fastball, I am imagining you telling us it was a fastball.

Golly, he showed improvement in his slider. Isn't that what many posters on this site insisted was likely to happen?

Sure they did. But saying "he will improve the pitch" and "he will improve the pitch from X (where it is now) to Y (unknown grade)" is a whole different thing. Heck, I called the guy a potential #2 starter if he can get his slider to the point where he flashed it at times on a consistent basis. I wasn't sold that it would happen given how often he flashed it as a really nice pitch though.

Keith Law said he "has the weapons to start."

I don't think anyone doubted he could start. The question was, could he be a good starter? If he was just going to be a back end guy, you may as well put him in the bullpen to be a very good reliever. That was the question, not whether he could actually start.

Where did those percentages of effective sliders come from? Not from anything I've read on-line. I suspect you're just making them up to make your point. If so, it's not necessary. I understand that Cingrani's slider is not a finished product. I completely disagree with your assessment that "most" of them sucked.

They came from me charting his starts.

What evidence do I use to back this up? For one, Sickels' scouting report/ observation on improvement. Two, the milb.com article already sited in thsi discussion. Three, Cingrani's remarkable numbers. Logically, your position (that Cingrani has a very, very poor slider) would mean that his numbers would suffer for poor sliders. A flat hanging slider is almost always crushed. That's shown in slugging percentage and HR rate. However, Cingrani's HR, SLG, and H/IP rates are all incredibly low. As in Top Five in the entire minor leagues.

Even in minor league ball, flat sliders get crushed. Since Cingrani wasn't crushed (10 total HR in 210 minor league IP) at all, you can logically conclude that his slider at least has some merit to it.

No, not all flat sliders get crushed in the minors. Using numbers to tell you the stuff on one pitch doesn't work. And there is a different between a flat slider and a flat hanging slider. A flat slider that starts at the chest and remains there is a pitch that just gets taken as a ball. A flat slider that starts at the knees and just stays there might get taken. A flat slider inside or outside just gets taken.

I don't think I saw anyone insist he would put up the numbers he has. He's putting up the best numbers of anyone in minor league baseball. (He's at least among the best-- there can be debate on this.) Therefore, thy so-called experts had to find reasons why that wouldn't be sustained.

I never understood this line of thinking. Why would it be so important for these people to make things up "to seem right", when if making those things up would actually make them even more wrong in the future if they were seeing things that would actually suggest that? Wouldn't they say "he has shown marked improvement here and there, which has altered his overall skillset?

Look, I think it is fairly well known that I have been one of the bottom guys on Cingrani in the past. I liked him, but I didn't love him. The reason was because his slider sucked in my opinion. Yeah, it was good every great once in a while, but more often than not, I thought it was a pitch that Major Leaguers would absolutely tee off on. Here we are, two starts into 2013 and I have changed my tune. Why? Because I am seeing things that I never saw from him before. I am not making things up about him now just to try and belittle what he is doing to justify my past stances on him. I stand strongly by my past stance on him because it is what I saw in him. But things have now changed because in my eyes, he is showing a step forward both in skill and in execution of that skill. Why wouldn't someone else, who had a similar stance as I did, also do that if they are seeing a change in the skillset of someone that they believe will indeed make him better?

[Scrap Irony]

You are right. The one pitch from 2013 doesn't show that. But the other 20 that look just like it do. I just haven't made GIFs of them. His mechanics should look the same on them. Otherwise hitters would know what is coming because he would clearly be tipping the pitch.

If his release point and the "loop" are the same from last season to this, it would mean he's throwing the same pitch. If he's repeating that same "loopy" slider ad nauseum, then I feel pretty certain you shouldn't claim:

I never said he was working on a curve. I said the Bats radio guy called the pitch a curve. I said that Ted Power said he was throwing a curve. And I said that it looked to me like he was throwing a curve.

Ted Power didn't say he was throwing a curve in the game. He said they were working on a curve. When asked, Cingrani said he threw sliders in the game. The Bats radio guy was wrong. Radio guys are often wrong.

And yet this thread has a whole lot of people who are saying the pitch looks a whole lot like a curveball. His pitching coach says it is a curveball and the Bats radio guys, both of them, say it is a curveball. The confusion is that he says he is throwing one thing and it looks like something else. If he said that pitch was a fastball, I am imagining you telling us it was a fastball.

If Cingrani said he was throwing a fastball, then, you're darn skippy I'd insist that that's what he was throwing. Primary evidence tells us that he threw a slider. Everything else is noise, particularly people on a message board.

Sure they did [say he would improve]. But saying "he will improve the pitch" and "he will improve the pitch from X (where it is now) to Y (unknown grade)" is a whole different thing. Heck, I called the guy a potential #2 starter if he can get his slider to the point where he flashed it at times on a consistent basis. I wasn't sold that it would happen given how often he flashed it as a really nice pitch though.

Great. Those posters who said he would likely improve his slider/ off-speed stuff were "more right" so far than you in your estimation. No biggie.

I don't think anyone doubted he could start. The question was, could he be a good starter? If he was just going to be a back end guy, you may as well put him in the bullpen to be a very good reliever. That was the question, not whether he could actually start.

Most of those so-called experts said he was a likely reliever. You also said that.

They were wrong. (Or at least are looking more wrong with every level.)

They came from me charting his starts.

I find this extremely hard to believe.

Extremely.

No, not all flat sliders get crushed in the minors. Using numbers to tell you the stuff on one pitch doesn't work. And there is a different between a flat slider and a flat hanging slider. A flat slider that starts at the chest and remains there is a pitch that just gets taken as a ball. A flat slider that starts at the knees and just stays there might get taken. A flat slider inside or outside just gets taken.

Untrue.

A flat slider gets crushed because it's most often thrown at the middle of the plate to break toward a RH hitter or at the inside portion of the plate to a LH.

Flat sliders get destroyed because they're flat and slow. In every league.

To insist that Cingrani got away with 90% of his poor sliders beggars the imagination.

I never understood this line of thinking. Why would it be so important for these people to make things up "to seem right", when if making those things up would actually make them even more wrong in the future if they were seeing things that would actually suggest that? Wouldn't they say "he has shown marked improvement here and there, which has altered his overall skillset?

Because if he showed marked improvement, he'd be a prospect worthy of talking about and one that would likely get high rankings. If they "flip-flop," they look weak to their readers. Or, worse, they look like they don't know what they're talking about. They look less like the expert they purport themselves to be and more like an armchair amateur that happens to know enough code to write a blog/ English to write a column.)

Look, I think it is fairly well known that I have been one of the bottom guys on Cingrani in the past. I liked him, but I didn't love him. The reason was because his slider sucked in my opinion. Yeah, it was good every great once in a while, but more often than not, I thought it was a pitch that Major Leaguers would absolutely tee off on. Here we are, two starts into 2013 and I have changed my tune. Why? Because I am seeing things that I never saw from him before. I am not making things up about him now just to try and belittle what he is doing to justify my past stances on him. I stand strongly by my past stance on him because it is what I saw in him. But things have now changed because in my eyes, he is showing a step forward both in skill and in execution of that skill. Why wouldn't someone else, who had a similar stance as I did, also do that if they are seeing a change in the skillset of someone that they believe will indeed make him better?

Your list at the halfway point of last season:

1. Daniel Corcino
2. Billy Hamilton
3. Robert Stephenson
4. Nick Travieso
5. Tanner Rahier
6. Didi Gregorius
7. Jesse Winker
8. Henry Rodriguez
9. Kyle Lotzkar
10. Tony Cingrani

Let's not go overboard and insist who we liked, okay?

As to the prospect experts, admitting past mistakes in prospect mining opens you up to doubt in the future. How many so-called experts are right all the time? None of them. How many have ever admitted they were wrong? Very few. Or, when they do admit they were wrong, they have some convoluted reasoning.

Really, it all comes down to opinion. What the prospect experts don't want anyone else to know is that they're just like us. They look at the same GIFs, most of the same film. They talk to a few more scouts (though likely not as many as the layman believes) perhaps, but, overall, the differences between the validity of "expert" opinions and guys like people on the Minor League forum on Redszone are minimal. At best.

I'd argue that, in fact, the guys here are more likely to be right about prospects than most of the experts elsewhere.

But we've discussed all this before, doug. You know my opinions on this.

Quick example, from the other thread discussing this very topic:

Joey Votto, as a prospect, was playing well. Made the Futures Game in 2006. While taking BP, an ESPN blogger said:

Quote:
Joey Votto (Reds) probably put on the biggest show during BP, which is not the same as being the most impressive. Votto launched several balls into the right-field bleachers, hitting the fence at the back of the stands at least once. He does have a wide stance and a long swing, which will limit his ability to make contact going forward. At least he didn't swing and miss during BP. That's embarrassing

Baseball Prospectus, one of those sites that is almost always viewed as gospel, said something about Votto have a classic long swing/ slow bat in their pre-season prospect report the next year. By the time 2007 was done, every prospect site on the internet had written something about Votto's slow bat.

It was a throw-away comment, meant to balance out a from-the-hip report. Nothing more. Yet the reputable sites took the information and absolutely ran wild with it.

Now, having seen Votto in person several times and on TV more than 500, I'd say that report was absolute hogwash. It was crap. Totally, absolutely wrong. Votto's bat is among the quickest in the game now and has been since he was a Canadian youth, I'd imagine. (Your bat doesn't get quicker. That's not a skill you can learn. It's God-given.)

[dougdirt]

Scrap, I don't even know where to start.

If you can look at that pitch posted of his breaking ball and say that if Cingrani said it was a fastball you would agree with him, then I just don't know what to say.

As for my midseason list last year, what does that have to do with anything? It looks different than my list at the end of the year and it looks different than the one I would have right now. Prospects change. Their skills change. I am not sure what you are trying to get at by posting it. You didn't have Nick Travieso in your top 19 listed prospects last year on July 10th. Should I bring that up in the future if it turns out that you say something good about him?

Here is the problem with your line of thinking on changing your rankings. You seem to think it means that someone is admitting they were wrong, so they won't do it. That isn't the case. Well, maybe they would have to admit they were wrong. But you need to actually look at what they said. Did a guy improve something that wasn't expected? Did the guy pick up a new pitch? Did the guy get contacts/lasik and all of a sudden can hit? Did a guy pick up velocity on his fastball? Did a hitter remake his entire swing (like a Dave Sappelt)?

Was I wrong about Cingrani's slider? I don't think I was. Why don't I think that? Well, I don't think he is throwing the same pitch he threw last year. The fact that his breaking ball, whatever it actually is, is now better, doesn't mean I was wrong with what I said at the time. To me, the guy is out there throwing an entirely different pitch than the one he was throwing last year. It is slower and has it has different break. And he is actually relying on it throughout the lineup as more of a show me pitch in the minor leagues. You can feel that I am wrong and it is the same pitch. That is your right. But from where I stand, I feel pretty comfortable saying that he is throwing a different breaking ball right now than he was throwing last year and that last year, the questions that I had about his breaking ball he was throwing were warranted.

[Scrap Irony]

Scrap, I don't even know where to start.

If you can look at that pitch posted of his breaking ball and say that if Cingrani said it was a fastball you would agree with him, then I just don't know what to say.

He said it was a slider. If the pitcher said it was a slider, it was, in fact, a slider. Let's not play some sort of semantic game that means nothing.

As for my midseason list last year, what does that have to do with anything?

You said you liked Cingrani. I showed a list where, in fact, you did not.

It looks different than my list at the end of the year and it looks different than the one I would have right now. Prospects change. Their skills change. I am not sure what you are trying to get at by posting it.

I'm arguing that his basic skills-- fastball, change-up, and slider-- have not changed. The slider has become more consistent, but it is not a new pitch.

You didn't have Nick Travieso in your top 19 listed prospects last year on July 10th. Should I bring that up in the future if it turns out that you say something good about him?

Was Travieso drafted and signed at that point? If not, no. If he was (and was playing), yes.

That's the price you pay when you make Top Prospect lists.

Here is the problem with your line of thinking on changing your rankings. You seem to think it means that someone is admitting they were wrong, so they won't do it. That isn't the case. Well, maybe they would have to admit they were wrong. But you need to actually look at what they said. Did a guy improve something that wasn't expected? Did the guy pick up a new pitch? Did the guy get contacts/lasik and all of a sudden can hit? Did a guy pick up velocity on his fastball? Did a hitter remake his entire swing (like a Dave Sappelt)?

Valid points in general. In this case, however, Cingrani's not doing something new.

Was I wrong about Cingrani's slider? I don't think I was. Why don't I think that? Well, I don't think he is throwing the same pitch he threw last year. The fact that his breaking ball, whatever it actually is, is now better, doesn't mean I was wrong with what I said at the time. To me, the guy is out there throwing an entirely different pitch than the one he was throwing last year. It is slower and has it has different break. And he is actually relying on it throughout the lineup as more of a show me pitch in the minor leagues. You can feel that I am wrong and it is the same pitch. That is your right. But from where I stand, I feel pretty comfortable saying that he is throwing a different breaking ball right now than he was throwing last year and that last year, the questions that I had about his breaking ball he was throwing were warranted.

I disagree with your assessment, obviously.

Were he throwing a new pitch, someone somewhere would have put that in print and/ or asked him about it.

No one has. He also, when given a chance, didn't say anything about a new pitch.

Ergo, no new pitch. Only more consistency.

[dougdirt]

Oh please. I liked Cingrani plenty. Was it as much as you? No. But let's not confuse where I ranked him with me not liking him. This past season I didn't rank a single reliever in the Top 30. Since at the time I wasn't sure Cingrani wasn't a reliever, I sure as heck liked him.

This is my last post on this. We aren't going anywhere.

Last year, his slider broke on one plane. It broke downward. The loopy one and the tight one. One plane break.

This year, the breaking ball, be it a curve, slider or slurve, is breaking on two planes. It is also at a lower velocity than the pitch he was throwing last year by all accounts. To me, it is a different pitch.

/done.

[AtomicDumpling]

Hilarious to read that after you were so vehemently for Chapman being moved to the rotation despite having similar question marks.

Chapman is on another planet than Cingrani when it comes to starting pitcher prospect status. If Chapman were still in the minor leagues he would be a top 5 prospect whereas Cingrani is in the 80-100 range. Chapman is only 1 year older than Cingrani.

Chapman would likely be an above average starting pitcher with only his fastball and slider, while adding a quality third pitch would make him an ace-level pitcher. The only question about Chapman is his endurance since he has not yet proven he can pitch deep into games. Cingrani's fastball and slider/curve are both inferior to Chapman's.

Both Chapman and Cingrani would be upgrades for the Reds' rotation. They should both be in the Reds' starting rotation in 2014.

[Scrap Irony]

We aren't going anywhere.

On this, at least, we agree.

Yay.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Doug, you have to be a bit embarrassed you had Lotzkar ranked ahead of Cingrani midseason last year, don't you? Admit it. I remember questioning you about it at the time. And I know you said at the time it had nothing to do with the Future's Game and I believed you. Hell, if Cingrani was Canadian, he would have been on the Future's Game roster too.

But man, Lotzkar over Cingrani? Less than a year ago? C'mon man!

Speaking of Lotzkar, anyone notice he's a RELIEVER at Pensacola this year? Jeez, his stock has dropped even further than I expected.

[dougdirt]

Not really Blitz. Lotzkar, at the point in which my midseason rankings came out Kyle Lotzkar had posted a 2.53 ERA between A+ and AA with 70 strikeouts and 31 walks in 64 innings. He was showing an above-average fastball, an above-average breaking ball and an average change up.

The second half of the season was a problem though. His ERA after my rankings came out was 7.21, his walk rate jumped up two more walks per 9 innings. And he wound up getting hurt, again.

Then of course was the bullpen switch.

Things changed a whole lot for Lotzkar from the first half of 2012 to now.

Why would I be embarrassed? I don't know, maybe it is just me, but the tone of your post comes off wrong. I don't know exactly what it is you are trying to get at, but why not just ask me why I ranked each guy where I did? Instead, you are trying to front it as embarrassing me. Just rubs me the wrong way.

[Blitz Dorsey]

You're our in-house minor-league expert. You're not a national guy throwing darts against a board. A lot of us, myself included, expect a lot out of you when it comes to Reds prospects. You are not going to be perfect. You are going to miss. But less than a year ago you had Cingrani ranked behind some questionable guys, and it's not revisionist history on my part because I questioned you at the time about Cingrani not being ranked high enough by you, IMO.

I'm not trying to embarrass you and I don't think you should be extremely embarrassed or anything. I just said I bet you're a "bit embarrassed" about your Cingrani ranking 9-10 months ago when you were still following in line with all the national guys and saying he would be nothing more than a reliever at the MLB level (almost dismissing those of us that said he had TOR potential). I'm glad you're not embarrassed -- not even a "bit" embarrassed -- and it wasn't my intention to try and embarrass you.