Cingrani...

[Old school 1983]

Arguing over the name of the pitch is a waste of time, because Cingrani's success or failure is going to be based on the movement and deceptiveness of the pitch, not the grip or wrist motion.

Ultimately what matters is how the pitch breaks and its velocity, because that is what fools or doesn't fool the hitter. The batter doesn't swing at the grip.

My thoughts exactly! I don't recall seeing that type of large looping breaking ball last year in Cingranis call up as I did in the gif here. Either way slider or curve it just looks plain nasty against AAA batters, and the name really doesn't matter in the long run as long as it gets batters out....and with Cuetos exit from the game tonight, we may get to see how it works against big league batters sooner than we anticipated.

[SirFelixCat]

The problem peole have with Doug is this: his opinion, he feels, is gospel and will never ever admit being wrong. Couple that with the attitude that his opinion is unimpeachable rubs many the wrong way. :shrug:

[redsfandan]

The problem peole have with Doug is this: his opinion, he feels, is gospel and will never ever admit being wrong. Couple that with the attitude that his opinion is unimpeachable rubs many the wrong way. :shrug:

I don't have any problem if you, or anyone, feels that way, We're all entitled to our own opinions. But, that's no excuse for derailing a thread.

But, again, why would someone bother to talk to him SO much if the person doesn't value his opinion that much? What's the point of beating a dead horse into the ground? Do you really think it will accomplish anything???

[Scrap Irony]

If you can't make sense of my posts, let me enlighten you about my thought process:

1. doug was insisting that Cingrani's "new pitch"-- a curve rather than a slider-- would have make him a better prospect, thus he would have ranked him higher.
2. Cingrai's slider has always had this type of loopy, curve-y break.
3. Cingrani stated that he didn't throw anything new, just the same old change, slider, and fastball.
4. Many posters have argued for at least a year and a half that Cingrani has shown three pitches good enough to be a starter. doug has always disagreed.

Tagging this pitch as the same slider he's always thrown shows doug that he indeed wrong about this prospect. Aside from that, the perception/ philosophy of minor league pitching (prospects have time in the minors to develop poorer pitches and good prospects learn just that as they progress) is important to note.

Beyond that, it was, IMO, important to show primary source material as more important than the bias of secondary sources and false analysis that is flawed primarily because he wanted to find one answer (Cingrani has improved not because of his slider, but because of a new pitch) over another.

No expert should ever have that bias. Pointing it out is why we had all those posts. IMO, it was important. If you disagreed, you could have alerted the mods.

Finally, if you don't know about my posts, ignore them. Or post about the flaw in my thinking. Or send a PM.

[Benihana]

The problem peole have with Doug is this: his opinion, he feels, is gospel and will never ever admit being wrong. Couple that with the attitude that his opinion is unimpeachable rubs many the wrong way. :shrug:

[RedsManRick]

nm

[mdccclxix]

I'm not that excited to find out if Cingrani can start in Cincinnati yet because it could go wrong and really deflate him and the organization. I'd almost rather bring Galaraga up if Cueto's going to be out a short time. I don't know. There is a boom/bust thing with Cingrani that probably doesn't need to be focused on. Nothing too wrong with seeing what he's got and if he's not ready sending him back to refocus. The hype factor is what I really don't want to see too much of.

[dougdirt]

Ok, I lied. Scrap, you are wrong. I don't give two craps what Cingrani or the Reds are saying about it being the same pitch. I showed visual evidence along with radar gun reading and past scouting reports that all suggest the breaking ball he is throwing now is different than the two that he threw last year. When a pitch is slower than his other ones before and it moves differently, it is a different stinkin' pitch regardless of what someone says they are throwing.

Let's do this again with all three images.



This breaking ball sweeps across the zone and is a bit loopy. It has been like this through two starts and it is 71-75 MPH.



This pitch is rather straight, has no sweeping action and dives downward, late. It was 81 MPH.



This pitch is also rather straight, has no sweeping action and is a bit loopy with some downward action. No scouting report given anywhere last year had any breaking ball thrown by Cingrani outside of that 77-82 MPH range.

The pitch he is throwing this year, regardless of what Tony Cignrani calls it, is not like either breaking ball he threw last year. It is slower. It moves differently. I will let the visual evidence continue to speak for itself. No one can look at those three pitches and say "those are all the same pitch". They aren't. They are all three different pitches.

You can continue to try and say that I was wrong about his slider. But let's look at what I actually said. From my last two prospect guides:

2012: His slider has above-average potential, but remains inconsistent. If he can become more consistent with it he could really vault up the system with a dominating fastball and a consistent strong secondary offering. He is an exciting arm and if he can develop his secondary pitches he could be fast-tracked.

2013: The third pitch in his arsenal is a slider, which is a below-average pitch that can flash itself as average. However it can also be flat just as often. To remain a starter he will need to improve his slider and mix in his offspeed pitches more than he has. To reach his ceiling as a number two starter, he will also need to show better control than he did while with Pensacola.

So what I said was that he could be a number two starter. That he needed to improve his slider. That is wasn't consistent. That it was flat at times. That it was good at times. That he needed to mix it in more.

Here we are in 2013. Cingrani is throwing a third pitch, regardless of what we are going to call it, better. He is throwing it more consistent. He is throwing it more. All things I said he needed to do. Thusly, I feel much better about him now, than I did then.

[dougdirt]

The problem peole have with Doug is this: his opinion, he feels, is gospel and will never ever admit being wrong. Couple that with the attitude that his opinion is unimpeachable rubs many the wrong way. :shrug:

I don't feel it is gospel. I feel that when I said it, that I was stating exactly how I felt at the time. I have also been wrong plenty and have admitted so. This isn't one of those times.

[Scrap Irony]

Ok, I lied. Scrap, you are wrong. I don't give two craps what Cingrani or the Reds are saying about it being the same pitch.

So Cingrani, the pitcher who actually throws the off-speed pitch, AND the Reds, the organization who is teaching him to do it, are lying about what pitch he's throwing, while you, in your vast knowledge of all things prospect, know better?

Got it.

As to what you said about Cingrani, you're right that you praised him a bit in your Top Whatever List. Of course, you praised every prospect.

But let's not pretend you thought he could continue to dominate as he went up levels.

In this thread, he was compared (and found wanting) against such players as Travis Wood and Kyle Lotzkar, not to mention Daniel Corcino.

In this thread, he was ranked five spots behind Nick Travieso, who's not exactly lit the world on fire.

You said he could be a good starter, but most likely was a reliever. A seventh inning reliever, in fact.

The slider he's throwing now is the same slider he's always thrown. Were it different or re-tooled, we would have seen an article on it or heard mention of it. Since we haven't, logically, we can assume no such re-tooling has happened.

Your GIFs mean nothing. They're from different camera angles, so it's impossible to determine break, despite your insistence. Only one pitch has speed, so you can't determine how fast each pitch is. (Again, despite your insistences.) Too, even if I accepted all of your claims as proof, these GIFs only show three pitches and are, by their definition, anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is fallacious. (That means it can't be trusted.)

If you want to continue to insist Cingrani's throwing a new pitch, fine. Believe that both he and the Reds are lying. But this is a prime example of taking your own biased viewpoint over unbiased facts. That's something that a true expert should never do.

[Scrap Irony]

I feel that when I said it, that I was stating exactly how I felt at the time.

So, if my students really believe that a noun is really an adverb, is it okay to count it as right because they really believe it?

[dougdirt]

I am saying that if he is throwing a slider still, it is a different one than he threw last year. All kinds of evidence supports that. Velocity. Movement. Different.

Either way, I don't care anymore. We will find out soon enough because he is going to be in the Majors and we will have Pitch F/X data to show his old sliders and his breaking ball this year.

The question is, when it happens, and if it is moving differently than the one he threw last year, will you admit you were wrong? I will be back here and say I was if it matches the one he was throwing last year at 78-82 with no horizontal break.

[Scrap Irony]

The whole 100 pitches that were charted last year?

Hey, at least this is progress. You're now admitting it's a slider.

[dougdirt]

The whole 100 pitches that were charted last year?

Hey, at least this is progress. You're now admitting it's a slider.

So you will stick to your story if Pitch F/X shows a different pitch than the ones we have data for thrown last year?

And no, I am not admitting it is a slider. I am saying it could be possible that it is one, but even if it is, it isn't like the ones he threw last year.

[757690]

http://youtu.be/xz6OGVCdov8