Cueto up, Cingrani stays for now

[klw]

Oh crap....it's a DAY GAME!!!! *dashes off to watch*

~edit~ Ummm....maybe I should've stayed away. As soon as I check in....3 run double off Tony. *sigh*

We blame you.

[Big Klu]

I spent my teen years dousing things with lighter fluid (nothing living) and burning them. That was the fate of most of my plastic models. Augmented it with firecrackers. Great battle scenarios.

Also built a big bridge out of wood kitchen matches. Took about a week. Then I lit it on fire for that 30 seconds of awesomeness.

Me? A pyro? :-)

FIRE! FIRE!

[dougdirt]

I posit that "develop properly" is largely a misnomer. Most development is probably going to come down to identifying the player's talent and commitment ahead of time. Plus, the term properly assumes there's a right way and a wrong way to bring prospects along. I don't think there's really that much black and white... mostly gray.

The Reds are in this position because the prospects panned out. I don't know that they did anything differently other than finally found the right guys. The good organizations are the ones that can identify the players that have 'it' and have the people that can analyze the performance to maximize the wins.

Let's look at Homer Bailey and Johnny Cueto as two guys the Reds have that they absolutely, without a doubt, developed.

When Homer Bailey was drafted he had a fastball and a big 12-6 curveball in the low to mid 70's. Not much of a change up. By the time he arrived in the Majors, he had the same fastball, the same curveball and a sort-of usable change up. And he got crushed. Homer Bailey today still has the fastball, but he has a different curveball (shorter break, 77-82 MPH), no change up, a very good slider and a very good split-finger fastball. And his fastball has less rise, more sink and more horizontal movement than when he first came up. Yes, key one was identifying that the kid had a great arm. But they absolutely developed him and that was just as important.

When Johnny Cueto was coming up he had a good fastball with rise to it, a good slider and a solid change up. Today he is throwing a rising fastball, a sinking fastball, a cutter, a slider, a change up and a curveball. Yes, they identified his arm was a good one, but they also developed him.

[Brutus]

Let's look at Homer Bailey and Johnny Cueto as two guys the Reds have that they absolutely, without a doubt, developed.

When Homer Bailey was drafted he had a fastball and a big 12-6 curveball in the low to mid 70's. Not much of a change up. By the time he arrived in the Majors, he had the same fastball, the same curveball and a sort-of usable change up. And he got crushed. Homer Bailey today still has the fastball, but he has a different curveball (shorter break, 77-82 MPH), no change up, a very good slider and a very good split-finger fastball. And his fastball has less rise, more sink and more horizontal movement than when he first came up. Yes, key one was identifying that the kid had a great arm. But they absolutely developed him and that was just as important.

When Johnny Cueto was coming up he had a good fastball with rise to it, a good slider and a solid change up. Today he is throwing a rising fastball, a sinking fastball, a cutter, a slider, a change up and a curveball. Yes, they identified his arm was a good one, but they also developed him.

Like I've said several times to clarify... I'm not saying guys don't develop. I'm saying the there is minimal difference from club to club in the ability to coerce such development. When I said "development is largely a misnomer," I was responding to the idea that a club's usage of players is not really the factor that people make it out to be. The guys that develop already probably had the work ethic, talent, commitment and smarts to make it happen. The clubs are able to push the buttons to make it happen, but there's not much of a difference between the clubs in doing so. My point is that most development that happens is because some clubs are better at identifying the talent and guys that are likely to respond well during the process.

[_Sir_Charles_]

We blame you.

It's okay. I blamed me too.

[Goose1701]

Like I've said several times to clarify... I'm not saying guys don't develop. I'm saying the there is minimal difference from club to club in the ability to coerce such development. When I said "development is largely a misnomer," I was responding to the idea that a club's usage of players is not really the factor that people make it out to be. The guys that develop already probably had the work ethic, talent, commitment and smarts to make it happen. The clubs are able to push the buttons to make it happen, but there's not much of a difference between the clubs in doing so. My point is that most development that happens is because some clubs are better at identifying the talent and guys that are likely to respond well during the process.

There are exceptions though. Teams like the Cardinals are amazing at developing mediocre talents into very good players. And teams like the Mariners are horrendous at getting any production at all out of very talented players.

[Brutus]

There are exceptions though. Teams like the Cardinals are amazing at developing mediocre talents into very good players. And teams like the Mariners are horrendous at getting any production at all out of very talented players.

Whether or not these players the Cardinals are developing were mediocre talents or not is rather subjective. Who's to say they were mediocre? Perhaps they were never mediocre and the Cards' just saw something in them. Or perhaps one's perception of mediocre is subject to frustration because of the team they root for?

[Will M]

I'm curious what people think of Cingrani now that we have had more time to watch him. He obviously has talent. He could be a very good major league pitcher. But the flaws are fairly obvious.
1) he is pitch inefficient
2) his "secondary stuff" needs work, sometimes it seems like it needs a lot of work

Are these the kind of things that he can work on at the major league level? It seems to me that since he was dominant in AAA its hard for him to actually improve in AAA. It seems to me that the best way to get better at any sport/game is to play tough competition in real games. Tony pitched great against the Brewers but struggled against a much better team (Braves). Can he learn from this? Or is this going to be the pattern until he can go to AAA & repeatedly work on his secondary stuff in AAA games that don't matter to the major league standings. There is no reason to send him to AAA if
he simply pitches to win AAA games. He could do that throwing 100% fastballs. The reason to send him back to AAA would be to have him pitch X% changeups & Y% curveballs in game situations.

Homer & Cueto were not very good in 2008 & 2009. The difference is that the team was rebuilding & could afford for them to improve at the major league level. If we had similar guys now would they be in AAA rather than putting up 4.50+ ERAs in Cincinnati? Would they be learning in AAA rather than in the bigs? (Tampa Bay style!) Are there parallels here between Homer/Cueto & Cingrani? If not do we have good comps for Cingrani? ie pitchers who had similar stuff. How did they get better? Or did they simply end up in the pen throwing their heat?

I realize he is going to be in the rotation until Cueto gets back. But I have been following Cingrani closely an am curious about people's continued thoughts on his development or lack thereof.

Thanks!

[TRF]

Cingrani could be a Max Scherzer type, or he could be Brandon Morrow. Both have that amazing strikeout ability. One learned to limit the walks, one has not.

[UC_Ken]

I'm curious what people think of Cingrani now that we have had more time to watch him. He obviously has talent. He could be a very good major league pitcher. But the flaws are fairly obvious.
1) he is pitch inefficient
2) his "secondary stuff" needs work, sometimes it seems like it needs a lot of work

I think #2 is the reason for #1. When you throw such a high percentage of fastballs even your better fastballs get fouled off instead of swing and misses. This causes him to not get out of at bats as quickly as he should with how dominant his fastball is.

I'm happy with what we've seen so far but #2 is going to determine wether he's a good starter or a dominant end of the bullpen guy. Either way I think we've got a quality piece for a long time.

[RedTeamGo!]

Personally, I think he is going to end up being a very good career reliever, like Sean Marshall good.

[reds44]

Worst case is he ends up being a very good reliever.

But with the amount of strikeouts he's getting with just his fastball, I think he'll develop into a very good starter. He's young.

[Tom Servo]

Personally, I think he is going to end up being a very good career reliever, like Sean Marshall good.

That's interesting because I always felt Marshall could have been a good starter if given more of a chance.

I think Cingrani is showing he can stick in the rotation, it's now just a matter of determining what his ceiling is.

[dougdirt]

With the dropping of the slider and the addition of the curveball, I am on board the Cingrani can start train. I think his confidence in the secondary stuff, not the actual stuff itself, is what is holding him back from being the best that he can be.

[RedTeamGo!]

That's interesting because I always felt Marshall could have been a good starter if given more of a chance.

I think Cingrani is showing he can stick in the rotation, it's now just a matter of determining what his ceiling is.

I def think he can stick in the rotation, I just have a feeling he will end up a late inning reliever.