It's the Halfway Point of the Season: Who's in Your Top 10?

[camisadelgolf]

It seems like the big issue is that people are bothered by the fact that Doug is getting recognized as a good source for information about Reds prospects when other people in this forum are just as qualified or close to it.

I understand being skeptical about Doug's logic and how he values prospects--like I've said in the past, I certainly don't always agree with him--but it crosses a line when it gets personal. If you don't like that people are putting more and more stock in his word, why don't you put up or shut up?

Doug may not be Chris Buckley when it comes to scouting, but--right or wrong--in the public's eye, he's a heck of a lot closer to it than any of his RZ critics. Instead of being petty and attacking Doug's qualifications, put your energy toward showing that you actually know what you're talking about instead of trying to publicly tarnish Doug's name. Create your own lists. Run your own site. Do the homework. Whatever.

And if you want to say that's not what's going on, that's fine with me. I don't really care. If this is only about scouts vs. stats, there have been multiple threads created for that in the past. Feel free to go to one of those or start a new thread. In the meantime, can we go back to actually talking about minor leaguers?

I'm leaving this thread until it's about prospects again, so if you want to talk to me about it, please send me a pm.

[Scrap Irony]

While I don't spend 50 hours a week looking at prospects, I do talk to sportswriters I used to know once or twice a month about sports they cover, their opinions, and those of the people they know within the business. (Scouts and reporters spend a lot of time together, btw, and have lots of downtime.)

Those opinions and scouting reports don't change much if at all in the two months between talking. They certainly don't change from day to day.

The vast web of scouts you seem to be inferring as a part of your job just isn't that vast, in my experience. There are five or six bird dog scouts for every team who might see a guy three or four times a year, a couple "big-timers", one of which is usually impossible to get ahold of. A director of scouting (who you will get NOTHING out of of).

That's about it.

There are regional guys who get paid a few hundred bucks and travel money, but they're not used in this area of prospect mining once prospects are in the fold. (They're used for draft purposes.)

For the most part, what they know is what's already on the web. Team reporters tend to do a good job getting interesting prospects noticed, as the PR guys for teams tend to push those guys (usually on orders from others higher up). If you pay attention to the press releases and the local write-ups (not to mention the quotes from the managers), you can tell you the organization likes and what they like about him.

Breaking down swings and arms is, IMO, best left to the professionals. If you've had training I don't know about, I'm obviously not giving you enough credit. (An example: I was absolutely sure Todd Frazier wouldn't be able to hit fastballs at the major league level because his swing set-up is absolutely brutal.)

An old scouting friend of my Dad's once wrote a report about Jeff Bagwell that said he'd never be anything more than a career AA player with no power. That same guy told a story about one of the old-timers when he was young that said the same thing about Stan Musial, almost word for word. Another guy I know told me the story of how half the Reds' scouts were convinced Eric Davis would never hit at higher minor league levels because of where his hands were. They were actively trying to get the Reds to trade him.

And these guys are the experts. Breaking down a swing to point out injury concerns is fine. (Same thing with pitching mechanics.) (Though you can find the same information from teams and reporters if you listen closely.) But breaking down a swing looking for success is... well, it's really hard to do in person and impossible to figure out on video.

[Scrap Irony]

It seems like the big issue is that people are bothered by the fact that Doug is getting recognized as a good source for information about Reds prospects when other people in this forum are just as qualified or close to it.

I understand being skeptical about Doug's logic and how he values prospects--like I've said in the past, I certainly don't always agree with him--but it crosses a line when it gets personal. If you don't like that people are putting more and more stock in his word, why don't you put up or shut up?

Doug may not be Chris Buckley when it comes to scouting, but--right or wrong--in the public's eye, he's a heck of a lot closer to it than any of his RZ critics. Instead of being petty and attacking Doug's qualifications, put your energy toward showing that you actually know what you're talking about instead of trying to publicly tarnish Doug's name. Create your own lists. Run your own site. Do the homework. Whatever.

And if you want to say that's not what's going on, that's fine with me. I don't really care. If this is only about scouts vs. stats, there have been multiple threads created for that in the past. Feel free to go to one of those or start a new thread. In the meantime, can we go back to actually talking about minor leaguers?

I'm leaving this thread until it's about prospects again, so if you want to talk to me about it, please send me a pm.

1) I don't care who thinks doug is an expert or who believes it. It's not jealousy to point out questionable posts and logical fallacies in someone's work.
2) I fail to see how any of this is personal, aside from your comments about "some of you." doug has a history here on Redszone. Some of it is great. Other parts? Notsomuch. (Same with all of us.)
3) doug has no qualifications that I know of. Aside from time, as he stated. How is it unfair to point that out?
4) Finally, disagreeing with doug about his prospect list-- or any of his opinions, for that matter-- is hardly tarnishing his reputation. He has holes in his analysis, IMO. (Speed and low pedigree prospects, primarily.) He refuses to admit when he's wrong. (Which leads to "gotcha" games like the one about Zach Stewart's impending Cy Young.) If he can't stand the heat, so to speak, he shouldn't be in the kitchen.

I think you've made a mountain out of a molehill, frankly.

[dougdirt]

I think we all appreciate the time and effort you put into this, but a lot of enjoyable discussions turn personal when you play this card, as valid as it may be. It's not completely your fault, but it's becoming a little tiresome seeing every thread deteriorate into a Doug vs. Board cage match.

I only bring it up when it is actually relevant to the conversation. Like when someone who has never seen a guy play says that scouts who have seen him or even people who have seen him are wrong when they say he may have problems doing X,Y,Z.

I too am tired of every thread turning into some sort of doug vs 5 guys on the board cage match.

[Superdude]

4) Finally, disagreeing with doug about his prospect list-- or any of his opinions, for that matter-- is hardly tarnishing his reputation. He has holes in his analysis, IMO. (Speed and low pedigree prospects, primarily.) He refuses to admit when he's wrong. (Which leads to "gotcha" games like the one about Zach Stewart's impending Cy Young.) If he can't stand the heat, so to speak, he shouldn't be in the kitchen.

Disagreeing is one thing. Calling him a troll for posting his top ten in a thread devoted to personal top ten lists is just asking for irrelevant, petty arguing. Just don't see a reason for the whole "king of the mountain" contest going on in the minor league forum now. Everyone has opinions, they're all welcome, and the overwhelming commonality is that no one has ever been 100% right.

[membengal]

If Sickels or Law or Goldstein had Cingrani 10th overall in Reds system at mid-season, I would have said far choicer things about it than I did in this case, out of respect to Doug. There are a lot of adjectives I have for that particular ranking that I have not employed. I am, in fact, giving him the benefit of some doubt. So there's that.

As for "credentials", this isn't about that. No one knows much about each other on here or their past. I wrote for a time for one of the major sports .coms, does that make me an expert on anything? No, not in my opinion. And not relevant to any discussion I have ever had on this board. But how Doug holds himself out does tend to matter when these discussions start, particularly when he plays the "I've watched so and so X amount of times and you haven't" card. Which is not a particularly good look on anyone.

I didn't do a list because I am not sure what it would contribute to the thread. I also don't vote in the end of year prospect lists. My sense is, based on Cingrani's results and the reports of his crazy good command of his fastball, along with his being a left-hander, that he is among the handful of best Reds prospects. I love his low BB rate. I recoil a bit at the highish walk rate from Corcino and Lotzkar, which make me nervous about their trajectory. I think command is to be cherished in a pitching prospect, particularly if it is plus command like Cingrani seems to have.

We shall see. I do find it crazy to rank Cingrani behind guys just starting out in rookie ball. It is what it is.

[HokieRed]

Just like to say that some of us appreciate the conversation, expertise, good judgment, and insights from all sides, and, in these minor league forums, the expertise particularly of Doug. Nothing more to add except that it's more fun to read when the differences of opinion remain more focused on different interpretations and weighings of the various data than when they turn more toward personal struggle. It seems to me, for instance, that there's plenty of evidence to build a case for either Cingrani or Corcino as our top pitching prospect (or Stephenson, maybe even Travieso for that matter). Personally I'd put Corcino slightly ahead of Cingrani, but there's no smoking gun to point to that can make that case in a way that will satisfy all rational minds. It's based on a complex weighing of a whole range not only of evidence but also of evaluative criteria. I'd give the edge to Corcino, for instance, because of his being one year younger and because I think the leap he has made--from low A to AA--is the most extraordinary jump you can make in minor league baseball. I say this in part because I see a lot of High A baseball, the level at which many high round college prospects start their minor league careers. For me, then, Cingrani's starting at Billings last year was lower than typical; he started this year at the level he could very well have been at last year and thus really hasn't made a level skip in the way Corcino has. Now I don't expect anyone else to weigh those factors quite that way but I do think that's a completely legitimate way to weigh them. But given the inherent differences built in to acts of judgment, we're never going to get perfect agreement about things like Corcino vs. Cingrani--and it's a mistake to think that we should.

[Scrap Irony]

Low A is where most college prospects begin their careers. And, while true that Cingrani started out lower than he should have (it seems to be a Red thing), he skipped right over Dayton to Bakersfield. Because Bakersfield is such an extreme fly ball park, I think that jump was more difficult than was Corcino's, who went from pitcher's park to pitcher's park.

I do like that he's a year younger.

I hate his lack of control and max delivery. (The delivery, in particular.)

I agree that they're just about even.

[Scrap Irony]

Disagreeing is one thing. Calling him a troll for posting his top ten in a thread devoted to personal top ten lists is just asking for irrelevant, petty arguing. Just don't see a reason for the whole "king of the mountain" contest going on in the minor league forum now. Everyone has opinions, they're all welcome, and the overwhelming commonality is that no one has ever been 100% right.

He wasn't called a troll. mem said he was trolling, which means purposefully gigging those who have a different viewpoint. doug says he wasn't; I suppose they'll agree to disagree. Why it has to be discussed so much (and misunderstood by many) is one of life's little mysteries.

There is no "king of the mountain" because there is no king.

[Betterread]

At the same time, camisa, we're not any LESS qualified to do the lists either.

And, chest-beating aside, I'll compare my lists to his every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

If you feel your list can stand up to scrutiny, then please explain how didi gregorius is not in your top 20. And how you have juan perez rated as a better SS prospect that gregorius.

[HokieRed]

Low A is where most college prospects begin their careers. And, while true that Cingrani started out lower than he should have (it seems to be a Red thing), he skipped right over Dayton to Bakersfield. Because Bakersfield is such an extreme fly ball park, I think that jump was more difficult than was Corcino's, who went from pitcher's park to pitcher's park.

I do like that he's a year younger.

I hate his lack of control and max delivery. (The delivery, in particular.)

I agree that they're just about even.

I've seen a lot of college prospects taken in the top five rounds start in the Carolina league, High A.

[kaldaniels]

I am the guilty party who said Doug was essentially called a troll by the way. So of course he was not called a troll but regardless it was a personal shot and if I were Doug it would offend me...can't speak for him though.

I just think to call one guy out for trolling for ranking Cingrani at 10 is ridiculous. Honestly, who here thinks that was warranted? The first page or so of this thread was great and you can see that as I posted a big thanks in my first post in this thread. I should have read further before I wrote that I guess...but like I said, this thread got real ugly with the "trolling" post. A shame.

[Scrap Irony]

If you feel your list can stand up to scrutiny, then please explain how didi gregorius is not in your top 20. And how you have juan perez rated as a better SS prospect that gregorius.

He has no power. None. Zilch. He also doesn't get on base very well because his BB rate is extremely iffy (8% this season, 6.2% for his career). If you can't do one of those things, you better be able to do the other. Lifetime OPS is less than 700 as well. Gregorius rode a monster hot streak at the very beginning of the season to his current poor numbers. He's actually been worse than his numbers suggest.

He's a classic good-field, no-hit SS. We tried one of those last year-- it didn't work.

Perez, meanwhile, is almost two years younger and has 100 career OPS points on Gregorius. He's only 20 and in Dayton, so he age-appropriate and, in the second half of the season, he's gone .303/.354/.556/.919. (That's a small sample size, but does show you that Perez has power Gregorius never dreamed of.) Perez has also stolen five times as many bases and, if you can believe it, at a better rate. Perez may not stick at SS (chances are slim, in fact), but he'll be a fine 2B or could make the transition to OF if need be. (I see him as a possible utility guy in the majors and possible semi-platoon guy with pop.)

Both hit LH. Perez's BB rate is higher and their K rates are close to being equal. Neither profiles as a starter at the major league level, but both look like they'll at least make it that far (though Perez does have a far longer road to travel).

I could see Perez go bonkers and earn some serious helium in Bakersfield next season while OPSing around 850 or 900, but that will be a California League mirage.

[dougdirt]

Gregorius has more power than you think Scrap. It isn't really showing up this year, and I don't have park factors to show it, but from everything that people say about the park in Pensacola, you can't hit it out to right. Gregorius is never going to be a big HR guy, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he turned into a 15 HR guy in the future.

Gregorius also outslugged Hamilton in the California League despite having a lower batting average. Gregorius makes more contact and plays better defense. Is the speed of Hamilton really worth 20+ spots between the two guys?

[Scrap Irony]

Hamilton: .323/ .413/ .439/ .852/ 13% BB rate/ 104 SB (21 CS)
Gregorius: .303/ .333/ .457/ .791/ 4.9% BB rate/ 8 SB (8 CS)

Speed plus the almost 80 points in obp? You're talking, over a full season (700 ABs), an extra 120 total bases (when factoring in stolen bases, CS, BBs, and hits). (321 TB for Gregorius and 441 for Hamilton)

That's the difference between 2011 offensive versions of Chris Heisey and Mike Leake.

BTW, I'd agree that Gregorius has more power he hasn't shown, except he re-worked his swing this offseason, sacrificing power for putting the ball on the ground. As he's swinging right now, there's no chance he can hit 15 homers in the majors.