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

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

There are multiple reports about Corcino's max-effort delivery. As to stuff, here's another report. I've only found the two:

I don't recall saying anything about his delivery.

Too, I find it odd that you'd say the writer is only using the video to make his observations, especially when I basically told you that was what many do, and you claimed they didn't.

I said I hope he isn't. I didn't say he was or wasn't. My point was simply that I hope he wasn't since the video was shot 57 weeks before his article came out.

Comparing an internet writer for a website that I have never heard of where apparently no one goes (I only went a few pages deep, but there were three pages of articles without a single comment on them) to professional scouts in terms of how often they see someone to make your point as to 'scouts do that too' is reaching at best. And even if we were to say it were true, it isn't like BA/BP/Law/Piliere/Sickels are all talking to just that one scout or that all of the scouts they talked to were all at the exact same game and are only going off of X players game from June 19th.

Quoting 'Scoutingbook.com' as a reliable place for information.... I don't know. Maybe they have improved in the last year or so, but that site used to have terrible information on players. They currently rank Cingrani 14th in the Reds system.

Isn't a changeup a secondary pitch? Haven't you yourself said Cingani's change is a plus pitch? (And didn't milb in the above quote?)

I have said it is an above-average pitch at times. Other places have been quoted as saying it is a plus pitch. But, the fact of it all remains that he guy simply doesn't trust the pitch and barely throws it. Why? I don't have a clue. Scouts seem to like the pitch. But he doesn't. If you aren't throwing the pitch, it doesn't matter how good it is or could be.

[Scrap Irony]

I didn't say scouts don't watch players. Of course scouts watch players.

I said prospect mavens-- internet and print-- do not often watch players more than once or twice before making judgments on them. Too, those same scouting mavens take what others have said as gospel. Too, because they want to appear unbiased and more expert, they typically try to balance out glowing reports with at least one "question" on all prospects.

Cingrani was typecast when he was drafted. It's difficult to get rid of that tag because the knights of the keyboard continue to regurgitate what came before as fact. When it wasn't then and isn't now.

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

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.)

It's pandemic to the profession, doug.

[membengal]

Re: the Votto stuff in Scrap's ridiculously good post above...

Amen.

[lollipopcurve]

I agree with Scrap. Too often, the experts are ill-informed or don't know what they're looking at. The received wisdom is rampant.

[bubbachunk]

Originally Posted by membengal

Yes, I think anyone whether it is you or Goldstein or Law or whomever that is pigeon-holing Cingrani as merely a reliever at this point is laughable.

He's got more than just a chance to start. And the results scream there is something there to date.

Results in the minor leagues do not mean translation to major league numbers

[membengal]

Originally Posted by bubbachunk

Results in the minor leagues do not mean translation to major league numbers

Didn't say they did.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Scrap is bringin' the noise.

I like it.

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by bubbachunk

Results in the minor leagues do not mean translation to major league numbers

I'd argue that dominance in multiple leagues-- complete, utter, shut-you-down, number one pitcher in the league dominance-- presages success at a much, much, much higher rate than do scouting reports.

Cingrani's numbers are sick. He's been the most successful (re: best) pitcher in each league he's pitched. Two of those leagues-- Pioneer and California-- are notorious hitter's havens. Yet, Cingrani shut down offenses completely.

If he were only doing it for one or two innings, then getting lit up, I might agree that he's a likely reliever. If he only dominated in the Pioneer League, I might agree that he was a little old for the league.

But he's in AA now (after having skipped Dayton and breezed through A+) and has shown no signs of slowing down.

[bubbachunk]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

I'd argue that dominance in multiple leagues-- complete, utter, shut-you-down, number one pitcher in the league dominance-- presages success at a much, much, much higher rate than do scouting reports.

Cingrani's numbers are sick. He's been the most successful (re: best) pitcher in each league he's pitched. Two of those leagues-- Pioneer and California-- are notorious hitter's havens. Yet, Cingrani shut down offenses completely.

If he were only doing it for one or two innings, then getting lit up, I might agree that he's a likely reliever. If he only dominated in the Pioneer League, I might agree that he was a little old for the league.

But he's in AA now (after having skipped Dayton and breezed through A+) and has shown no signs of slowing down.

I am not trying to devalue him just pointing out that there are no definites, especially when it comes to pitching prospects.

I love what Tony is doing and hope he can have enough control/command of 3 pitches to become a great major league pitcher for the Reds.

[dougdirt]

Every argument you can bring where 'they' were wrong, someone can bring one right back where 'they' were right. Pounding your chest because you can find an example of where 'they' were wrong doesn't mean that you are now right because you disagree with them because they were wrong at something in the past.

Maybe they are wrong about Cingrani. But it isn't going to be because they were wrong about Joey Votto. It will be because they were wrong about Tony Cingrani.

If you want to talk about why they are wrong about Cingrani, then go ahead and talk about that. Look at what is being said about him, why they think he could wind up a reliever. Debate those reasons.

Tony Cingrani has very questionable secondary stuff at the age of 23. Debate that. Show your work. Don't bring up Joey Votto quotes from someone who isn't likely the same person who is providing the analysis on Tony Cingrani.

[JayBruceFan]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

I agree with Scrap. Too often, the experts are ill-informed or don't know what they're looking at. The received wisdom is rampant.

Gotta love the "experts"

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Every argument you can bring where 'they' were wrong, someone can bring one right back where 'they' were right. Pounding your chest because you can find an example of where 'they' were wrong doesn't mean that you are now right because you disagree with them because they were wrong at something in the past.

Maybe they are wrong about Cingrani. But it isn't going to be because they were wrong about Joey Votto. It will be because they were wrong about Tony Cingrani.

If you want to talk about why they are wrong about Cingrani, then go ahead and talk about that. Look at what is being said about him, why they think he could wind up a reliever. Debate those reasons.

Tony Cingrani has very questionable secondary stuff at the age of 23. Debate that. Show your work. Don't bring up Joey Votto quotes from someone who isn't likely the same person who is providing the analysis on Tony Cingrani.

I point out not mistakes on individual players, doug, but fundamental mistakes in the way that those guys work. "Pandemic" is the word I used. I stand by it and showed my work by giving an example. There are reasons why everyone should take what these guys say with a gigantic grain of salt.

What they write cannot be trusted.

They are not, however, useless. Some have contacts within the game that give a glimpse into a player's scouting report. Some have past scouting experience. Other than that? They're the same as you and I, doug. Amateurs with opinions. No, check that. They're more dangerous than I am. Because they have a forum and conflated sense of ablility.

I'm not pounding my chest about this either and resent the implication, frankly. Let's discuss this like adults, doug.

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by bubbachunk

I am not trying to devalue him just pointing out that there are no definites, especially when it comes to pitching prospects.

I love what Tony is doing and hope he can have enough control/command of 3 pitches to become a great major league pitcher for the Reds.

No one has said Congrani is a definite. Those of us in the pro-Cingrani as starter point to his production across three levels as a starter. We point to his plus fastball and, in some reports, plus changeup. We point to his clean mechanics and to other pitchers with two plus pitches and a show-me third pitch who've had success at the major league level.

At this point, Cingrani has shown enough to be considered a top-end prospect, equal to Daniel Corcino. Doesn't mean he won't fail.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

I point out not mistakes on individual players, doug, but fundamental mistakes in the way that those guys work. "Pandemic" is the word I used. I stand by it and showed my work by giving an example. There are reasons why everyone should take what these guys say with a gigantic grain of salt.

What they write cannot be trusted.

They are not, however, useless. Some have contacts within the game that give a glimpse into a player's scouting report. Some have past scouting experience. Other than that? They're the same as you and I, doug. Amateurs with opinions. No, check that. They're more dangerous than I am. Because they have a forum and conflated sense of ablility.

I'm not pounding my chest about this either and resent the implication, frankly. Let's discuss this like adults, doug.

So what about when I point out the hundreds and hundreds of times when 'they' were right, doesn't that kind of get around your 'epidemic' problem? And wouldn't is also point that we shouldn't take anything they write with a giant grain of salt?

It has been said before and it needs to be said again.... you ask 10 scouts about a player and you are probably going to get at least 5 different opinions.

As for some of them having contacts in the industry.... well, sure, unless you are talking about the big guys such as BA, BP, Law, Piliere and Sickels, in which case they all have many contacts within the industry. Not just 5. Probably more than 30. Each.

This is something where you are wrong more than you are right if you talk about enough players over a long enough period of time. The best of the best are wrong on guys more than they are right on guys.

When it comes to Cingrani, I stand strongly by what I say about him. Anyone who has watched him pitch and says that his secondary stuff is up to par right now isn't watching the same pitcher that I am. His offspeed stuff is incredibly inconsistent and frankly, more often than not, not even average. That doesn't mean he can't or won't improve it to the point where he can be a starter in the Majors. It just means that right now, his offspeed stuff isn't good enough to work in the Majors and at 23 and in AA, that leaves open questions about whether or not he winds up in the bullpen.

[Scrap Irony]

What hundreds of successes?

I can tell you that Mike Trout is going to be special. Same with Harper. Do I get credit for those?

Or are we talking about guys that BA and their ilk championed that mlb didn't? (Do we have a list of these guys?)