John Sickels' Rankings

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I get where you are coming from, but what gets me even more is the whole "scout speak" of what a #1 or #2 even is. Oh, there are only 10-15 #1's in baseball. Really? This isn't 1954 anymore guys, there are 30 teams, therefore in an even distribution of talent, there are 30 guys qualified to be a #1.

I think they are using the term '#1 starter' to mean 'potential ace', of which there are WAY fewer than 30 in the league at any given time.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

I think they are using the term '#1 starter' to mean 'potential ace', of which there are WAY fewer than 30 in the league at any given time.

Well they need to stop. Because they then turn around and say #2, but if you add the actual amount of #1 and #2 pitchers in baseball according to most scouts, it is still less than 30. That is unpossible.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I get where you are coming from, but what gets me even more is the whole "scout speak" of what a #1 or #2 even is. Oh, there are only 10-15 #1's in baseball. Really? This isn't 1954 anymore guys, there are 30 teams, therefore in an even distribution of talent, there are 30 guys qualified to be a #1. Likewise with a #2, 3, 4 and 5. Yes, Justin Verlander is likely to be significantly better than the 30th best pitcher. So what? Joey Votto is a whole lot better than most other #3 hitters in the game, but you don't have to be Joey Votto good to be a #3 hitter or there would only be 2 or 3 of them.

Totally agree, I'd love to see someone attempt a year end summary rating the top 150 pitchers as a 1-5.

[Benihana]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

I think of it more as the top four then everybody else, with Winker being the clear #1 among 'everybody else' and Travieso as the best of the rest. I just don't think Winker/Travieso compare with the huge upside of Stephenson or the body of work of the three guys on the brink of the majors.

Like I said, there are gaps within the top 6. To be fair, one could argue Top 4, next 2 (like you did). Or Top 2, next 2, then next 2 (like I would). Or top 3, then next 3 (like Doug did). Point is, very few people dispute the names of the top 6 guys. There are certainly gaps within those top 6, but in terms of interchangeable parts, everyone after the first 6 really is interchangeable at this point.

At the end of the day, it's just semantics, and everyone has a different opinion. If you're telling a casual follower of this stuff that there are six names they need to know, I don't think many people would dispute that.

[M2]

A few thoughts on what we're seeing from the rankings (these and BA):

1) Cingrani clearly pole vaulted Corcino this season. That can change, but Cingrani made the sale that his fastball/change combo is a serious arsenal.

2) Winker's bat is almost universally adored. He's got serious helium potential.

3) Billy Hamilton's practically a new species for the scouting community. He's like some new breed of supercheetah and they're trying to figure out exactly what kind of hunting he can do.

4) Travieso is getting the perfunctory grades that go with his draft position, but no one's saying anything complimentary about him. He's got lead balloon potential if he struggles in 2013.

[Scrap Irony]

You know, I agree completely with you, M2.

Nice analysis.

[dougdirt]

I keep hearing people say that about Travieso, but honestly, I just don't see it.

A kid throws 90-93 and touches 96 MPH while working on his mechanics at age 18 with a real nice slider and people are worried about reports on him? Tough critics I guess....

[RedsManRick]

Interesting that LaMarre didn't make even honorable mention.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I keep hearing people say that about Travieso, but honestly, I just don't see it.

A kid throws 90-93 and touches 96 MPH while working on his mechanics at age 18 with a real nice slider and people are worried about reports on him? Tough critics I guess....

I was wondering about your thoughts on this. The scrutiny he's getting just seems ridiculous for a kid that's thrown 20 innings of rookie leagues.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I keep hearing people say that about Travieso, but honestly, I just don't see it.

A kid throws 90-93 and touches 96 MPH while working on his mechanics at age 18 with a real nice slider and people are worried about reports on him? Tough critics I guess....

I think it has more to do with the fact that most draft ranking websites pegged him as a 'reach' on draft day, so they are looking to confirm their earlier assessment.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

I think it has more to do with the fact that most draft ranking websites pegged him as a 'reach' on draft day, so they are looking to confirm their earlier assessment.

That along with that before this year, no one thought he could start because his dad wouldn't let him. I think that a lot of the "future closer" stuff comes from that too.

I mean let's all be honest here. High school pitcher comes into professional baseball throwing 90-93 and touching 96 with room to grow (we know that because he has thrown harder) and a very strong breaking ball. That sounds like almost every high school first rounder you can think of. Hardly ever do the truly big arms come in from high school with three pitches. They come in with a big fastball and breaking ball. You mean to tell me its a shock that a high school has a third pitch that lags behind his other two? Surely you jest.

I don't know, I just don't see the reason for concern. We know the kid throws hard. Let's even pretend he is the 90-93 guy who touches 96 and never gains another MPH. Well, that still sounds like a heck of a starting pitching prospect for an 18 year old doesn't it? Of course it does. There is absolutely no reason to doubt he can start any more than 99% of other high schoolers 6 months out of the draft. He has shown zero reason to believe he can't start at this point.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

I think it has more to do with the fact that most draft ranking websites pegged him as a 'reach' on draft day, so they are looking to confirm their earlier assessment.

No doubt it's some of that. I suspect connected to it is scouts who thought he was a reach still haven't seen enough of him to convince them that he wasn't. BA and Sickels clearly aren't getting positive feedback concerning his breaking ball. Is that because it's not so great or because more scouts need to see more of it?

Either way, doesn't sound like Travieso has much of a bandwagon at the moment.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by M2

No doubt it's some of that. I suspect connected to it is scouts who thought he was a reach still haven't seen enough of him to convince them that he wasn't. BA and Sickels clearly aren't getting positive feedback concerning his breaking ball. Is that because it's not so great or because more scouts need to see more of it?

Either way, doesn't sound like Travieso has much of a bandwagon at the moment.

BA picked him apart, but Sickels wasn't all that critical really. He basically just said he was raw which is kind of expected.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by M2

No doubt it's some of that. I suspect connected to it is scouts who thought he was a reach still haven't seen enough of him to convince them that he wasn't. BA and Sickels clearly aren't getting positive feedback concerning his breaking ball. Is that because it's not so great or because more scouts need to see more of it?

Either way, doesn't sound like Travieso has much of a bandwagon at the moment.

Have you read the BA scouting report from the AZL Top 20 (which calls his breaking ball potentially plus and also says his change up has good movement and some deception, but he needs to control it better)?

His report in the 2013 Reds list was rather brief. Basically though, it sounds like almost every other high schooler ever drafted. Good fastball velocity, inconsistent breaking ball, working on change up.

[REDREAD]

In reading the article, it looks like Sickles ranks Traversio equal to Hoover, and he has glowing praise for Hoover. Both are B-. That seems to mean Traversio is getting respect.
It's almost as if this list has anyone a B- or higher as a good bet to make the majors.

What he says on Cingrani is exciting too. I think this is the first article that has acknowledged that maybe Cingrani is more than just a middle reliever.

3) Tony Cingrani, LHP, Grade B+: He was sure effective for a guy with a mediocre breaking ball, relying on fastball/changeup combination. Given the improvements he's made over the last three years, I think the breaking ball can become at least average, which would make him a number three starter, maybe more.