I don't even think Larson was ever a top prospect in the Reds system. Top 10, sure. But the top prospect? I don't think he ever was.Originally Posted by Steve4192
Larson was hyped up by the Reds media after a real good mid 20's season in AAA. You can look back at the stats and see how hard he was going to flop in the Majors. Terrible plate discipline. The power was real, but if you can't stop from swinging at bad pitches, it won't matter. And that is exactly what happened.
Honestly, I have been super impressed with what the Reds' development people have been able to do with Cingrani. Of course, Cingrani deserves a lot of praise as well for his progress.
Looks like (early returns), he may have added some velocity. He may have made great strides on his breaking pitch.
That's pretty incredible that the Reds were able to see a college reliever with this much untapped potential and grab him in the 3rd (?) round of the draft, and polish him up.
Makes me feel great about the future of this franchise.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
That's a ridiculous assessment of PB's comment. Nobody would ever take the guy more likely to flame out if talent and upside were equal. But if you're choosing between a guaranteed good player, and a guy who has a great chance to be a star with a small possibility of being a disappointment, that's not an easy decision. Every year teams trade known commodities for guys who project to be stars because it's worth the risk, even though it won't always work out.
I will be perfectly honest and say this:
Cingrani may not have actually picked up velocity. I don't really have any contacts out in the California League. I got reports on him second hand from other people who talked to scouts while he was out there. One report did have him touching 95 at times last year with Bakersfield. However, he never did that with Pensacola. Perhaps he simply wore down some in the second half with Pensacola (wouldn't be surprising, his walk rate was quite high) and we are just seeing the "first half" Cingrani at this point.
Still, the breaking ball, whatever it is (be it a slider/slurve or curve), is different than what he was throwing last year (slider). Very good sign.
You are correct.
Baseball America's 2002 Handbook had him at #15 and the 2003 Handbook had him at #8. I don't have anything prior to 2002 other than the #1s, and he is not on that list (which includes future hall of famers Gookie Dawkins, Pokey Reese, Damian Jackson, and Rob Bell)
Great insights, Doug. It's unfortunate that some (all?) of the national analysts are afraid to admit they were wrong about Cingrani. I guarantee BA and everyone else wishes they had a mulligan on their Cingrani ranking entering the 2013 season. It didn't take a genius to figure out that here was a 6-4 lefty who had dominated at every level (except those that he skipped) since turning pro. He even looked good in his cameo with the Reds last year. However, there he was ranked in the 80's by most publications entering this year. I thought it was a joke when I first saw it. And there was Miller still a top-10 prospect, despite his awful season last year (4.77 ERA in 27 AAA starts). Classic case of trying to justify their rankings from the previous year and not being able to admit they were wrong.
Being ranked in the top 100 of a major prospect list is high praise. Remember there are several thousand players in the minor leagues. There really is not that much difference between being ranked #10 and #81. If you are ranked anywhere in the top 100 you are likely to become an above-average major league player.
I would bet that your "so called experts" would still rank Cingrani in the bottom half of their Top 100s even after seeing Cingrani's first two starts this year. Obviously Blitz Dorsey aggressively disagrees. What holds a lot of people back from ranking him a little higher is that many people see him as a future relief pitcher.
I believe he will remain a starter and has mid-rotation upside. The key will be his secondary pitches, more specifically he needs to develop something with horizontal movement. He has good velocity and good vertical movement. I don't think his secondary pitches would fool major league hitters too often right now.
Back up a minute.
I was with you until that last sentence, but there are TONS of top 100 prospects who never turn out to be above-average major leaguers. Even top 10 overall prospects are have a spotty record, much less top 100 guys.
For example, breaking out my dusty old 2005 Baseball Prospectus, here is the top 10 for that year.
1 Andy Marte - bust
2 Delmon Young - average
3 Felix Hernandez - stud
4 Dallas McPherson - bust
5 Casey Kotchman - below average
6 Ian Stewart - average
7 Joel Guzman - bust
8 Prince Fielder - stud
9 Daric Barton - below average
10 Jeremy Reed - bust
That's two studs, four complete busts, and four guys who are useful major leaguers but not above-average. And that is the top 10. The next 90 guys definitely fare worse.
Even the best prospects are still a crapshoot.
Aaaarrrgh!
In your opinion, the breaking ball is different. I continue to argue that it has not changed at all, only that doug has seen the breaking ball now. (And the breaking ball in question is a slider.)
I agree there is no certainty, but most top 100 players make the major leagues and play important roles. The point I was making is that being ranked in the top 100 means that the prospecting "experts" really, really like you. There is no need for people to get angry that one guy was ranked in the top 20 and their guy was only ranked in the 80s or 90s. The difference is not that big. Both are amongst the top 1% of prospects and are likely to have a good career.
I'd argue that most players who play important roles were in the Top 100, but not the other way around. BA's Top 100, especially toward the bottom, has a whole bunch of bustville in it, IIRC.
Again, it is the difference between likely and certainly. We all know that prospecting is a hit-and-miss game.
Compare the success rate for players that are in the top 100 vs the players that do no not make the top 100.
From RotoWorld via the Enquirer:
Reds manager Dusty Baker said Wednesday that the club considered calling up prospect left-hander Tony Cingrani to replace Sean Marshall (shoulder) in the bullpen.
The club didn't want to impede Cingrani's progress as a starting pitcher, so they ultimately settled on Logan Ondrusek as Marshall's replacement on the roster. "He’s our first call-up if one of our starters goes down," Baker said. "He still has to work on his breaking ball. We kicked around Cingrani. It’s just that we didn’t want to impede his progress as a starter. If anything happens to one of my starters, we don’t have a whole of quality backup." Cingrani, 23, owns a 21/2 K/BB ratio in 12 1/3 scoreless innings through his first two starts with Triple-A Louisville this season.
He was considered for the bullpen. Still needs to work on the breaking ball.
In a sense this is skewing it away from the prospects that matter. So many of the players in the minors start out or maintain a very seriously low chance of making it. Of the prospects that are worth mentioning, being 80th vs 20th, I think, is a significant difference. Being in the lower 20th often means there are not enough people convinced of your ability. Somewhere there was a study done on this based on Sickles lists.
Yea, I agree. I meant to imply that "maybe" he picked up velocity.
Maybe not. It might not even matter as much as the improvement in his breaking pitch.
In any event, great pick by the Reds scouting, and great work by their development people.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote