Cingrani is our best pitching prospect IMO

[Blitz Dorsey]

Doug, hopefully you've changed into a fresh pair of pants by now. I honestly don't know if you've come around in your thinking to where you're not constantly over-valuing guys like Francisco and Ramirez (happened to run across some old posts on the Lizard because of an old thread that got dredged up on ORG, and you were highly complimentary of Ramirez back in the day). That was your M.O., thus what I'm guessing have become the endless references to Zach Stewart.

And that's fine, but for those of us with anything like, you know, a basic memory it's a bit jarring to see you throwing guys you praised out as examples of players who got undone by glaring, fatal flaws. Like I said, maybe you've learned from those days. I certainly don't frequent the board that often and I stuck you on ignore years ago. Maybe your position these days is "I used to get way overhyped about guys like this and now I know that you've got to be more skeptical." Haven't seen that in this thread, but if it's the case then that's a fair argument.

However, if it's "People like me who know what to look for see the problems with Cingrani just like with these others guys (some of whom I completely whiffed on)," then I'm not inclined to buy into your appeal as an authority. I'm not going to take your word for it, especially when you just reminded me of specific examples where your judgment has been shaky. I didn't pick that list of names. You did.

Main thing is I came into this thread because I've become genuinely excited about Cingrani and thought it might be nice to read some more about the kid (even cracked open some of your posts). To my surprise you're the guy who seems to be the least impressed with him. Maybe it's the whole "best pitching prospect" framework of the thread which is upending some delicately ordered balance of things you have constructed inside your head. I could care less about "best" designations. Those sort of things are fluid.

Cingrani's doing really well. He merits enthusiasm. I don't know what he's ultimately going to be, but he's definitely been more than anyone expected so far. Good for him. Good for the Reds. Good for us.

Anyone who follows Doug knows for a fact that he revels in playing the role of the contrarian. Tell him that Drew Stubbs was a bad pick, he'll argue he was good pick. Tell him Billy Hamilton isn't necessarily a great baseball player, but is absolutely a "great athlete" and he'll argue with you that Hamilton is not a great athlete. (And will argue and argue and argue, even when it's clear he's wrong. He won't back down. I somewhat respect him for that. It's also highly annoying when a man never admits he's wrong.) Tell him Homer Bailey is overrated by some Reds fans, he'll argue that he's actually underrated.

On this topic, I think he genuinely believes Cingrani is NOT the Reds' best pitching prospect. So, in this thread, he's not just playing the role of the contrarian. But make no mistake about it: Doug loves being the contrarian in most debates. It's a character trait I've noticed about him for quite some time.

But hey, he's OUR contrarian and we love him. We love you Dougie! (And we also like pointing out when you're incorrect. Elizardo Ramirez, man? I've been wrong a lot, but I can honestly say I thought Ramirez would never make it long-term as a starter in MLB. You know we were in dire straits when Reds fans were actually excited about having the Lizard. He was awful and proved it to everyone before long.)

[Blitz Dorsey]

Their numbers are quite similar to this point as well. Look at Cueto's 20 and 21 year old seasons, then look at Corcino's. Cueto's numbers are slightly better, but they are pretty similar.

I know their numbers are relatively similar (with Cueto's being a bit better) but what happened to the "minor league numbers don't always translate to Big League success"?

Just kind of joking with you there. Cueto is just a special pitcher and I think people are setting themselves up for disappointment if they think Corcino is the next Cueto.

Also, back to the "Minor league numbers don't always translate into success at the MLB level" statement that many have made. Well, duh! Of course there are a bunch of players that perform well in the minors that are busts in the Majors. No one is saying Cingrani will DEFINITELY be a good MLB pitcher. None of the prospects in the organization are a sure thing.

But the bottom line is that of all the pitching prospects the Reds have right now (not counting Stephenson and Travieso; need more info) I'm the most-excited about Cingrani. Kid has dominated from the moment he took the mound for the first time as a pro last year. It's been a full year now and he isn't slowing down. Dominated at high-rookie ball, fresh out of college. Then skips a level and goes to high-A the following year. Dominates. Best pitcher by far in the entire Cal League, which is a "hitter's league" no less. Then gets promoted to Double-A. Continues to dominate. Outstanding K rate. It's not like he's getting by with finesse pitches or getting lucky. This is a young man with serious game. Get on board, y'allz! Don't be the foolish one who waits a few years to finally jump aboard the Cingraniwagon.

[fearofpopvol1]

I know their numbers are relatively similar (with Cueto's being a bit better) but what happened to the "minor league numbers don't always translate to Big League success"?

Just kind of joking with you there. Cueto is just a special pitcher and I think people are setting themselves up for disappointment if they think Corcino is the next Cueto.

Also, back to the "Minor league numbers don't always translate into success at the MLB level" statement that many have made. Well, duh! Of course there are a bunch of players that perform well in the minors that are busts in the Majors. No one is saying Cingrani will DEFINITELY be a good MLB pitcher. None of the prospects in the organization are a sure thing.

But the bottom line is that of all the pitching prospects the Reds have right now (not counting Stephenson and Travieso; need more info) I'm the most-excited about Cingrani. Kid has dominated from the moment he took the mound for the first time as a pro last year. It's been a full year now and he isn't slowing down. Dominated at high-rookie ball, fresh out of college. Then skips a level and goes to high-A the following year. Dominates. Best pitcher by far in the entire Cal League, which is a "hitter's league" no less. Then gets promoted to Double-A. Continues to dominate. Outstanding K rate. It's not like he's getting by with finesse pitches or getting lucky. This is a young man with serious game. Get on board, y'allz! Don't be the foolish one who waits a few years to finally jump aboard the Cingraniwagon.

He may not be Cueto ultimately, but he hasn't shown he can't perform similarly yet and his numbers look good.

[Benihana]

From today's BA chat:

ttnorm (CT): That is a lot of bats Cingrani missed this week at AA. Aberration or is he better than a lot of us thought going into 2012.

J.J. Cooper: Better than we thought.

Doug, perhaps he's better than YOU thought.

[medford]

Also, back to the "Minor league numbers don't always translate into success at the MLB level" statement that many have made. Well, duh! Of course there are a bunch of players that perform well in the minors that are busts in the Majors. No one is saying Cingrani will DEFINITELY be a good MLB pitcher. None of the prospects in the organization are a sure thing.

Well we know there are a bunch of players who put up great minor league numbers and were bust in the majors. Has there ever been anyone that put up pedestrian numbers in the minors, then go on to excel in the majors? I have my doubts, but there are might be a few who click once they reach the show after meandering their way thru the minors.

I find the debate if Cigrani is the best pitching prospect or not kind of silly. I think Joey Votto put it best a few weeks back when he said he didn't worry about who was the best hitter, b/c a few weeks back it was Kemp, then it was Hamilton, then it was Votto, and sooner or later it was going to be someone else. Its a rather subjective classification anyways when it comes to a team sport like baseball where failure (ie a .300 batting average is considered good, or a 4.5 ERA is a "good start") is the norm. Does it really matter if Cigrani or Corcino or Stephenson or anyone else is the "best" pitching prospect, I just hope they all continue to post great numbers while developing their game so they can make an impact with the reds someday or be shipped away in a trade for something that helps the Reds in the near term.

[dougdirt]

From today's BA chat:



Doug, perhaps he's better than YOU thought.

He is better than EVERYONE thought or he wouldn't have gone in the 3rd round. Still doesn't change the fact that just three days ago Kevin Goldstein was still quoting scouts who thought he was a reliever.

Right now, I still have him as the #11 prospect in the system, but he could move up quite a bit depending on how that secondary stuff looks moving forward. At this point, I haven't seen enough of it to rank him any higher than that.

M2, blah blah blah. I am not going to be bothered by the fact that in a weak system I ranked Francisco, a Major Leaguer, inside the top 10. But the rankings only mean so much. Did you care to ever read what I had said about him? Basically it was 'incredibly high risk/high reward' due to his terrible plate discipline, but that there were times (in AA/AAA) where he seemed to go through stretches where he seemed to get the idea of plate discipline, leaning toward a chance he could get it.

As for the Billy Hamilton 'athlete' comment... I stand by what I said. People continue to miss my point. Hamilton isn't a super athlete. He isn't the kind of athlete that Josh Hamilton is. Billy Hamilton might be the most athletic player in the Reds organization (including the Majors). That still doesn't make him a super athlete IMO on par with the kind of athlete that say Josh Hamilton or Mike Trout are.

[mth123]

Not sure who is the best pitching prospect. Don't know if its Corcino, Lotzkar, Cingrani, Sulbaran, Stephenson, Travieso, Rogers, or somebody else, but I'm glad there are enough to debate about it.

I'd be perfectly happy if one of them was dealt to address the major league OF picture.

[Nathan]

As for the Billy Hamilton 'athlete' comment... I stand by what I said. People continue to miss my point. Hamilton isn't a super athlete. He isn't the kind of athlete that Josh Hamilton is. Billy Hamilton might be the most athletic player in the Reds organization (including the Majors). That still doesn't make him a super athlete IMO on par with the kind of athlete that say Josh Hamilton or Mike Trout are.

That don't makes any senses.

[dougdirt]

That don't makes any senses.

It does if I consider guys like Josh Hamilton and Mike Trout super athletes who are fast, explosive and strong. Billy Hamilton is two of those things. Two out of three doesn't put you in the same group.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Let's not get into the ridiculous "Is Billy Hamilton a great athlete?" debate again. For those that think the "Is Cingrani our best pitching prospect?" debate is "silly" ... you must think the "Is Slidin' Billy a great athlete?" debate to be the silliest thing of all time.

[Benihana]

It does if I consider guys like Josh Hamilton and Mike Trout super athletes who are fast, explosive and strong. Billy Hamilton is two of those things. Two out of three doesn't put you in the same group.

Is Allen Iverson a super athlete? How about Muggsy Bogues or Spudd Webb?

[Blitz Dorsey]

Doug, if you care about the integrity of your rankings (which I know you do) you won't have Cingrani ranked as the "11th-best prospect in the organization" for long. He's way better than that IMO.

I know you have Lotzkar ranked ahead of him. Two things on that: Cingrani has out-performed Lotzkar at every level, and Lotzkar has a bad history of injuries for such a young pitcher. Sorry, but no way is Lotzkar a better prospect than Cingrani. I don't care that he was selected for the Futures Game. Cingrani's numbers are better and he hasn't had his arm cut open already. Also, Cingrani is a lefty with just as much velocity as the right-handed Lotzkar.

[dougdirt]

Doug, if you care about the integrity of your rankings (which I know you do) you won't have Cingrani ranked as the "11th-best prospect in the organization" for long. He's way better than that IMO.

I know you have Lotzkar ranked ahead of him. Two things on that: Cingrani has out-performed Lotzkar at every level, and Lotzkar has a bad history of injuries for such a young pitcher. Sorry, but no way is Lotzkar a better prospect than Cingrani. I don't care that he was selected for the Futures Game. Cingrani's numbers are better and he hasn't had his arm cut open already. Also, Cingrani is a lefty with just as much velocity as the right-handed Lotzkar.

I stand firmly with my rankings at the time that I make them. I don't just draw names out of a hat. I put in hundreds of hours of research. I talk to scouts. I look at the numbers. I look at video. I break it down and look at it. When I make my rankings, I am perfectly comfortable with their integrity.

Lotzkars injuries all came when he had atrocious mechanics. He doesn't have them anymore. I don't care that he was selected for the Futures Game either. That has zero bearing on his value as a prospect.

Cingrani does not have just as much velocity as Lotzkar does. Lotzkar sits higher and touches higher than Cingrani does. He has a better secondary pitch, though Cingrani does have the better fastball.

Lotzkar does need to see that walk rate come down though or Cingrani might push his way ahead of him (assuming that is secondary stuff stays exactly where it is today). Cingrani's continued improvement of his secondary stuff would also push him ahead of Lotzkar (if Lotzkar stays about where he is right now). But as it stands right now, I have more faith in Lotzkar being a MLB starting pitcher than Cingrani because he has the better array of pitches and I am not that concerned about his health at this point in the game.

And for the record, Billy Hamilton is a great athlete. He isn't a super athlete. At least by my definitions of such.

[dougdirt]

Is Allen Iverson a super athlete? How about Muggsy Bogues or Spudd Webb?

To me? No, they aren't.

Let's pretend we are in a lab and can create the best athlete ever. Would he weigh 170 pounds and not have good strength? Of course he wouldn't.

When I think of a super athlete it is a combination of size (both height and weight), strength, explosiveness, speed and coordination.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Willie Mays weighed 170.

By the way, what does Josh Hamilton have over and Allen Iverson besides brute strength?

To not include an Iverson or someone that weighs 170 (Mays) as a gifted athlete is extremely shortsighted and, frankly, kind of alarming for someone that rates baseball prospects for a living.