Cingrani is our best pitching prospect IMO

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

Translation: Donnie Joseph has improved his off-speed pitches.

The prosecution rests, your honor.

No, translation: Donnie Joseph improved his control. Joseph had a 70-80 slider and has for a while. But until he was able to throw it for strikes, it didn't matter much against advanced competition.

BTW, you see what happened to Chapman when he stopped throwing his slider? He got rocked. A great fastball only goes so far. Need to keep guys honest. 95% of starting pitchers need 3 pitches to do that. Right now, Cingrani needs more out of his 3 pitches.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

In other words, once Cingrani improves his off-speed pitches, he'll be the organization's best pitching prospect. I think that's what Doug's trying to say. You can't just bank on a big improvement happening like that. If so, you must think Yorman Rodriguez is one of the best prospects in baseball.

Great analogy, considering YRod is also putting up great stats.

Oh wait, he's putting up dismal stats, never mind.

Not sure of your point there? This analogy would make sense if YRod was dominating, but people said "Yeah, but he doesn't hit off-speed pitches well." You see the difference?

Cingrani is really good. That's my point.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

Great analogy, considering YRod is also putting up great stats.

Oh wait, he's putting up dismal stats, never mind.

Not sure of your point there? This analogy would make sense if YRod was dominating, but people said "Yeah, but he doesn't hit off-speed pitches well." You see the difference?

Cingrani is really good. That's my point.

Fine, how about Brandon Larson? Or Juan Francisco? How about Matt Maloney? How about Elizardo Ramirez? How about Danny Ray Herrera? What about Brandon Wood?

I could keep going on and on. But it wouldn't matter because I and others have told you 'the difference' and you just point back to the numbers and say 'nope!'. We told you about the "can't hit offspeed pitches well" with Cingrani. You don't seem to care to hear it because he is still producing.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Fine, how about Brandon Larson? Or Juan Francisco? How about Matt Maloney? How about Elizardo Ramirez? How about Danny Ray Herrera? What about Brandon Wood?

I could keep going on and on. But it wouldn't matter because I and others have told you 'the difference' and you just point back to the numbers and say 'nope!'. We told you about the "can't hit offspeed pitches well" with Cingrani. You don't seem to care to hear it because he is still producing.

I think you are wrong about Cingrani.

You think I'm wrong.

You know what's fun? We'll get to find out who's right before too long.

[Nathan]

Let's say you went to a Major league game where Juan Castro went 3-3 with three bloop singles in no mans land barely behind the second basemen. Babe Ruth went 0-3 with three line drives that were miraculously caught on the warning track. It was minor league game, and nobody had heard of either of them. Would you say that Castro would have the better career, or he was the better player, simply because he outperformed the Babe that game?

When evaluating talent, and proclaiming them the greatest prospects in the organization, you have to look at other things besides stats. It's more of a projection, you can't say for sure.

I've never seen Cingrani pitch, so, I can't say with a credible opinion what kind of prospect he is, but, stats can be misleading when it comes to evaluating talent.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Let's say you went to a Major league game where Juan Castro went 3-3 with three bloop singles in no mans land barely behind the second basemen. Babe Ruth went 0-3 with three line drives that were miraculously caught on the warning track. It was minor league game, and nobody had heard of either of them. Would you say that Castro would have the better career, or he was the better player, simply because he outperformed the Babe that game?

When evaluating talent, and proclaiming them the greatest prospects in the organization, you have to look at other things besides stats. It's more of a projection, you can't say for sure.

I've never seen Cingrani pitch, so, I can't say with a credible opinion what kind of prospect he is, but, stats can be misleading when it comes to evaluating talent.

Babe Ruth with 3 ABs compared to some journeyman with 3 ABs. You can do better than that. (Hopefully.)

No one is talking about seeing Cingrani for one inning (or taking one inning of his stats) and being impressed. We're talking about a full year in pro ball now. The guy has serious game. His doubters will look foolish soon.

[M2]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

1. No one ever said Cueto wasn't better than Bailey at the time, it was just expected that Bailey would keep improving and that Cueto probably wouldn't since he was more polished.

2. Cingrani started 3 years in college. Not exactly a reliever to starter. He only relieved his senior year.

3. That would be nice and all, except that Cingrani is more of a FB/SL than FB/CH guy even though his CH is better than his slider.

1. Plenty of people said Bailey was better and was guaranteed to be better. Frankly, the overestimation of Bailey, underestimation of Cueto, and the flat out lousy projections and comparisons that got made is the stuff of high comedy. Cueto surged past Bailey in 2006 and a large number of people dedicated years to missing what was right in front of them.

2. And when Cingrani got drafted the knock on him was it was likely going to take some time for him to develop into a functional starter. Supposedly he didn't have a starter's repertoire. Hell, I'm still seeing versions of that argument in this thread. That turned out to be wrong. Whether his repertoire can be effective in the majors is another question, but it's working better than anyone expected. I'm of the view that's a good thing.

3. If his change is better than his slider then by definition he's more of a FB/CH guy.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

Babe Ruth with 3 ABs compared to some journeyman with 3 ABs. You can do better than that. (Hopefully.)

No one is talking about seeing Cingrani for one inning (or taking one inning of his stats) and being impressed. We're talking about a full year in pro ball now. The guy has serious game. His doubters will look foolish soon.

Except that you HAVEN'T SEEN HIM. You saw some video of his mechanics.

[camisadelgolf]

Blitz, please let me know if you disagree with any of this:

There's no denying that Cingrani has excellent stats and a high ceiling. But he will come nowhere near reaching that ceiling until his off-speed stuff improves considerably, which is far from a given.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by M2

2. And when Cingrani got drafted the knock on him was it was likely going to take some time for him to develop into a functional starter. Supposedly he didn't have a starter's repertoire. Hell, I'm still seeing versions of that argument in this thread. That turned out to be wrong. Whether his repertoire can be effective in the majors is another question, but it's working better than anyone expected. I'm of the view that's a good thing.

3. If his change is better than his slider then by definition he's more of a FB/CH guy.

2. When scouts talk about developing a starters array of pitches, they are referring to one in the Majors, not one that might work in the minors. So no, it isn't wrong at this point.

3. Not really, because he is throwing his slider a lot more often than his change up. If he isn't throwing his change up, it doesn't matter how good it is. He is 90-95% FB/SL.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

We're talking about a full year in pro ball now. The guy has serious game. His doubters will look foolish soon.

For sure I think more attention needs to be paid to what he's doing right. Also, some credit ought to go to the Reds development folks for cranking what he does up to 11 so far.

Here's my question about all Reds pitching prospects: can anyone name one that doesn't have some serious work to do before he's ready to deal in the majors?

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by M2

For sure I think more attention needs to be paid to what he's doing right. Also, some credit ought to go to the Reds development folks for cranking what he does up to 11 so far.

Here's my question about all Reds pitching prospects: can anyone name one that doesn't have some serious work to do before he's ready to deal in the majors?

Hoover?

[Blitz Dorsey]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

Blitz, please let me know if you disagree with any of this:

There's no denying that Cingrani has excellent stats and a high ceiling. But he will come nowhere near reaching that ceiling until his off-speed stuff improves considerably, which is far from a given.

I'm with you on this point. Well said.

[camisadelgolf]

I could see Pedro Villarreal becoming the next Sam LeCure. If you put Kyle Lotzkar in the bullpen, he could probably move up the ladder pretty quickly, too. Dat curve . . .

[Blitz Dorsey]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Except that you HAVEN'T SEEN HIM. You saw some video of his mechanics.

Ahh, Dougie, you're so sweet. Please let me know next time you watch him live so I can come with you. I'll bring the Now n' Laters.

Then I'll know why his LIGHTS OUT STATS are so freakin' tricky for you. "Man, I can't believe this Double-A pitcher one year removed from college ball hasn't perfected his breaking pitches yet. Never mind his incredible stats since he's turned pro. He just doesn't have that curve down yet. I see reliever in his future. No way he'll be able to improve on his breaking pitches at his old age."

[sarcasm off]