Reds Payroll, Now and in the Future

With the start of the season, and in light of the Reds' latest long term salary commitment, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the Reds' payroll for this and the coming few seasons.  First, based on this article from Deadspin, here are opening day payrolls for each team:

The Reds have pushed themselves up above the median, ranking 12th overall.  They are in a cluster of teams from the Arizona Diamondbacks (11th) through the Milwaukee Brewers (16th) that have pretty much average payroll.  This is a far cry from where the Reds used to be a few years ago, often in the lower third of payroll.

Why do we worry so much about payroll?  We hear a lot of talk about parity.  But nevertheless, there still is a clear relationship between team payroll and team quality:

There's scatter, but the regression line explains 32% of the variance between payroll and projected wins.  All but one team (the Phillies) with a payroll over $125 million is projected to win 83 or more games.  The two teams spending the least are projected to have terrible records.

Now, of course, there's a lot of scatter.  Teams spending roughly the same amount on player salaries may differ by 15 or more projected wins.  And these are just projected wins: inevitably, the relationship between actual 2014 wins and payroll will likely show even more scatter.

But the fact remains that teams that spend more, and especially those that spend more wisely, are projected to win more games.  Teams with higher payrolls can afford more talent, whether that's signing free agents or keeping their existing players.  Therefore, it makes sense to keep an eye on the Reds' payroll.

Here are the Reds' current payroll commitments for 2014, as well as the subsequent two seasons.  All data are from Cot's Contracts.

Reds 2014-2016 Payroll Commitments

Name	POS	ML Srv	Length / Total Value	2014	2015	2016
Votto, Joey	1b	6.027	10 yr/$225M (14-23)	$12,000,000	$14.00	$20.00
Phillips, Brandon	2b	9.022	6 yr/$72.5M (12-17)	$11,000,000	$12.00	$13.00
Bruce, Jay	rf	5.125	6 yr/$51M (11-16)	$10,041,667	$12.04	$12.54
Cueto, Johnny	rhp-s	6	4 yr/$27M (11-14)	$10,000,000	$0.80
Bailey, Homer	rhp-s	5.017	6 yr/$105M (14-19)+20 opt	$9,000,000	$10.00	$18.00
Ludwick, Ryan	lf	8.109	2 yr/$15M (13-14)+15 opt	$8,500,000	$4.50
Chapman, Aroldis	lhp-c	3.034	1 yr/$5M (14)+converted bonus	$7,835,772	$11.75	$15.67
Latos, Mat	rhp-s	4.079	2 yr/$11.5M (13-14)	$7,250,000	$9.67	FA
Broxton, Jonathan	rhp	8.02	3 yr/$21M (13-15)	$7,000,000	$9.00	$1.00
Leake, Mike	rhp-s	4	1 yr/$5.925M (14)	$5,925,000	$7.90	FA
Marshall, Sean	lhp	7.088	3 yr/$16.5M (13-15)	$5,500,000	$6.50	FA
Parra, Manny	lhp	6.063	2 yr/$5.5M (14-15)	$2,000,000	$3.50	FA
Schumaker, Skip	2b-of	7.051	2 yr/$5M (14-15)+16 cl opt	$2,000,000	$2.50	$0.50
Heisey, Chris	of	3.157	1 yr/$1.76M (14)	$1,760,000	$2.35	$2.93
Simon, Alfredo	rhp	4.142	1 yr/$1.5M (14)	$1,500,000	$2.00	FA
Ondrusek, Logan	rhp	3.125	2 yr/$2.3M (13-14)	$1,425,000	$1.90	$2.38
LeCure, Sam	rhp	3.072	2 yr/$3.05M (14-15)	$1,200,000	$1.85	$2.47
Santiago, Ramon	ss-2b	9.095	1 yr/$1.1M (14)	$1,100,000
Hannahan, Jack	3b	5.065	2 yr/$4M (13-14)+15 c opt	$1,000,000	$2.00
Pena, Brayan	c	6.081	2 yr/$2.275M (14-15)	$875,000	$1.40	FA
Cozart, Zack	ss	2.084	1 yr/$0.6M (14)	$600,000	$5.12	$7.68
Frazier, Todd	3b	2.071	1 yr/$0.6M (14)	$600,000	$6.48	$9.72
Mesoraco, Devin	c	2.028	1 yr/$0.525M (14)	$525,000	$4.64	$6.96
Hoover, J.J.	rhp	1.102	1 yr/$0.52M (14)	$520,000	$0.57	$1.20
Cingrani, Tony	lhp-s	0.163	1 yr/$0.5125M (14)	$512,500	$0.56	$0.62
Partch, Curtis	rhp	0.086	1 yr (14)	$500,000	$0.55	$0.61
Christani, Nick	rhp	0.039	1 yr/$0.5M (14)	$500,000	$0.55	$0.61
Hamilton, Billy	cf	0.028	1 yr/$0.5M (14)	$500,000	$0.55	$0.61
Marshall, Brett	rhp	0.033	1 yr/$0.5M (14)	$500,000	$0.55	$0.61
Soto, Neftali	3b	0.036	1 yr/$0.5M (14)	$500,000	$0.55	$0.61
Barnhart, Tucker	c	0	1 yr (14)	$500,000	$0.55	$0.61
Totals				$112,669,939	$136.33	$118.30

The data above assume that the Reds will not pick up any of their options, and thus just pay the buyouts.  More on that in a sec.  Also, the values in red are estimates of what these players might get in salary arbitration, based on either their current salary or a WAR-based salary estimate, and a 40/60/80% estimate for what players will get each of their three years in their arbitration years.

I think these numbers are a little concerning.  Right now, the Reds have three players set to be free agents following this season (assuming the Reds don't pick up the options they have): Johnny Cueto, Ryan Ludwick, and Ramon Santiago.  Roger Bernadina should probably also be on this list, but I accidentally omitted him.  In any case, collectively, those three are combining to make $19.6 M this season, compared to $5.3 M next season in contract buyouts.  That would seem to free up $14.3 Million.

Unfortunately, at the same time, the Reds have three important players who will be arbitration eligible for the first time next year:  Zack Cozart, Todd Frazier, and Devin Mesoraco.  The latter three are all somewhere in the vicinity of league-average players.  Therefore, even though they'll only make 40% of their free agent value, they will probably earn an extra $15 million by themselves.  There goes the savings.  And on top of that, just about all players with existing contracts get an incremental raise, along with players who are in their arbitration years (Aroldis Chapman, Mat Latos, and Mike Leake).

All told, the minimum salary commitments the Reds currently are dealing with have them at about $136 million in 2015, which is about $24 million more than the 2014 payroll.  And that's assuming they don't pick up Johnny Cueto's option!  That scenario seems unfathomable right now.  But picking up his $10 M option would bring payroll to $145.5 Million.  If they try to keep Ludwick, they're over $150 million.  All of this would appear to make the Reds pretty strapped for cash in the coming year.  And it doesn't get a lot better after that: while the payroll commitments drop in 2016, that would require that the Reds lose all of Cueto, Latos, Leake, Marshall, and Parra to free agency.  Between escalating salaries for the young guys, plus Votto and Bailey getting big jumps in their salaries, the Reds are going to need that TV deal to pan out for them to avoid having to gut the team.

We don't know what the Reds' financial situation really is, of course.  It could be that they're running (or anticipating) the kinds of profits that would permit this kind of payroll explosion.  But if this season goes poorly, and the Reds aren't as competitive as we all hope them to be, I would think some effort to trim payroll at the trade deadline might be in order.

Thoughts?  Will the Reds' TV contract let them keep this team together?  Or are we looking at the onset of a retooling period in the next few years?

Series Preview: Cardinals vs Reds

We just previewed the Cardinals last week, so I'm going to be pretty brief with this one.  A lot of times, if the Reds have faced a team in the prior month, I will be skipping that preview this year.  But I have a few new toys I've added to the spreadsheets, so I figured I'd use this as a test run!

Having at least prevented the sweep with their victory Sunday afternoon, the Reds head to St. Louis to help the Cardinals open their home season.  For their part, the Cardinals also just lost two of three at the hands of the Pirates.  Yesterday's game featured Edinson Volquez outpitching Adam Wainwright for an unexpected (but very welcome) victory.  Fun times!

In any case, while we should draw no predictions from it, thus far both teams' offenses have sputtered, and their bullpens have not performed well.  Both teams, however, have enjoyed excellent starting pitching to date.

Busch Stadium

Run Park Factor: 97
HR Park Factor: 94/90 LHB/RHB

Busch Stadium plays as a moderately pitcher-friendly park, which makes the Cardinals offense seem all the more frightening.  Deep fences down the lines allow it to depress home runs, and indeed just about everything except for singles.

Hitters

It sounds as if Billy Hamilton will be available to play soon.  If he starts on Monday, I'm certainly hoping that both he and poor Zack Cozart can get themselves their first hits of the year and get back on track.

Devin Mesoraco should also return this series, likely Tuesday, which will mean Tucker Barnhart can head down to Triple-A to continue developing.  I thought Tucker did a heck of a job catching Cueto's game the other day, and I'm looking forward to him returning soon.

The Cardinals' infield is off to a good start, but their outfield has been struggling.

Also, you'll note Yadier' Molina's projection has jumped since the last profile.  That's because I'm adding framing data to his normal fielding projection.  More on that later this week. :)

Probable Starters

For Game 1, we get a rematch of last week's terrific game.  I'm hoping for another!  Remember when Cingrani was hitting 96 in the first inning?  That was fun.

The rest of the pitchers had rough first starts.  One start doesn't mean much, of course.  It was good to see Homer averaging 95 mph, at least.  I'm looking forward to seeing Shelby Miller (if I can sneak looks while at work...unlikely), who got rocked by the Pirates in his first start and basically didn't pitch in the Cardinals' postseason.

Bullpens

Aside from two notable (and painful) blow-ups, the Reds have gotten zeros from their pens.  I'm a bit surprised at how much work Manny Parra has gotten, and was especially surprised that Price opted to give him an extended save yesterday.  At this point, we have to expect that he won't be available to pitch on Monday, right?  I guess that will give Sam LeCure more chances to pitch, which is a good thing.

The Cardinals have gotten good results from Trevor Rosenthal and Carlos Martinez, but that's about it.  And Carlos Martinez's xFIP isn't looking rosy.  But hey, small samples.  It is interesting that the top 3 of their pen are all hard-throwers, but the rest are (by bullpen standards) soft-tossers.

Why outfielders should throw to the cutoff man

A Cardinal Sin of outfielding is to throw home directly, rather than bypassing the cutoff man.  I've always wondered, however, if there are times when that really is the optimal decision for an outfielder.  Allowing the infielder to catch, grab, and then throw the ball must take time, and that's all time that the ball could be advancing toward home plate.  I figured air resistance might be negating some of that gain, but I wasn't sure that it would be enough to matter.

Therefore, I really liked David Kagan's article at Hardball Times last week on the physics of hitting the cutoff man.  David's piece shows that, in fact, one of the major advantages of hitting the cutoff man is that it is a straighter path to get to home plate.  When you throw directly home, you have to use a high launch angle because you have to overcome gravity every step along the way.  Throwing to the cutoff man is a more direct route, and the infielder then has a nice, short throw, again with very little need to elevated launch angle. His diagram shows this best:

Once one also includes factors like air resistance that leads to decreasing velocity during flight (blue line), the total flight time of a ball thrown directly home from 270 feet was 2.75 seconds, compared to just 2.39 seconds.

Now, when hitting the cutoff man, the infielder still needs to catch, transfer, and throw the ball, which must take another half-second to a second (this would be a fun thing to measure...I'll be watching for that in future ballgames).  Therefore, if the infielder is major league baseball-level efficient, we're looking at nearly equal travel times.

Consequently, the benefits of hitting the cutoff man seem to be as follows:

1. Nearly equal time to plate, because the gains of bypassing the infielder are mostly offset by higher launch angle, and thus distance traveled, that are required to get the ball to home plate from the outfield.
2. Improved accuracy by infielder on throw, because slight errors in trajectory angle make less of a difference when you're closer.  I'm guessing this is a really big deal.
3. Ability to prevent the batter from advancing to second base.

Postcript: I'd like to formally apologize to my infielders in 8th grade little league when I bypassed the cutoff man and tried to throw out a batter running to third base.  I didn't succeed, but we might have if I'd thrown to the cutoff man!

Scorekeeping: Reds at Mets, 4/4/14

Last night, I kept score.  The past few seasons, I've been using iScore, which is a great app.  But I've missed the aesthetic of pencil and paper, so I pulled out my trusty Rich Burk scorebook last night.

It was a good game.  I missed the first inning, but saw the rest.  The Reds' offensive frustrations continued, but it was fun to see Jay Bruce jack that third consecutive 87-mph fastball from John Lannon over the wall.  

Here are my scoresheets, though the magic if my iPhone camera.

Reds

Mets

Curveballs: illusions and reality

A few years ago, I got to teach a fun freshman seminar course that I called The Science of Baseball.  We covered baseball from a number of scientific approaches: physics, biology (PED's!), psychology, economics, etc.  It was a blast...someday I need to do that again.  I still have the reading list, though it's a bit outdated.

In any case, Michael Maffie had a nice piece today at Redleg Nation highlighting something that is right up that course's alley.  He highlights a PLOS One study that noted an optical illusion that could affect batters' ability to track curveballs.  In the comments, there was also some discussion about why breaking pitches curve.

I wrote this in response, built largely on what I gleaned from Robert Adair's The Physics of Baseball.

Cool stuff. I remember seeing that PLOS One study when it was published, but I’d completely forgotten about it. :)

A few thoughts:
* I think sliders are very interesting in light of this. Unlike the fastball and curve, which will flash as the ball tumbles through space, slider spins are such that the stitches do not “tumble.” Rather, batters see a white “dot” created by the spin as the slider spins on its axis. Therefore, maybe this is yet another difference between what a batter perceives when a pitcher throws a slider vs. other pitches? 

* I have a very basic understanding of curveball (and fastball) physics. But this is the basic breakdown, I think, based on what I read in Adair’s Physics of Baseball. Hopefully it’s correct. 

- The stitches cause the surface of the ball to be “rough.” Rough surfaces create the opportunity for the ball to collect a layer of air around it as it travels at high velocities. This protective layer of air helps to allow for much lower drag than a smooth ball would experience. that effect bottoms out at ~80 mph and then increases again as you increase in velocity. At velocities relevant to baseball, therefore, higher velocity = higher drag = more force applied to baseball. 

- The fact that a curve ball is spinning results in different effective velocities on the top and bottom of the ball. The top part of the ball in a curveball is spinning “into” the wind, and thus has higher velocity, and thus more drag. The bottom part of the baseball, spinning “away” from the wind, experiences less drag. This difference in drag results in more force (called the magnus force) on the top compared to the bottom of the baseball. Therefore, curveballs drop at a (slightly) faster rate than expected by gravity. 

- Fastballs work the opposite way. A four-seam fastball rotates such that the the seams on the bottom of the baseball are rotating into the “wind,” such that the bottom of the baseball experiences greater magnus force than the top of the baseball. As a result, four-seam fastballs (at least) fall less than would be expected by gravity. They still definitely fall (there is no true “rising” fastball), but since we “expect” a normal ballistic path (more or less), they look like they’re defying gravity. 

You can see this deflection on pitchf/x graphs. Brooks Baseball isn’t working for me right now(?!), but if you go here....
Look at the Vertical vs. Horizontal movement graph. Fastballs show up as having “positive” vertical movement, whereas curveballs have “negative” vertical movement. Zero, in that case, would be no deflection from what you’d expect by gravity alone.
Fun stuff!!
-j

Mets Series Preview

After losing a pair of close games to the Cardinals, while taking one of their own, the Reds take to the road to face off with the New York Mets this weekend.  The Mets, clearly, are not the team that the Cardinals are.  I've only loosely paid attention to what has been happening, but apparently the Mets are in the middle of a terrible ownership situation right now that is limiting their payroll (among other things).  Despite what looks like (on paper) a competent front office headed by Sandy Alderson, they haven't been able to post a winning season since 2008.  

And they don't look particularly likely to break that trend this season.  Their offense projects to be in the same ballpark as the Reds' (i.e. not great), but their pitching looks much worse.  Without Matt Harvey for at least most of the season, they are relying on a few solid mid-rotation guys to make it through.  The stats to the right show only the first two days of play, but clearly the early returns haven't been good.  They opened their season with a sweep by the Nationals.

Citi Field

Park Factor (Runs): 0.96

Home Runs PF (LHB/RHB): 1.01/1.05

A few years ago, the Mets opted to move the fences in at Citi Field in hopes that it would play a bit more "fair."  This was particularly dramatic in left field, which now features a very reasonable power alley in left-center (above I've overlaid it on GABP for comparison).  Furthermore, what used to be enormous fences in right field have at least been made more even.  Interestingly, while the overall park factor has continued to skew pretty strongly toward pitchers, the home run park factor has increased over the past two years to actually favor hitters.  All other offense events are repressed, however, and so this is still a great place to pitch.  The fences are pretty fair, but it's close to the water and, this time of year, is relatively cold.

Position Players

I'm going to stick with projections this year, but will add a couple of columns showing 2014 data on the left of this table.  But at this point, with only two games' of data available, I didn't think it was worth the effort.

Some brief comments on the Cardinals series: 

Billy Hamilton seems to have struggled, but hit a couple of balls fairly hard.  It seemed like the Cardinals were cheating pretty badly on him when he was trying to bunt, so I think he's going to have to prove that he can actually hit the ball with modest authority before teams start to play their infielders in the dirt (rather than on the infield grass).  I do hope he can have a good game early on with the Mets so that we can all stop focusing on his o-fer

Joey Votto has been great these last two games, and it was terrific to see Todd Frazier break out with a big game.  Frazier currently has reached 10% of his 2014 home run total in 2% of the games. :)

This team's roster seems to be in a state of flux.  One of their excellent off-season signings, Chris Young, is on the disabled list with a quadriceps strain.  You also have some flux between Daniel Murphy, Eric Young Jr., and Andrew Brown between the second base and the left field job.  And there is the ongoing position dispute between Lucas Duda and Ike Davis.  

You can squint and see a solid offensive team, here.  David Wright is still a Stud, and Curtis Granderson, while perhaps more of a complementary player now, still has the potential to be a threat.  Both Duda and Davis have some offensive talent.  There are also a lot of weak performers in their lineup right now, at least on the offensive side of things.  Most nights, they're going to have to rely on the heart of their order for any offense they will get.

On defense, they have a brilliant centerfielder in Juan Lagares, but that's offset largely by Murphy posing as a second baseman.  Lagares probably fields well enough to earn his keep as a league-average player, but it's hard to hide him when so many of the others in the lineup can't hit either.

Rotations

Bartolo Colon is fascinating.  Despite not having any velocity, the guy relies almost entirely on fastballs (four-seam, sinker, and cutter) and yet has somehow resurrected his career as a solid mid-rotation starter.  He turns 41 next month.  How does he do it?  Basically, he doesn't walk guys.  He doesn't strike anyone out either, and gets average groundball rates.  But it's enough.  He must paint the corners constantly.  The fact that he can get by with a repertoire like that gives me some hope that Tony Cingrani can keep doing what he's doing with his fastball.

Zack Wheeler is the other interesting name here to me.  He's a solid prospect (if he still counts as a prospect?) who logged 100 innings in 17 starts last season for the Mets.  He walks too many guys right now.  But the projections think he'll elevate his strikeout rate enough to be respectable.  He throws hard.  I'm wondering if the lack of a change-up or split against opposite-handed batters could be an issue vs. the Reds' lefthanders.

Dillon Gee had a very nice season for the Mets last year, but his peripherals didn't quite match his ERA...and hence the projections' skepticism.  I don't know much about Jenrry Mejia, but a glance at his FG page indicates that he's never thrown many innings before, often splitting time between starting and relieving in the minors.

The weakness of the Reds' injury-beleaguered pen showed its head in the game on Thursday.  Nick Christiani managed to get the job done, but Trevor Bell couldn't pull off the same trick.  Those guys wouldn't be pitching, and perhaps might not even be on the roster, if this bullpen is healthy.  I don't have a lot of faith in either of them, and can only hope that Marshall, Chapman, and even Broxton can get back soon.

The Mets' pen doesn't look particularly impressive.  It's kind of the place where old pitchers go.  I'd honestly forgotten that Jose Valverde ended up here, and Kyle Farnsworth (remember that year he had with the Rays not long ago?) and John Lannan seem to be hanging on here.  While the Reds' top 3 surviving pitchers are probably better than anyone the Mets have, the Mets probably have them beat in depth.  The good news is that no game vs. the Mets is ever really out of reach, because this pen is vulnerable.

The Mets look like a bad team.  Like any team in baseball, though, they can win any given series because it's baseball.  Still, I'm hoping for a nice rebound for the Reds against this weaker opponent, which will hopefully give them some momentum as they head back to face the Cardinals once again in their home opener.

Prospecting Reds Pitchers with Oliver

Continuing along with what we began with hitters last week, today we turn our attention to Reds pitching prospects through the lens of Oliver!

Age-23 Pitchers

Chad Rogers is the oldest pitcher on the top-40 list at 23 years, and also only one of two who reached AAA last season.  Rogers split the year between Pensacola and Louisville.  After his promotion, his strikeout rate tailed off a bit, though his walk rate actually improved.  Might be a control-first, modest stuff kind of guy, which would fit the projection.  I haven't heard much about him, but given how quickly he was cut in spring training, I don't think he ranks very highly on the Reds' depth chart right now.  If he can perform at something like his prior level, however, he might end up throwing in the big leagues later this season.

Age-22 Pitchers

Daniel Corcino has been advancing at one level per year the last several years.  He was brilliant in 2011, and still posted good overall numbers in 2012, but then seemed to fall apart last season.  I remember hearing reports that his mechanics were all out of whack, to the degree that one can imagine that the only thing that might help could be time away.  There were warning signs in 2012, however: promoted to AA, he saw a huge drop in his k/9 rate (10.1 k/9 to 7.9) and a scary increase in his walk rate (2.2 bb/9 to 4.1 bb/9).  2013 was really just more incremental declines in performance at AAA, with his strikeout rate dropping by almost 2 per nine, and his walk rate increasing all the way to 5 bb/9.  All one can hope is that he figures it out, because the stuff is supposed to be excellent.

Carlos Contreras projects with a line that is quite similar, but he was working at Bakersfield and Pensacola rather than Louisville last season.  A recent convert to the rotation, his strikeout rate took a huge hit when he was promoted mid-season to AA.

Age-21 Pitchers

Lots of solid-looking prospects in this age group, spanning rookie ball through AA last year.

While I've not been blown away by David Holmberg's minor league numbers, and while he might not really be ready for the big leagues just yet, he does project as having the best MLB ERA of any Reds prospect right now.  The reports are that he's a high-floor, low-ceiling kind of guy, and that's something the Reds could most definitely use.

Ben Lively ranks right with him on the prospect charts, but as a 2013 college draftee, he has only pitched 4 innings above rookie ball.  Still, his performance last season was amazing.  If he continues to dominate this year, I'd think that he could be promoted aggressively.

Michael Lorenzen, another 2013 draftee, is interesting because he split time between pitching and the outfield last season.  He converted to starting in the Arizona Fall League last year (with rather terrible results) after impressing as a reliever during the regular season across four(!) different Reds affiliates.  Now no longer working as a position player, we'll see if he can figure out starting this season.  If not, he seems like the kind of guy who could e promoted quickly.

The last I'll mention in this group is Jon Moscot.  He posted really nice strikeout and walk numbers last year in Bakersfield, and didn't show much drop-off in a short stint at Pensacola.  He seems to have been hurt by the long ball thus far, though I do wonder how much of that could be related to throwing in Bakersfield (as I remember, it's a homer-friendly park?).  In any case, this is a big year for him.  With a strong showing in AA this year (where I'm guessing he'll begin the year), he could be in line for a mid-season promotion to Louisville.  Tony Blengino likes him.

Age-20 Pitchers

The only age-20 pitcher in the Reds' top 40 is deserving of his own category.  Ever since being drafted in 2011, Robert Stephenson has done nothing but impress.  He made it all the way to AA last season, posting good strikeout numbers and (usually) good control across three stops as he toured through the minors.  He did get a bit wild in AA, but I'm not going to fret over 16 innings.  Oliver seems concerned about his home run rate, but that figure is way higher than the other systems: Steamer has him at 1.09 hr/9, and ZIPS has him at 1.43 hr/9.  It wouldn't be surprising if he is a fly ball pitcher given his power, and if he can keep his strikeout numbers up I am not worried about the home runs.  He might not be ready for the big leagues just yet, but with a good year, he can certainly be debuting with the Reds this fall, and competing for a rotation gig next spring.  He's easily the guy that I'm most excited about in the Reds' farm right now.

Age-19 Pitchers

As good as Stephenson has been, Nick Travieso (drafted in 2012) has been a pretty big disappointment thus far.  It took a long time for him to make it out of instructional leagues, and thus far he's shown good control but little else.  Marc Hulet still likes him, but reports lost velocity vs. high school and extreme fly ball tendencies.  I'd like to see his strikeout numbers shoot up a fair bit before I get excited about him.

Age-18 Pitchers

Included for completeness.  Tyler Mahle was a 7th round pick last summer, and posted a good season while splitting time between starting and relief.


So, what Reds pitchers in the minors are you most excited about?  Who am I misjudging here, or who have I overlooked?