This is a pointless poll. It's asking people to guess, which one of these unlikely things is least unlikely?
The Sox have had a tremendous track record with prospects because of the emphasis they place on makeup.
Each one of these guys, individually, probably has a 60% or greater chance of not busting. That doesn't mean there will be no busts; if 10 guys have an average 65% success rate, three or four will bust. But nobody has any idea which three or four. Asking people for their opinion is really just a game of chance.
Having said that, in order to answer the question that was apparently the actual one this was supposed to raise, the one guy who stands out to me as having a somewhat higher chance of busting relative to his current stature is Guerra. There have been lots of super-slick-fielding low-minors SS whose gloves, by the time they got to MLB, were just plus rather than the projected plus-plus. His past struggles with plate discipline peg him, like WMB, as a guy who might disappoint as an MLB hitter.
This is absolutely false. Even if you believe the emphasis on makeup helps, there's no way it makes a low minors pitcher like Kopech or Espinoza likely to succeed
Plus, I don't think Hanley, Cody, place, and Deny had the best makeup.
Post by 777southpaw777 on Sept 2, 2015 8:27:08 GMT -5
Not a fan of this at all...something like this belongs on BDC. These are young kids who are working their asses off so we can predict who is gojng to fail? Makes zero sense to me. I like the idea of which ones might be dealt or something along those lines, but not this. dislike.
I'm trying to look at the thread objectively but I still don't get it. Putting players feelings aside, all prospects have risk to their projections and it's usually noted in their scouting reports (some reports rate this 1-5). In a general sense, pitchers (especially those without control), tools-y players, players in lower levels of the minors, younger players, etc, are the ones who typically hold more risk, but they are usually the ones with more upside too. Asking which players will bust sounds like a guessing game, because if we really had some distinct way of telling this we wouldn't be doing it for free. I'll add myself to the not voting list.
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 2, 2015 8:46:04 GMT -5
I thought about this further. This is really not how we do things here and borderline violates Ground Rule #4. I know you meant well, redsoxfan2, so no hard feelings or anything, but we're going to close this.
"We really don't need the whole commercial break/warm-up routine every time a new reliever comes into the game. It certainly made sense in 1884 when they only switched pitchers when the starter was attacked by pickaxe or caught consumption, and no reliever was warming up because he was busy gambling and drinking." - JD