Just get me a glass of hot fat. And bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia while you're out there.

Good piece on the toughest tool to evaluate. It seems like those who "fail" to develop due to makeup fit into three categories:

1. Bad makeup - this is the classic idea of makeup; think Elijah Dukes. Million dollar body, but a ten cent head.

2. Lack of desire - think of the 6' 2" eighth grader who is put on the basketball team, but all he wants to do is play the flute. He has all of the physical skills, but just doesn't want to participate. He may have physical skill so superior that he can be successful at lower levels. But, if he doesn't apply some training to that physical skill he won't meet his perceived ceiling.

3. Adaptation due to failure - I always think of a team on a winning streak heading into the playoffs (such as the Spurs in the NBA this year). Would they be better served to have lost a game along the way (knowing that they cannot win forever) so they can make adjustments or does continued success offer more lessons.

I think failure is extremely important to development. You almost want a hitter to go into a prolonged slump to see what he does to adjust (complain, seek out coaches, quit, etc.). You want a pitcher to get bombed a couple of times to see what he can do.

This raises a couple of questions:

1. How do you (can you) screen or scout for makeup?
2. Can (as Jason raises in the piece) a player improve or develop his makeup?

Fascinating column which leaves a great deal of room for further investigation. Thanks Jason for writing about Smoak.

This is an incredibly awesome series. Great work, as usual.

How much do hitters practice facing non-fastball pitches? It seems like it would be a tough thing to do because I doubt a team would want to send out their top arms throwing 100% in practice just so their hitters can practice tracking/hitting non-fastballs? I'm sure pitching machines can mirror the action of a pitch but it's not the same as picking up the ball out of a pitcher's hand.

If it is truly a deficiency of recognizing breaking balls, tracking them and adjusting the swing, I find it hard to believe that this wasn't apparent in the minors. He must have seen some quality breaking balls in AA and AAA, and presumably there were scouts there to judge his skill in that regard. And if it is just the difference between average and plus breaking pitches that troubles him, does he handle average breaking pitches at the MLB level?

I'd say the change-up, specifically the change down, out of the zone, gives him the most problems, but that does tie into pitch recognition.

Interesting that some question his want. He and Ackley - who isn't living up to expectations in his own right - are both viewed as "humble, quiet country boys" but that could also be translated to "lacking want or fire".

Jason, great work - I've been waiting to see someone write about the different characteristics required for success. Last week when you explored the guys drafted solely on their "physical tools", I couldn't help but think about all the other components for success - mostly neurological. "Instincts" and "ability to adapt their skills to baseball" do not seem descriptive enough. There are many physical specimens in the NBA who cannot shoot the ball with proficiency outside of ten feet. There are far more neurological actions going on that I ever hear being discussed. Quickness in recognition, firing your actions, and the muscle memory actions required to create an accurate swing. Some people have it and some don't. I was glad to see you unwind this category from the issues that are about determination, fortitude, adaptablility and #want. There is more going on than "feel for the game". I tend to believe, without evidence mind you, that you can improve in this area, but someone born without it will have a hard time ever developing this skill to the level required to be successful at the highest level. I would love to see you explore this more in the future.

I love this series. Looking back at what was said when these guys were still potential monsters and owning it is a great way to learn. How a guy with all the physical tools fails is fascinating. Identifying players early who have a trait for adjusting to failure would be a monumental achievement in scouting I would think. Seems like that's the end game of analysis like this and ai think it's pretty smart. Sort of like reverse engineering players. Great work, Jason.

Thanks for the excellent analysis.

Do teams/scouts keep track of how well prospects are hitting secondary pitches in the minors AND majors? Perhaps, that is what the Rangers picked up on that the Mariners didn't know.

Excellent Jason! Thanks for the great work, and keep it up!

I'm thinking of Travis Lee...

Is there any thought that his current environment is affecting his mental approach? I guess I'm wondering about this on three fronts:

1. His home park is very difficult to hit in, and does knowing this create an additional mental obstacle (the classic self-fulfilling prophesy)?

2) The whole Mariners offense seems to be in a collective daze, and it makes me wonder if there's a cognitive aspect to seeing basically everyone else on your team being unable to hit either that leads to a complacency in one's approach.

3) Is there something about the coaching or instruction these guys are getting that is counter-productive to practically all of their hitters?

I know he struggled briefly with the Rangers but it makes me wonder what would happen if he got a fresh start somewhere else and could have the chance to clear his head.