plus he’s a switch hitter and Mitchell has bad baserunning instincts.

And it really isn’t that close. Mitchell is a bit too raw at this point for a college player to make me think he has the ceiling of Hicks.

has as much talent as any player in the minors

Only because he has “speed for days.” What an awesome expression.

I must say that I don’t think the gap is as much as people seem to be saying. From scouting reports, they are roughly equal in terms of speed and power potential, with the primary difference being that Hicks is already polished in terms of plate control, while Mitchell has more work ahead of him. Much depends on how Mitchell does in professional ball, and how Hicks improves as he faces stronger competition, but I think both of them could be well-above average players, though I agree with the consensus that Hicks’ upside is a little higher and he is further along at a younger age

This is really, really close. I think people are dramatically overestimating the difference (if there is one) in strike zone judgment . . .Mitchell has had 3 years of seeing much more complete pitchers than Hicks has seen. If Hicks were playing at a higher level of the minors I might be inclined to say that he has a clear advantage, but rookie ball and XST pitchers are guys who are pretty raw themselves. Their individual upsides might outweigh the average SEC arm, but they do not have comparable polish on their repertoires and command. Mitchell’s plate discipline is quite impressive already IMO, it’s obvious from watching him.

Naturally, Hicks is much more advanced relative to age . . .this shouldn’t surprise anybody as Mitchell has always dedicated plenty of time to football as well. But that doesn’t mean that Mitchell lacks a comparable ceiling.

I’ve heard his name more. He’s supposed to be good and stuff. Other things that contain no valid reasoning.