Who are the #3 and #4 Prospects?

[HowAboutThat]

7 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Did he? 50% hard hit rate and barrel% over major league average.

I know Akin had a bad outing, maybe his last? Or maybe it was one of his relief appearances, but didn’t that skew the total? And outside that outing, he was good?

[Tony-OH]

Just now, Philip said:

I know Akin had a bad outing, maybe his last? Or maybe it was one of his relief appearances, but didn’t that skew the total? And outside that outing, he was good?

It's a SSS regardless, but it's what I saw in the minors. A few good outings then followed up by a couple of disaster outings. Sometimes it was just a real bad inning where he just kinda loses command and leaves too much in the middle of the plate. 

[Sports Guy]

17 minutes ago, Philip said:

I know Akin had a bad outing, maybe his last? Or maybe it was one of his relief appearances, but didn’t that skew the total? And outside that outing, he was good?

There is more to it than just runs allowed. 

You have to look at the totality of everything.  For me, I was impressed by Akin in many ways but I also saw a flawed guy who made me question if he can 5-6 innings consistently.

The other side to this is that I think Tony (as well as most of us) need to remember how the game is changing and evolving. I know I’m guilty of forgetting this at times because I’m used to something different.

What I mean by this is that starters just aren’t being asked to go deep into games anymore.  Tony has been doing this a long time.  He is used to scouting and saying, can this guy get through a lineup 3-4 times?  It just doesn’t seem to matter anymore.  So, while I think it’s fair to choose one guy over another because you think he can go deeper, I’m not sure that the evaluation of “he can’t go deep into games” really matters anymore, outside of the elite TOR guys of course.

That’s the type of thing that makes these list curious to me.  How much are you changing your lists based off of how the game is being played.

If I were to make this a basketball analogy..let’s take a guy like Jhalil Okafor.  He was a dominant big man at Duke and led them to a title in the one year he was there.  If he played in the 90s, he’s a 5+ time AS player.  In this current era? He can’t get off the bench.  It’s just a totally different evaluation in many ways.

Now sure, in many ways things won’t change.  There are still things you look for that you always have but the evolution of the game makes certain things more irrelevant than ever before.

[Tony-OH]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

There is more to it than just runs allowed. 

You have to look at the totality of everything.  For me, I was impressed by Akin in many ways but I also saw a flawed guy who made me question if he can 5-6 innings consistently.

The other side to this is that I think Tony (as well as most of us) need to remember how the game is changing and evolving. I know I’m guilty of forgetting this at times because I’m used to something different.

What I mean by this is that starters just aren’t being asked to go deep into games anymore.  Tony has been doing this a long time.  He is used to scouting and saying, can this guy get through a lineup 3-4 times?  It just doesn’t seem to matter anymore.  So, while I think it’s fair to choose one guy over another because you think he can go deeper, I’m not sure that the evaluation of “he can’t go deep into games” really matters anymore, outside of the elite TOR guys of course.

That’s the type of thing that makes these list curious to me.  How much are you changing your lists based off of how the game is being played.

If I were to make this a basketball analogy..let’s take a guy like Jhalil Okafor.  He was a dominant big man at Duke and led them to a title in the one year he was there.  If he played in the 90s, he’s a 5+ time AS player.  In this current era? He can’t get off the bench.  It’s just a totally different evaluation in many ways.

Now sure, in many ways things won’t change.  There are still things you look for that you always have but the evolution of the game makes certain things more irrelevant than ever before.

It's certainly fair to ask those questions now because the game has changed. It's kind of like strikeout to walk was a huge red flag or even strikeout rates themselves were in the past for hitters. I'm not saying they still aren't things you look at, but you have to look deeper now and watch what hitters can and can't hit. 

It's not that I'm worried about Akin being able to get into the 6th inning more times than not, I'm more worried about his inconsistency from outing to outing and the fact he seems to make mistakes in the middle of the plate too much and when he does, hitters don't miss him much. 

[wildcard]

I went Hall and Kjerstad.    Last year Tony rated on Future Grade followed by Ceiling.  Hall was  60/70.   I don't think anything that happened at Bowie should change that.   Kjerstand's  future grade and ceiling would seem to have more power than Mountcastle with better defense and a much better arm.   The hitting average is debatable between the two. JMO

[HowAboutThat]

48 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

It's a SSS regardless, but it's what I saw in the minors. A few good outings then followed up by a couple of disaster outings. Sometimes it was just a real bad inning where he just kinda loses command and leaves too much in the middle of the plate. 

Inconsistency is what I hate about Tanner Scott, and it may be the most difficult thing to fix, because there isn’t a specific reason why a guy will be good for 4 and then awful for 2. But if Akin can’t fix it, he’ll never reach his potential. I preferred Kremer because he seemed more consistent, but this bit about Akin is sobering.

Might move him behind a few guys.

[HowAboutThat]

7 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I went Hall and Kjerstad.    Last year Tony rated on Future Grade followed by Ceiling.  Hall was  60/70.   I don't think anything that happened at Bowie should change that.   Kjerstand's  future grade and ceiling would seem to have more power than Mountcastle with better defense and a much better arm.   The hitting average is debatable between the two. JMO

Mountcastle will always be limited by his defense. Eventually the team will be good enough that he will be a DH only player. We’re not there yet, but we will be. If Kjersted hits almost as well and has merely average defense, he’s the choice every time.

[Frobby]

I decided to be radical and say Kjerstad and Mountcastle.   I read Tony’s remark in the Rodriguez thread about how Hall hasn’t even shown control, much less command, and to me that’s a recipe to drop him down to 5.    Then it boils down to whether you like Mountcastle’s proven track record at the plate and nice debut this year vs. Kjerstad’s higher upside, partly due to better defensive value but also maybe more power.    It’s tough to go against the guy already in the majors vs. a guy who hasn’t played a pro game and had a truncated college season, but that’s what I’m doing.    Elias liked him enough to use the no. 2 pick on him and that’s enough for me to pick him over Mountcastle.

[Aristotelian]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

There is more to it than just runs allowed. 

You have to look at the totality of everything.  For me, I was impressed by Akin in many ways but I also saw a flawed guy who made me question if he can 5-6 innings consistently.

The other side to this is that I think Tony (as well as most of us) need to remember how the game is changing and evolving. I know I’m guilty of forgetting this at times because I’m used to something different.

What I mean by this is that starters just aren’t being asked to go deep into games anymore.  Tony has been doing this a long time.  He is used to scouting and saying, can this guy get through a lineup 3-4 times?  It just doesn’t seem to matter anymore.  So, while I think it’s fair to choose one guy over another because you think he can go deeper, I’m not sure that the evaluation of “he can’t go deep into games” really matters anymore, outside of the elite TOR guys of course.

That’s the type of thing that makes these list curious to me.  How much are you changing your lists based off of how the game is being played.

If I were to make this a basketball analogy..let’s take a guy like Jhalil Okafor.  He was a dominant big man at Duke and led them to a title in the one year he was there.  If he played in the 90s, he’s a 5+ time AS player.  In this current era? He can’t get off the bench.  It’s just a totally different evaluation in many ways.

Now sure, in many ways things won’t change.  There are still things you look for that you always have but the evolution of the game makes certain things more irrelevant than ever before.

I frankly just wasn't impressed by Akin's stuff. He had some good results but nothing jumped out at me to indicate much more than replacement level backend starter/swingman type. Not that there's anything wrong with that. 

[Can_of_corn]

I would have gone Kjerstad and Hall if it had been an option.

[jerios55]

Hall and Mountcastle for me.  Without video this year I don't see Kjerstad beating these 2, but expect in the 5/6 bucket.

[weams]

18 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I would have gone Kjerstad and Hall if it had been an option.

I'd have gone Mountcastle, Mountcastle had it been an option.

[HowAboutThat]

2 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

I frankly just wasn't impressed by Akin's stuff. He had some good results but nothing jumped out at me to indicate much more than replacement level backend starter/swingman type. Not that there's anything wrong with that. 

Do you have a comparison for him? I thought he was better than you are suggesting, but I didn’t see him as much. I think he’s a Mensch, But I guess we’ll see. I’m certainly happy to see him in next year’s rotation over Lopez.

[Aristotelian]

33 minutes ago, Philip said:

Do you have a comparison for him? I thought he was better than you are suggesting, but I didn’t see him as much. I think he’s a Mensch, But I guess we’ll see. I’m certainly happy to see him in next year’s rotation over Lopez.

I don't. He gets some swing and miss but his change is not on the level of Means. Command isn't great. Standard FB, CB, SL, CH repertoire with FB sitting 91-92. I guess theoretically his ceiling could be Cole Hamels but more likely JA Happ?

[HowAboutThat]

34 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I don't. He gets some swing and miss but his change is not on the level of Means. Command isn't great. Standard FB, CB, SL, CH repertoire with FB sitting 91-92. I guess theoretically his ceiling could be Cole Hamels but more likely JA Happ?

Happ is a fine choice. If Akin is like Happ, being LF is a big asset, and that’s a serviceable rotation guy for years.