You're right, Keith Law and Sickels may not count the bad AFL stats into their rankings. I said, "i have seen him as low as 30th on some boards list". The lists that had him that low were obscure lists found at this link, http://fantasyrundown.com/2013_MLB_Prospects.html
Not all lists are made by the top writers for fangraphs, SI, and espn. Some are very obscure and their list makers are people who may apply a greater importance upon, say, an AFL season.
Once again, i dont care about trout, i misread his numbers on the AFL site because they put BA last in the slash line. His only stat better in the AFL was BA, there you are correct and i was wrong for saying he was better than Hamiton.
And, again i was speculating on a hypothesis, the "cold hard facts" are there are about 100 different prospect lists out there and neither you, nor I, nor anyone else on this board knows the formulas and variables they use to derive their rankings.
The facts are that there are a million different opinions of Hamilton and nobody knows how all of them are all formulated.
"NEWS FLASH: You may want to check your math there. Hamilton is similar to Fowler in terms of prospect-dom. He's close to Posey. IN John Sickels' mid-season review, for example, Hamilton's ranked as the 15th best prospect in the game. Fowler (16th) and Posey (14th) were ranked right around there after their poor AFL seasons."
Thats only Sickels! I am talking about his volatility. He is all over the place in rankings. Quit looking at only Law and Sickels. There are tons of other lists. That is what i am speaking of.
My entire intent was to give reasons why he is volatile.
Finally, i compared him to Juan Pierre because, though he may be able to throw hard off of a mound, he has shown he can't do it regularly in the field. Could this change in the outfield? Yes. I am not going to just say it will though without seeing him play there.