Adrianza #50 prospect? How? And Crawford #4?

There was a recent FanPost discussing one fan's (and paid commentator) Top 50 ranking, and I didn't see it until now:  http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2010/3/2/1333860/one-more-prospect-list-sfdugout

I don't see how Ehire Adrianza can be placed 50th, behind so many other suspects.  Likewise, how is Brandon Crawford then 4th? Since that post is old, I put this here as I want to see how others feel about this, is this a big issue, small, meh?  

To me, making Adrianza 50th makes the methodology of this ranking seem very questionable.  Then making Crawford 4th in the list, is even more mind bending.  

I'll repeat what I wrote previously regarding my adopted son:  People forget that he was only 19 last year in a league where the average pitcher’s age is 21.6 YO, meaning most have 2-3 more years of experience and development on him. And he still had an above average OBP of .333 (league average of .324) with 83% contact rate (or 17% strikeout rate) and a nice 0.64 BB/K ratio. Plus that’s a pitcher’s park in a pitcher’s league (if I remember that right, dang BP took out their park factors in their 2010 book).

When Schoop made Augusta, not only was he a year older than Adrianza, he hit so poorly there that he was shoved back to Salem-Keizer.  Adrianza already knows how to handle the bat, he just needs to build up the muscle to hit for more power and get his SLG up so that his OPS is OK, which in the NL is .720's roughly.  

To recap, he has the glove already, he can get on base better than guys 2-3 years older than he is and against pitchers 2-3 years older and more experienced, in any case, no matter what age, he handles the bat well, both in terms of taking walks and avoiding strikeouts, so his main thing is that he needs to develop some power to make his OPS good enough for the majors.  That's why publications like Baseball America and Baseball Prospectus think so much of him that he is in their Top 10 Giants prospects (Top 5 for BP).   And the other two major lists that I follow  - John Sickels and Minor League Baseball Analysts - both at least have him in their Top 20.   50th?

Meanwhile Crawford is 4th?  He struck out like crazy last season, even when he hit like crazy in San Jose.  And the odd thing was that he was even worse on the road, even though Municipal Stadium is one of the worse parks in the minors in terms of strikeouts, due to a bad background that has been affecting hitters.  That is why the park is such an extreme pitcher's park in a hitter's league.  Yet he did worse on the road.

And how was Crawford rushed?  He was 22 YO last season.  Here are some of the leaders in OPS in the Eastern League in 2009:

Brandon Snyder (22 YO) - 1st
Pedro Alvarez (22 YO) - 2nd (was drafted in the same draft as Crawford)
Ike Davis (22 YO) - 5th (was drafted in the same draft as Crawford)
Jesus Montrero (19 YO) - 11th
Josh Reddick (22 YO) - 13th

They didn't seem particularly bothered by being rushed to AA.  The best prospects in AA are those who are younger and yet can still produce enough to rank in the top hitters list.  To be #4 on the Giants list would suggest that he did well in AA while younger (he was 22 and average age was 24), but he didn't, he did horribly, suggesting that he is further out than thought in making the majors.

Plus, Crawford was hitting .365/.441/.587/1.028 with 6 HR in 104 AB.  Where in those numbers say that Crawford should be held back in San Jose in order to not rush him?  I think most people would think that Crawford was due the promotion.  I know I would have.

Meanwhile, he was horrible in AA.  And it did not get much better on the road either.  Both were horrible.  His MLE was .218/.246/.302/.548 in AA.  I don't see much chance of making the majors with numbers like that, barring a Bocock-type situation, let alone lasting 5 years there.  

Adrianza, at minimum, looks more likely to do that because 1) his defense reportedly is good enough for the majors already, 2) he can get on base OK, 3) he controls the bat well, keeping this strikeouts much lower than Crawford, much lower than most hitters, 4) he is disciplined enough to draw a large percentage of walks relative to his strikeouts, and 5) he has enough speed to steal as many bases as Crawford (which was underutilized last season, but he stole a lot the season before).

Crawford, except for his San Jose stint (which was marked by huge outliers in BABIP), has been a non-performer for the past two seasons, a disappointment in his last season in college, a disappointment in AA.

And I like Crawford as a prospect too, I think he will eventually figure out his problems enough to make the team as the starting SS and hold the fort until Adrianza comes along and pushes him out eventually.  I just don't think he's #4 material nor do I see him so far ahead of Adrianza on the prospect ranking scale.  

How is Adrianza 50th while Crawford is 4th?  Am I crazy for thinking this?  On what valid ranking scale and methodology would place Crawford 4th and Adrianza 50th?  I just don't see it.