Sorry, but I think Mayo almost always has the worst prospect lists. I know there's room for disagreement, but his seem like he just takes last year's list, puts a few top draft picks in the top 50, rearranges a few names, and maybe adds a few hot prospects on the list. Others do much better work.

I am not 100% positive but am pretty sure that Mayo's lists are a consensus of reports from people inside baseball (scouts, GMs, coaches, etc.). It isn't just his random placement of prospects, this is how he believes the prospects stack up given the information he was given from others.

Isn't that what all do?

From today's BA chat:

J.J. Cooper: The majority of the info you see in the book comes from scouts, managers and other personnel in the game. If we see a player that may help round out an opinion on a player, but we're not scouts ourselves, and even if we were, one look at a player for one game is not nearly as useful in an evaluation as talking to multiple people who have seen him multiple times through the year, and throughout a player's career. Speaking personally, I tried to talk to at least 7-8 different sources inside and outside an organization when compiling that team's Top 30. Add in different conversations during the season that weren't made specifically for the Top 30 but did touch on those players and add in notes from other BA writers' in-season conversations and we're conservatively talking about 20 or more sources for a Top 30.

I wouldn't say this is a crazy list; there's no one that I see who isn't legitimately a top-100 candidate and no glaring omissions. Yeah, you can argue about placements here and there, but realistically once you get below about the first dozen or so the differences become minute.

-- MWE

The link takes you to the top 50 draft list.