No doubt the players selected in the first ten rounds are the best players available with few exceptions. However, at some point later in the draft one has to wonder if the players most likely to succeed are being selected or just the players most likely to be signable.
For example, one of the players drafted (admittedly probably a DNF) out of our HS conference threw 14 1/3 innings vs. the top 3 finishers in the league. He gave up 24H and 16ER and was 0-4 vs the top teams in the league. He also threw twice against other top teams outside the league and was hit hard against both of them. He's obviously got some zip on the ball posting 55Ks in about 46 innings overall.
On the other hand our HS had a pitcher who threw high 80s, hit 90+ and was very effective against the top teams who went undrafted. Not only that but this was a fresh arm just learning how to pitch whose velocity might continue to increase. Probably not overly signable though. I believe his K per inning ratio was as good or better than the pitcher who was drafted.
Three players were drafted out of the conference and one player is considered a top prospect for next years draft. Their teams came in 4th, 5th & 7th. How much impact did they have? Aren't they supposed to have far more talent than the opposition and therefore make a difference in how well their teams do?
How could the players from the top 3 teams who had not a single player drafted jump all over a pitcher who was drafted?
You can say all you want about talent and projectability but I've got to wonder when the evidence is this overwhelming.
Does this mean that I don't think this pitcher should have been drafted? No. I'm sure he has plenty of talent. Does this mean that someone overlooked some good players because they were facing some of the best pitching in the nation on a regular basis? You bet.