Heh. I think the ultimate point here is that trying to make comparisons using different players is a fool's game. Some are simply better players than others; some need less development than others; etc. If you make comparisons looking at the same players' AA stats versus their AAA stats, I think you're making a better comparison, but even that is muddied by the fact that, once ready for AAA, players are usually better than they were at AA. The statistical argument to be made here is probably at the PhD level. I'm the first to admit that I'm not at that level. By impressions, I think AAA is a higher level of ball. Most players, with a few stars (and some need-based callups) excepted, need AAA, and they're commensurately better there than at AA. Some players top out at AAA/Quad-A to be sure, but that seems more like a comparison to the majors.