So much of the mechanics of this interests me. Just so many different ways I could see lists being formulated. Too many players to have actual scouting takes on everybody. If you've seen everyone, then you probably haven't seen any of them enough and are relying on too few games to be confident. But then if you're not doing your own scouting, you've gotta be heavily relying on other scouts and information from teams. Or even letting tail-wag-dog in the sense of valuing draft position or international bonuses to get a baseline. And then you can look at stat lines, which are at least real, firm data but are very hard to contextualize for prospects.
And then you gotta consider simple philosophical differences. Are we looking at a snapshot in time, who's the best today, or a projection, who'll be best in 1 year or 3 years or over the next 10. How do you weigh higher upside if it comes with higher risk? So many legitimate differences of opinion and approach that are all valid and all a way that you could do it depending on what you're trying to answer.
And then you get into my biggest pet peeve of the linear list implying a guy is distinguishable from the previous guy up and the next guy down, when it should be a pyramidal depiction with both height and width.
Like so many things I imagine that real wisdom is found in those that embrace how much of this they cannot know rather than those that try to pretend that they can accurately see the signal through all the noise.