How we rank

Ranked lists are opinion built on evidence. This page explains the evidence part, so you can judge the opinion.

Every ranked list states its criteria first

Before the list begins, the article says what it is measuring and over what period. A list ranked by peak performance produces a different order than one ranked by career totals, and neither is wrong — but a list that does not say which one it used is not worth reading.

What we weight

• Measurable output first. Totals, averages, titles, capacities, prices — whatever the list is actually about, in numbers, from a source we name.
• Era and context. Raw totals favour whoever played most recently or most often. Where that distorts a list, we say so and adjust for it explicitly.
• Peak versus longevity. Both count. We say which one a given list leans on.

What we exclude

• Popularity, follower counts and appearance — unless the list is explicitly about those.
• Anything we cannot source. If a widely repeated "fact" traces back only to other blogs, it does not go in.
• Paid placement. Nobody can buy a position on any list on this site.

We update lists rather than republish them

When a ranking changes we edit the existing page and change its update date. We do not create a new "2027 edition" at a new URL — that splits the same answer across two pages and serves nobody.