Every single player is near 55% - stupid AF

Yes, "top" is a much better word; good call! But that's the point. It's positioned as "best," but as you indicate, it's really not because infamy doesn't show a players' skill level.

And I did not know that. That seems crazy stupid to me. But what do I know? I'm clearly a noob lol.

 

Of course they are different than the rest of the data. Why? Because there are much fewer people better than them, hence they will win more often.

Regardless what I said didn't take in the fact that people who are higher get more rewards and thus people who play more even if they are bad get rewarded more than bad players of a lower infamy.
There are other exceptions but it would all be theory, I'm going for the majority of the player base.

 

Well in this game, it does because even if you lose you get some reward. Meaning your basketball anology doesn't fit well.
For your hunter anology, you playing battle bay even if you literally hit no one or heal no one still gives you some bread crumbs to save up. So again this anology doesn't work. Effort matters in this game, I never said it works in every aspect of life. Obviously if I trained to run fast on one leg I would probably never be the fastest man alive no matter how much I trained.

Also I need to clarify what I said matters in rank system games, your hunter analogy is closer to randomized skill level where obviously bad people who stay bad will for the most part lose.