that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are If 20 are worse, why even assume 20 are better? That makes absolutely no sense. If a certain subset of players is performing worse, it is a mathematical certainty that someone is performing better. And yes, collectively, the 180 players would be performing better. if you mean better than the 20 worst players, then I agree