Came to say this - Hosoi should compare the top 0.01% of fantasy players against each other and report back
Poker is probably a better example since it's far more likely for bad players to play in a game against a great player than it is a bad basketball player to play against Lebron James. In poker, the more skilled players there are at the table, the harder it is to tell who the bad players are. Even the highest cash games in the world rely on extremely wealthy gamblers who aren't skilled in order to remain lucrative to the professionals.
Why?
If you really did that, then every single game would be considered a game of chance, even chess.
I don't necessarily agree with the article's conclusions, but only comparing the top players isn't a legitimate thing to do -- if you take any distribution and zoom in at the extremes, it will look just like noise.
EDIT: Need to read better, that's an order of magnitude off so it is a bit ridiculous.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey#Number_of_registere...
The criticism is, 'I don't like the article's metric because it doesn't zoom in on the tail of the distribution'.
But if you do that with any game, the answer you will get is uniformly 0.5, even when comparing chess to tic tac toe.
Of course there's more skill advantage in a random sampling than a sample biased by skill.