Well he does give you the very broad strokes about methodology:
"based on age, level, position, and production with some regression baked in to handle small samples"
It's still just a patently dumb exercise, where the only real interest any reader with half a clue would have in the list would be to just figure out the flaws in the methodology. It's is plain from the rankings that there are flaws. We know that the list is flawed because nobody should take Verdugo over Soto (and there are other relationships where there is just no obvious or apparent argument for the relative rankings).