Appreciate the compliment sin, but a few objections:
1) points per cash isn't necessarily the best indicator of skill. It's certainly more reliable than some (such as number of cashes, or perhaps raw winnings), but the only thing it tells you with any certainty is how well someone tends to play mid to late game. Keep in mind that this hinges upon SBR's odd payout structure, which tends to reward poor finishers with generously high payouts on low end of cash. This odd structure is the main reason some of the fold-to-a-cash players can perform in the near vicinity of much better players.
2) points per tourney played would be a more reliable indicator of performance, but still far from perfect. With $0 and 0 points riding on it, not many take attendance or performance overly seriously, as they have no particular reason to. It may be safe to assume that most people on your list have a similar number, but there are some small differences between players (such as bobbo who has missed 1 all year and no1home who played an extra one despite being asked not to, compared with the rest of us who have missed more than 1, or bite who missed months).
3) "best" means different things when talking about ring, tourney or combined. Plenty of good ring players who aren't here (and good tourney players for that matter), and while many on the list aren't too shabby at cash either, I'm sure you know who I mean when I say at least one of these players is so bad at ring games he refuses to play
In the end, not much to be drawn from the data, even relatively as there's not much in the way of incentives to play every one, or to give much of a damn how they turn out. About all you can conclude is that these players have some combination of skill and time to play most tourneys on their hands (with some lacking so much in the former, they need to shoot angles to even cling to the backside of the list).