First of all, your advice on only using the standard four services makes total sense. I'm sure you are right about Dan Olsen's CGBR. I just stumble across those once in a while. I never understood why they would be different than Hoopgurlz. Now I know—they must be old ratings. Sports Madness is also a "catch as catch can". I thought more information is better information, but, as you say, that is not true.
Also, thanks for providing the numbers for the sample data. The GEOMETRIC MEAN is intriguing and often (Edwards, Abdur-Rahim, Hutcherson) gave what I would consider the best "average". Theoretically, however, these should be related numbers, not requiring the GEOMETRIC MEAN. Of course, theoretically, there shouldn't be such outliers. Dillon does give good reasons for them, however. Also, there is a GEOMETRIC MEAN in Numbers (which I use, also in Excel, of course).
(Note: I learned some new stuff, namely the GEOMETRIC MEAN ("A child is half-way between a cell and the Earth")
So, I will drop the other ratings, which will help, especially with Shelby Calhoun. I still must decide whether I think outliers are the result of negligence and/or corruption and drop some data or whether, as I typically think, people and organizations are competent and forthright. Perhaps I will use the MEAN (or MEDIAN) until I come to a outlier > 20 from the MEAN and then use the GEOMETRIC MEAN. That keeps my faith in mankind.
I'll probably do a little more testing. Thanks again.