Quoted from pezpunk:

I think the Top 100 is basically a fairly accurate representation of the overall general sentiment towards those games. For what it aims to do, it does a fine job.
But my question to the OP is why on Earth do you believe a bunch of strangers' opinions are more valid than your own? Do you really think averaging together hundreds of peoples' ratings results in anything meaningful? Ask yourself why you need the validation of having some online chart reinforce your own preferences.
This is kind of an unpopular opinion, but I like the Top 100. For someone who's new to pinball and doesn't know a lot of machines, the Top 100 is a great resource for figuring out what games are generally highly regarded by lots of people. It's fun to mentally check off all those top games as you get a chance to play them, and to form your own opinion of them.
But once you've had the opportunity to play those games yourself, then the ratings and rankings serve almost no purpose. You've played it. What's the use of reading, let alone worrying about, some random stranger's opinion of the game? Do you really value mass consensus over your own insights?
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of mass consensus. Do you really think it's the absolute best people on Earth who tend to win elections in general?
It's particularly poor at determining the "best" in subjective or artistic fields. I think most people agree that it's rarely if ever the very best songs in the world that top the charts. And if a song you like doesn't reach the top of the charts -- does that affect how much you like that song?
Just look at the Top 100 list for what it is: one way to slice a bunch of ratings data. It's neither total bunk nor any kind of definitive anything.