Nice point. The grading/ratings as opposed to rankings for players is certainly worthy of looking at and with the difficulty of comparison in such a wide field of HS basketball players ranking the non-superstars is very subjective - what really distinguishes a 10 ranking from a 25 ranking? They are both flawed players and you are guessing at how a 17 year old will develop over her next 5 years for the seniors and for longer for juniors/sophomores - putting those players in any order is really a guessing game.
Gradings on the other hand are more in tune with grading a gymnastic performance where you are marking down from perfect and may hand out lots of 9 grades but very few 10s. With basketball gradings 100 is theoretical, 99 is used only in a few years, 98 in good years might be given to a couple of players and occasionally none, and 97 is for some of your top10. 96 becomes the grade for those you wish had just a little more of something.
NB Having written that, I just checked the ESPN ratings for 2020 for the first time in a long while and they have had an incredible inflation in their rating system - they have 53 players with a 5 * rating, all graded at 96 points or higher, the first 22 receive a grade of 98, and the next 20 are 97 leaving only a rare 11 graded at 96 - the opposite of a bell curve and completely meaningless in my view. They did the same for 2019 with 98 assigned to 23, 97 to 20, and 9 graded at 96. With that inflation the only distinguishing grade you can make is a 99 for an exceptional player and the only meaningful value at the top end of the class really is their ranking.