There is probably an editor over at the Chronicle who thinks that making the Top 100 a ranked list is controversial and fun, sparking conversation and argument. But it's actually just deeply misguided and insulting to chefs. Period.

The Chronicle's loved and hated Top 100 has just received its first annual update since it was revived last year by new critic MacKenzie Chung Fegan and Associate Critic Cesar Hernandez. And while they've corrected a couple of the obvious snubs from last year, the list continues to have two fundamental flaws: it's ranked rather than just alphabetized as it was under critics Michael Bauer and Soleil Ho, and it forces completely unjustifiable apples-to-oranges comparisons between Michelin-starred restaurants and sandwich shops.

It's not clear that Fegan was entirely on board with this methodology, but she tries to sell it in a recent video — shot while she was still pregnant and possibly not yet on her maternity leave. "We don't all eat in fine dining restaurants all the time," Fegan says, to justify the diversity of price points.

And in a similar video last year, she asked, "How do you rank a three-Michelin-star spot against a pizza place? A pizza place against a family-run Burmese restaurant?"

The answer is you don't. But Hernandez responded in that video, saying, "I think that there is both artistic merit in a torta from a panaderia and an amuse bouche or a canape from a fine dining restaurant."

The baseline requirements to qualify for the list last year, they said, was the place had to be open at least two days per week (!), and have some kind of seating, even if it was a food truck.

And here's Hernandez this year, discussing how the rankings are considered: "We appraised every restaurant on its own terms, which allowed us the freedom to compare a fine dining joint with, say, a deli — the former might deliver on technical refinement, while the latter might, beyond great sandwiches, meaningfully speak to its community."

Again, apples to oranges.

He was also explaining why one restaurant, Hilda & Jesse in North Beach, jumped 60 slots on the list, from #92 to #32, and the answer seems to be that he finally made it in for dinner and not just brunch. The restaurant offers a brief tasting menu at dinner, and he writes, "When so many luxe dining experiences can feel routine to the point of sterility, Hilda and Jesse proffers that the format should feel like nothing short of a party."

But take, for example, Lazy Bear, which has two Michelin stars, and "debuts" on this year's Top 100 at #100 — it actually appeared on the list under previous critics Michael Bauer in 2018, and Soleil Ho in 2019, but was snubbed last year and is therefore tagged as newly added.

If I had to guess, Lazy Bear fell in the category of expensive and established spot that neither Fegan nor Hernandez had made it to yet when last year's list went to press. The same goes for Ernest (#89) and Saison (#83), which were apparently left off the list last year for no other reason than the critics hadn't dined there, calling to question the integrity of that list, full stop.

And Lazy Bear suffers the indignity of being ranked several notches below an Oakland cofee shop (Alem's Coffee, #90, which serves Eritrean food); Patio Filipino (#96) in San Bruno, whose lumpia is pictured in plastic to-go containers; and Smish Smash, the smashburger stand at the IKEA-adjacent food hall. This is not to disrespect the skill behind those other restaurants' dishes or the deliciousness of those smashburgers (though I'd say they're just fine and not Top 100-worthy, personally). But the staff required, the expense of ingredients, the refinement of the cooking at Lazy Bear should be worth more than a rank at the very bottom of this fairly long list, no?

That feels about as arbitrary as putting Sandy's — the muffuletta sandwich specialist in the Haight, which I love! — at #23 on the list, considerably above the likes of two-Michelin-starred Enclos and Saison., and in the mix with Michelin three-star restaurants Quince (#18) and Benu (#17).

The comparisons aren't really fair to anyone, neither the casual, family-run spots nor the expensive fine-dining spots. And while Michelin may serve as the trusted arbiter for the latter category, they make mistakes and arbitrary snubs as well, and the Chronicle should serve as the local corrective for that. Still missing from the Top 100 are ambitious tasting menu spots like Nightbird and Anomaly that Michelin has ignored. And some other obvious snubs include Foreign Cinema, Commis, Anchor Oyster Bar, SPQR, Pearl 6101, Frances, and Octavia.

The French Laundry remains snubbed, for reasons that are pretty clear, as does Chez Panisse, which fell out of favor under Ho's tenure.

This year's number one is Four Kings, the trendiest Chinatown spot of the last 18 months, which the critics say has only improved in the last year, moving it up the list from #2.

Congrats to The Progress rising to #2 this year, and Jules debuting at #12 — and sorry to Zuni Cafe that they arbitrarily moved you from #10 to #33 without explanation. None of this really makes sense, but for those who made the cut, it should be a boost for business.

[Chronicle top 100 Restaurants]

Previously: French Laundry, Saison, Chez Panisse All Snubbed on Chronicle's New Top 100