The fact that you chose the top 100 players can make a lot of this data misleading. Not that it's not interesting, but I think people are overlooking that part. How did you collect these 100 players? How many of them are duplicates of already existing players? What is the % that overlaps in their play time? What would happen if say 10 players in this top 100 play at hours that are generally far from the time the other players in their region play? Other than these being the top 100 players, there's still a lot of potentially misleading information in that population. An interesting question to ask is just objectively how many games are played at or around each elo ranking? The question you are asking is how many games of the top 20 are high elo?
My point is, this data can be indicative of a problem in the respective quality of games per region, however the reason this problem exists or any claims that one might try to make should be taken into account that there is potential bias in this data that can skew what type of conclusions can be made.