Key finding
Daniel Dopp and Tristan H. Cockcroft shared the highest measured accuracy in Fan50's 2026 Week 1 half-PPR DEF report, each posting a skill score of 16.5. The comparison covers 13 eligible tracked ranking products, with Liz Loza next at 14.1 and a stated top-to-bottom spread of 28.2 skill points. The field includes individual analysts, app projections and consensus products, so these are comparisons of named ranking products—not overall service ratings. The leading tie and the results below the random-order baseline give this week's table its shape. [1]
A shared lead, with Loza next
Dopp and Cockcroft finished level at 16.5, leaving no score-based distinction between their results in this report. Loza's 14.1 places her 2.4 skill points behind the shared lead, the stated gap to the next distinct displayed product. That is the separation readers can report; it does not establish a difference in enduring ranking ability. The leading result belongs jointly to Dopp and Cockcroft within this measured cohort, rather than to a sole winner or to every ranking product offered by their provider. [1][2]
What the skill scores actually measure
The scale matters before comparing the rest of the field. Skill score measures how much better than a random order a ranking matched how players actually scored: 0 represents a random order and 100 is perfect. Most rankers land between about 5 and 35 because weekly fantasy scoring is noisy. The leaders' 16.5 sits within that typical range, rather than near perfection. Nor is it a prediction success rate: the score describes the ranking's alignment with realized scoring, not a percentage of correct predictions. [2][1]
The middle separates products, not entire services
Matt Bowen and ESPN app projections share another tie, at 11.8, below Loza. This pairing illustrates why the product-level scope is important: a named analyst's rankings and an app's projections can receive the same measured score without being the same product. The result puts them level on this week's accuracy measure, but supplies no explanation for how either arrived there. It also cannot support a broader judgment about ESPN's tools or services, which are not what these DEF ranking scores measure. [1][2]
Eric Moody at 9.4, Field Yates at 8.2 and Eric Karabell at 5.9 extend the descending middle of the table. Each remains within the methodology's typical range of about 5 to 35, with Karabell near its lower boundary. Read alongside the higher-scoring products, these results show why a shared provider name cannot substitute for checking the specific ranking product. The displayed ESPN products occupy different positions in the same weekly comparison; their scores should not be pooled into an unsupported service-wide accuracy claim. [1][2]
Exactly two results fall below the random-order baseline
The lower positive scores belong to FantasyPros Consensus at 3.5, Footballguys (PPR board) at 2.4 and Mike Clay at 1.2. These sit below the methodology's typical range but remain above its random-order reference point. That distinction matters: being below the range where most rankers land is not the same as being below zero. Footballguys also retains its specific product label here—the PPR board evaluated in this half-PPR DEF report—rather than being presented as a result for every Footballguys ranking offering. [1][2]
Exactly two displayed results are negative: Draft Sharks at -1.2 and FFToday at -11.8. Both fall below the random-order baseline for this week's scoring comparison, with FFToday the lowest displayed product. The stated spread across the complete field is 28.2 skill points, compared with the 2.4-point gap from the co-leaders to Loza. Those comparisons describe different parts of the table: the step immediately behind the leaders and the full span down to the lowest result. Neither establishes the statistical significance of the observed differences. [1][2]
No product is above or below its own through-week average
Every product's Week 1 score equals its own average through Week 1, with 1 eligible week out of 1 published week. Dopp and Cockcroft therefore each match their 16.5 average; Bowen and ESPN app projections match 11.8; Draft Sharks matches -1.2. These are not separate confirmations of those performance levels, because the weekly result is the sole observation in each average. No product can be described as having an above-record or below-record week on this evidence. The report establishes an opening record, not a departure from an existing multi-week pattern. [1]
Published results, bounded conclusions
The provisional count is 0 of 13: all displayed results are published rather than marked provisional. Provisional status identifies a result as not yet settled in the publication process; absence of that label does not make a published figure immune to correction. These results use the weekly lock policy and permitted published observations, and corrections or permission changes can alter the available evidence. Readers should therefore distinguish publication status from permanence: this is the published comparison available for the cohort, still subject to the stated process. [1][2]
For a fantasy manager, the useful takeaway is a comparison of how the tracked DEF ranking products matched realized scoring in this particular week. The table identifies a shared lead, ties elsewhere and results on either side of the random-order baseline. It does not explain the causes of those outcomes or establish which product will perform best later. Statistical significance has not been established by the supplied evidence, and a single week's results do not establish season-long or future superiority. The seasonal participation gate is separate from this weekly report. [1][2]
Sources
- Fan50 evidence record · Checked October 29, 2026
- Fan50 methodology · Checked November 5, 2026