Key finding
Eric Moody’s ranking product led the 2026 Week 1 half-PPR kicker comparison with a skill score of 11.8. FantasyPros Consensus was the next distinct product at 4.7, leaving a stated gap of 7.1 skill points. Across the 13 eligible tracked products, results ranged from Moody’s score to FFToday’s -68.2, an 80.0-point spread. The field therefore has both a clear leader and a sharply lower tail, while many of the scores between them sit near or below the random-order benchmark. These are published Week 1 results, not a season-long verdict. [1]
What the top of the field shows
The leading result belongs to Eric Moody at 11.8, with FantasyPros Consensus next at 4.7. The 7.1-point difference is the stated gap between those two distinct displayed products. It gives the front of this week’s comparison a clear shape: Moody is ahead of the next product, but the score itself remains within the lower end of the range where most rankers typically land. That distinction matters. A lead in this cohort describes how the product’s order matched Week 1 scoring; it does not, on its own, establish broader or future superiority. [1][2]
The comparison covers 13 eligible tracked ranking products, and the top-to-bottom spread is 80.0 skill points, from Moody’s 11.8 to FFToday’s -68.2. That range is the most striking contrast in the field, but it should not obscure the less dramatic pattern among several products nearer the middle. Looking across the results, the useful reading is not simply that one product finished first and another last. It is that the field moves from a positive leading score, through a cluster of modest negative scores, to a much lower set of results. [1]
How to read the skill score
Skill score measures how much better than a random order a ranking matched how players actually scored: 0 is random and 100 is perfect. Most rankers land between about 5 and 35 because weekly fantasy scoring is noisy. It is not a prediction success rate. In this context, Moody’s 11.8 is above random but near the lower end of the typical range; FantasyPros Consensus at 4.7 falls just below that range. Those descriptions put the scores in context without turning a one-week comparison into a claim about overall quality. [2][1]
The scores below zero—including the results through much of the middle and lower field—indicate rankings that matched actual scoring less well than a random order under this measure. That does not mean every negative result represents the same degree of mismatch: the values vary, and the lowest displayed score is far below the scores clustered closer to zero. The scale is useful precisely because it distinguishes those weekly outcomes, but it should be read as a measure of this week’s ordering correspondence, not as a direct measure of how often a ranking made a correct prediction. [2][1]
The middle is clustered near or below random
Several products sit close together below zero: Eric Karabell and Matt Bowen each scored -5.9, Draft Sharks’ consensus scored -7.1, and Daniel Dopp and Liz Loza each scored -8.2. Mike Clay and Tristan H. Cockcroft are also paired, at -10.6 apiece. Taken together, these results show a middle section in which the displayed scores are negative but much closer to zero than the field’s lowest result. The equal scores are ties in this week’s measured outcome; they do not establish that the products will perform alike in another week. [1][2]
Field Yates, at -21.2, is below that group, while Footballguys’ PPR board scored -25.9 and ESPN app projections scored -29.4. Those lower results extend the field’s decline without changing the interpretation of the scores: all describe a match with actual Week 1 scoring that fell short of the random-order benchmark. The grouping also cautions against reading every position in the displayed ranking as a distinct level of demonstrated skill. The numerical order is precise for this report, but these are results from one noisy weekly comparison. [1][2]
The lower tail and this week’s averages
FFToday’s staff product is the lowest displayed result, at -68.2. The 80.0-point spread from that score to Moody’s 11.8 captures how far apart the endpoints are, while the scores for Field Yates, Footballguys’ PPR board, and ESPN app projections show additional results below the middle cluster. These gaps are descriptive of the displayed field; they should not be treated as statistically significant or as evidence that the same ordering of products will persist. The report gives a notably wide range for this week, not a forecast of what the range will look like later. [1][2]
The through-Week 1 average matches the Week 1 result for every product because each has one eligible week out of one published week. For example, Moody’s average is 11.8, FantasyPros Consensus’s is 4.7, and FFToday’s is -68.2, matching their respective weekly scores. There is no multi-week record here against which to say a product ran above or below its own established average. The averages confirm the one-week scope; they do not add an independent body of evidence or smooth out the variation in this week’s outcomes. [1]
Publication status and what managers can take away
None of the 13 displayed products has a provisional result; all results are published. Provisional status means a result remains subject to the publication and correction process, so a provisional result may change as that process proceeds. There is no provisional score to flag in this cohort. Published status, however, does not mean the available evidence can never change: the methodology uses a weekly lock policy and permitted published observations, and corrections or permission changes can affect the evidence available. [1][2]
For a fantasy manager, this report can show how the listed kicker ranking products corresponded with actual scoring in 2026 Week 1 under the half-PPR scope. It shows Moody at the top, a close-to-zero middle containing several negative results, and a lower tail ending with FFToday. It cannot establish season-long or future superiority: a single week does not do that, and the seasonal participation gate is separate. With weekly scoring noisy and only one eligible week represented for each product, the sound takeaway is a snapshot of this field—not a promise about later weeks. [1][2]
Sources
- Fan50 evidence record · Checked October 29, 2026
- Fan50 methodology · Checked November 5, 2026