Key finding
Eric Moody led the 2026 Week 2 half-PPR kicker accuracy comparison at -10.6, ahead of FantasyPros Consensus at -15.3. The measured field contained 14 eligible tracked ranking products, all below the skill score’s random-order baseline. Draft Sharks and ESPN app projections shared the lowest score at -45.9, with a stated top-to-bottom spread of 35.3 skill points. The central contrast was between weekly placement and each product’s own record: Moody led despite scoring below his through-week average, while FFToday exceeded its average but remained near the bottom. [1][2]
A weekly lead below the random-order baseline
The skill score measures how much better than a random order a ranking matched how players actually scored. A score of 0 represents a random order, while 100 is perfect; most rankers land between about 5 and 35 because weekly fantasy scoring is noisy. It is not a prediction success rate. With even the highest displayed result below zero, this week’s ordering identifies the least negative performance rather than a product that cleared the random-order benchmark. [2][1]
Moody’s lead over FantasyPros Consensus was 4.7 skill points, but neither product matched its own through-week average. Moody’s -10.6 was 11.2 points below an average of 0.6, while FantasyPros Consensus’s -15.3 was 10.0 below an average of -5.3. Both averages cover 2 eligible weeks out of 2 published weeks. The leading results therefore fit the broader story of a weaker week relative to their available records, rather than showing that the leaders improved while the rest of the field declined. [1]
The middle separates weekly placement from track record
FF Toolbox (PPR board) followed the leading pair at -21.2, but its historical context is narrower: its identical through-week average covers 1 eligible week out of 2 published weeks. There is no separate earlier eligible result in that average to establish a change. Tristan H. Cockcroft, at -23.5, and Field Yates, at -28.2, have averages covering 2 eligible weeks. Their stated shortfalls were 6.5 and 3.5 points, respectively, showing that a lower weekly position need not correspond to a larger departure from the same product’s record. [1]
The middle also contains a tie that the weekly measurement cannot separate: Daniel Dopp, Liz Loza and Mike Clay each scored -30.6. Their accumulated records differ, however. Dopp and Loza each averaged -19.4 through Week 2 and finished 11.2 points below that mark; Clay averaged -20.6 and finished 10.0 below. Each average covers 2 eligible weeks out of 2 published weeks. Those distinctions provide context for the tied result, but they do not supply a reason to place any of these products ahead of the others in this week’s ordering. [1]
Lower placement does not always mean a larger dip
Matt Bowen and Footballguys (PPR board) illustrate why the weekly table and the through-week comparison should be read together. Bowen scored -34.1 against an average of -20.0, a stated shortfall of 14.1 points. Footballguys placed lower at -36.5, yet its result was 5.3 points below its average of -31.2. Both averages cover 2 eligible weeks out of 2 published weeks. Bowen’s higher weekly score and larger departure from his own average are compatible: the comparisons answer different questions about the same results. [1]
Eric Karabell’s -37.6 adds another version of that contrast. His through-week average was -21.8 over 2 eligible weeks out of 2 published weeks, and the stated Week 2 shortfall was 15.9 points. Footballguys therefore finished above Karabell this week despite having a more negative through-week average. Reading only the weekly order would miss that distinction; reading only the averages would miss the reversal in this particular sample. Neither view establishes how the products will compare in a later week. [1][2]
The bottom tie and FFToday’s contrasting result
Draft Sharks and ESPN app projections tied at -45.9, but their through-week records again tell different stories. Draft Sharks averaged -26.5 and finished 19.4 points below that average; ESPN app projections averaged -37.6 and finished 8.2 below. Both records cover 2 eligible weeks out of 2 published weeks. The shared weekly endpoint does not imply identical observed histories. Together with Moody’s leading score, these lowest results define the stated 35.3-point spread across the cohort—a descriptive range, not evidence of future separation. [1][2]
FFToday supplied the contrasting direction of movement. Its -43.5 placed it above the bottom tie, while also sitting 12.4 points above its through-week average of -55.9 over 2 eligible weeks out of 2 published weeks. That is an above-average result for this product without being an above-zero result on the skill scale. FFToday’s position makes the distinction especially visible: improvement relative to an available record and placement within the current field are separate judgments, and neither should substitute for the other. [1][2]
What the published sample can tell a manager
The publication reports 0 provisional results among the 14 displayed products. Provisional status identifies results still subject to the publication and correction process, but its absence does not make the evidence immune to later changes. These are published results using the weekly lock policy and permitted published observations; corrections and permission changes can alter the available evidence. That distinction separates the current publication status from a guarantee that the underlying record can never be revised. [1][2]
For a fantasy manager, the useful conclusion is specific to the named kicker ranking products: Moody led this measured Week 2 field, and the through-week comparisons show how individual results differed from their own short available records. These are not overall service ratings or prediction success rates. The sample can describe this week’s ordering and its stated gaps, but cannot establish season-long or future superiority. The seasonal participation gate is separate, and this report does not turn a weekly result into a recommendation about which product will lead next. [1][2]
Sources
- Fan50 evidence record · Checked October 29, 2026
- Fan50 methodology · Checked November 5, 2026