Key finding
FantasyPros Consensus led the 2026 Week 6 half-PPR DEF accuracy field with a 17.6 skill score, ahead of Draft Sharks at 12.9. The displayed comparison covers 14 eligible tracked ranking products, spanning positive and negative scores, with FF Toolbox (PPR board) lowest at -21.2. The revealing pattern is how weekly placement and performance against a product’s own record sometimes diverged: the leaders exceeded their through-week averages, but so did the lowest finisher. Reading those measures together gives a fuller account than the weekly order alone. [1]
What the scores measure
The 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. That distinction matters here: FantasyPros Consensus led the displayed field while remaining within that usual range, whereas the lower end fell below the random-order reference. These are measurements of the named DEF ranking products, not overall ratings of the services behind them. [2][1]
The leaders shared an above-average week
FantasyPros Consensus’s lead over Draft Sharks was 4.7 skill points. Their placement also aligned with an above-average week for each product: FantasyPros Consensus finished 7.3 points above its through-Week 6 average of 10.4, while Draft Sharks was 8.0 points above its average of 4.9. Each average covers 6 eligible weeks out of 6 published weeks. The leading results therefore have a shared feature beyond their position in the table: both exceeded their own observed averages through the reporting week. [1]
ESPN app projections extends that pattern near the top, but with a different starting point. Its 10.6 weekly score stood alongside a through-week average of -8.2 across 6 eligible weeks out of 6 published weeks. The supplied comparison puts Week 6 at 18.8 points above that average. Unlike the leaders, whose through-week averages were positive, ESPN app projections paired a positive weekly result with a negative cumulative average. The upper portion of the table thus brings together products with quite different records through the same week. [1]
Why the positive middle does not tell a uniform story
Below those results, the positive middle separates weekly standing from direction against a product’s own average. Eric Moody and Field Yates had higher weekly scores than Mike Clay, yet Moody and Yates were below their respective through-week averages while Clay was above his. This is the central contrast in that part of the field: a better weekly placement did not necessarily mean a better week relative to the same product’s record. The weekly table and the through-week comparison answer related, but distinct, questions. [1]
The averages explain that contrast without requiring a separate narrative for every score. Moody’s through-week average was 7.1 and Yates’s was 7.5, both above their positive Week 6 results. Clay’s average was -1.8, while his weekly score reached 2.4. All of these averages cover 6 eligible weeks out of 6 published weeks. A positive weekly score therefore carries different context depending on the product: it can sit below a positive observed average or above a negative one. Crossing the random-order reference is not the same as exceeding an established through-week mark. [1][2]
Below zero, the broader pattern is a shortfall against existing records
The negative side of the field was not simply a collection of products with negative through-week averages. Footballguys (PPR board), Liz Loza, Tristan H. Cockcroft and Daniel Dopp all entered this comparison with positive averages through Week 6, yet posted negative weekly scores. Their shared pattern is a below-zero week against a positive through-week record. That helps explain why the lower portion should not be read as a reproduction of the season-to-date ordering: the weekly outcomes put these products below a reference their averages remained above. [1]
Dopp provides the clearest illustration of that contrast, scoring -18.8 against a through-week average of 2.4, a stated shortfall of 21.2 points. FF Toolbox (PPR board), despite finishing lower at -21.2, moved in the opposite direction relative to its own record: its weekly result was 10.6 points above its -31.8 average. That average covers 5 eligible weeks out of 6 published weeks, rather than the 6 eligible weeks in Dopp’s record. The bottom of the weekly table consequently contains both a below-average result and an above-average one. [1]
How much separation—and what publication status—shows
The full highest-to-lowest spread was 38.8 skill points, compared with the leader’s 4.7-point edge over Draft Sharks. Those stated distances describe different parts of the field: the full spread captures the separation between positive and negative endpoints, while the leading gap describes the ordering at the top. Neither distance explains the mixed same-product comparisons underneath. FF Toolbox’s above-average result at the bottom is especially useful context: distance from the weekly leader and distance from a product’s own average are not interchangeable measures. [1]
There are 0 provisional results among the 14 displayed products. Provisional status flags a result as still provisional within the publication and correction process; these results are instead presented as published observations. That status should be distinguished from eligibility history, as FF Toolbox’s 5 eligible weeks out of 6 published weeks demonstrates. Results use the weekly lock policy and permitted published observations, and corrections or permission changes can alter the available evidence. Published status describes the current record, not immunity from correction. [1][2]
What a fantasy manager can take from the comparison
For a fantasy manager, this sample identifies which displayed ranking product best matched Week 6 half-PPR DEF scoring and puts weekly placements beside the products’ own through-week records. FantasyPros Consensus led, but the middle and lower results show why placement alone leaves out useful context. The gaps are descriptive, not evidence of statistical significance or future performance. A single week cannot establish season-long or future superiority, and the seasonal participation gate is separate. This report documents the week’s ordering and its contrasts; it does not identify a guaranteed source for future decisions. [1][2]
Sources
- Fan50 evidence record · Checked October 29, 2026
- Fan50 methodology · Checked November 5, 2026