Key finding
Draft Sharks posted the highest Week 4 skill score among 14 eligible half-PPR kicker ranking products: 29.4, with Field Yates next at 15.3. The full spread, from that lead to FF Toolbox’s -68.2, was 97.6 skill points. The result is a sharp snapshot, not a verdict on which product is best over a season. Most rankers score between about 5 and 35 because weekly fantasy scoring is noisy, and the comparison with each product’s average through Week 4 shows how much this week differed from its own longer view. [1][2]
What the score and the field measure
The comparison covers 14 eligible tracked ranking products for the 2026 Week 4 half-PPR kicker position. Its skill score measures how much better than a random order a ranking matched how players actually scored: 0 is random, while 100 is perfect. The score is not a prediction success rate. Most rankers land between about 5 and 35 because weekly fantasy scoring is noisy, so the useful starting point is a week-specific comparison rather than an expectation that scores will hold steady. [1][2]
All displayed results are published, and none is marked provisional. Provisional status means a result remains subject to the publication and correction process; the current cohort therefore contains no provisional results. The weekly lock policy and permitted published observations define what is available for the comparison, while later corrections or permission changes can alter the available evidence. That qualification concerns the record being measured, not an explanation for any score. [1][2]
Draft Sharks sets the high mark, with Field Yates next
Draft Sharks leads the Week 4 field at 29.4. That sits within the stated range where most rankers land, but does not approach the scale’s perfect score of 100. Field Yates is next at 15.3, leaving a stated 14.1-skill-point gap between the two distinct displayed products. This describes the size of the separation on this week’s board; it does not show whether a similar gap will appear again. [1][2]
The through-week averages add another view of the leader’s result. Draft Sharks averaged -5.9 across 4 eligible weeks out of 4 published weeks, making its 29.4 Week 4 score 35.3 points above that average. Field Yates averaged -11.8 over 4 eligible weeks out of 4 published weeks, and its Week 4 score was 27.1 points above its own average. Both products therefore finished the week well above their own through-week baselines, though the averages and single-week scores describe different spans of results. [1]
A compact group occupies the middle
Eric Moody’s 12.9 ranks behind Field Yates, but its comparison with the through-week average looks different from the leaders’ averages. Moody’s average is positive at 4.4 across 4 eligible weeks out of 4 published weeks; Week 4 was 8.5 points above it. That makes Moody the example in this part of the board where both the week and the through-week average are above zero, rather than a positive weekly score set against a negative average. [1]
The next scores form a close grouping: Eric Karabell at 10.6, Liz Loza at 9.4, and Daniel Dopp and Mike Clay each at 7.1. Each was above its own through-week average: Karabell by 20.9 points, Loza by 20.3, and Dopp and Clay by 17.4 apiece. Their averages were -10.3, -10.9, -10.3 and -10.3, respectively. The contrast is worth noting: these products’ positive Week 4 scores sit alongside negative averages through the week, so this one result is not a substitute for the longer view. [1]
Below zero, scores and averages do not always move together
Matt Bowen’s 3.5 is the final positive Week 4 score before the board reaches FantasyPros Consensus at 0.0. Bowen’s through-week average is -10.6, putting the week 14.1 points above that baseline. FantasyPros, by contrast, scored exactly 0.0 and its average through Week 4 is also 0.0 to the displayed precision. On this scale, zero represents a random order; it is a reference point, not a claim that a product’s ordering is consistently random. [1][2]
ESPN app projections scored -1.2, below zero for the week, but its result was 25.9 points above its -27.1 through-week average. The next two below-zero scores are Tristan H. Cockcroft’s -7.1 and Footballguys (PPR board)’s -9.4. Both also exceeded their own averages: Cockcroft by 7.9 points against an average of -15.0, and Footballguys by 14.1 against -23.5. These comparisons show why the raw weekly score alone can obscure whether a product did better or worse than its own observed average. [1]
The lower end widens the week’s spread
FFToday scored -31.8, 13.8 points above its through-week average of -45.6. FF Toolbox (PPR board) sits at the bottom with -68.2, and its Week 4 result is 22.4 points below its average of -45.9. That average uses 3 eligible weeks out of 4 published weeks, so it draws on fewer eligible weeks than the other through-week averages reported here. FF Toolbox is also the clearest case where the week moved below, rather than above, its own average. [1]
Across the 14 products, the distance from Draft Sharks at 29.4 to FF Toolbox at -68.2 is 97.6 skill points. That wide span captures the range of Week 4 outcomes in this cohort; it is descriptive, not a threshold separating products or evidence of future performance. The middle scores are much closer to one another than the endpoints suggest, while the negative results also differ in how they compare with each product’s average. [1]
What this one-week snapshot can tell a fantasy manager
The most useful reading is two-part: compare products on the shared Week 4 skill-score scale, then set a weekly result beside that same product’s average through Week 4 where available. Here, the leading score, the close middle grouping, and the sharp lower-end results describe a cohort with varied outcomes. The through-week comparisons add context rather than overturning those scores: an above-average week can still be below zero, as ESPN app projections illustrates, while Moody’s week was above both zero and its positive average. [1]
This sample cannot establish season-long or future superiority. The 29.4 leader score, the 14.1-point gap to Field Yates, and the full 97.6-point spread are observations from this week’s cohort, not forecasts. A single week does not answer whether the ordering will persist; the weekly noise that shapes skill scores makes that uncertainty especially important. For a fantasy manager, the defensible takeaway is what happened in this measured week and how it compares with each product’s observed average—not a promise about the next one. [1][2]
Sources
- Fan50 evidence record · Checked October 29, 2026
- Fan50 methodology · Checked November 3, 2026