FantasyPros Consensus leads Week 6 half-PPR kicker accuracy as FFToday and Draft Sharks tie next

The leader stayed near its own through-week average

FantasyPros Consensus’s leading result was also close to its own observed record. Its Week 6 figure stood 0.6 points above its through-week average of 64.8/100, covering 6 eligible weeks out of 6 published weeks. The weekly lead therefore did not coincide with a large departure from its average. That distinction matters alongside the standings: FantasyPros Consensus finished ahead of the displayed field while remaining near its own through-week level, rather than producing the largest positive change against its baseline. ^[1]

The tied products behind it reached the same weekly figure from different baselines. FFToday’s 63.3 compared with a through-week average of 53.3, with the supplied comparison reporting a 10.1-point positive difference. Draft Sharks also posted 63.3, but against a 62.3 average, putting it 1.0 point above its own record. Both averages cover 6 eligible weeks out of 6 published weeks. Their tie describes the weekly outcome; it does not make their through-week records interchangeable. ^[1]

The chasing group mixed near-average results with larger gains

Matt Bowen at 62.9 and Footballguys (PPR board) at 62.5 kept the next part of the field close to the tied runners-up. Here, too, the averages change the interpretation. Bowen’s through-week average was 62.4, while Footballguys’ was 55.5; Footballguys finished 7.0 points above that baseline. Each average covers 6 eligible weeks out of 6 published weeks. Footballguys’ strong weekly placement thus represented a larger positive departure from its record than Bowen’s nearby result. ^[1]

Liz Loza, Mike Clay and Tristan H. Cockcroft shared a published Week 6 Order Index of 62.1. Their identical weekly figures conceal different, though small, movements against their own averages: Loza was 0.5 points below 62.6, Clay was 0.4 above 61.7, and Cockcroft was 0.1 below 62.2. All cover 6 eligible weeks out of 6 published weeks. There is no separation among them at the displayed weekly precision, even though their same-product comparisons point in different directions. ^[1]

Below the cluster, weekly placement diverged from longer records

Eric Moody’s 61.7 and Eric Karabell’s 60.4 sat below the 62.1 cluster, but both also fell below their own through-week averages. Moody was 4.1 points under 65.8, and Karabell was 2.4 under 62.8, each across 6 eligible weeks out of 6 published weeks. Moody offers a particularly useful contrast with the weekly leader: his through-week average exceeded FantasyPros Consensus’s 64.8, even though FantasyPros Consensus finished ahead in Week 6. Weekly order and through-week averages answer different questions. ^[1]

Daniel Dopp at 57.9 and Field Yates at 55.8 extended the separation below that group. Dopp finished 2.7 points beneath his 60.6 through-week average, while Yates finished 7.3 below 63.1. Both averages cover 6 eligible weeks out of 6 published weeks. Yates’ lower weekly placement therefore came with a larger shortfall against his own record than Dopp’s. The results establish those descriptive differences, but do not identify a cause for either product’s Week 6 ordering. ^[1][2]

The lower pair also fell below their own averages

ESPN app projections at 46.7 and FF Toolbox (PPR board) at 45.4 formed the bottom of the displayed field, below Yates at 55.8. That separation helps explain why the full 20.0-point spread looks different from the compact group near the front. The app projections are a distinct ranking product in this comparison; their result should not be substituted for the results of the named ESPN analysts, whose published Week 6 figures were higher. ^[1]

Both lower results were also below their own baselines. ESPN app projections finished 5.7 points under a 52.4 average covering 6 eligible weeks out of 6 published weeks. FF Toolbox finished 4.6 below a 50.0 average, but that average covers 5 eligible weeks out of 6 published weeks. Its comparison therefore has a different eligibility scope. The published weekly result remains part of this cohort, while the shorter eligible history must remain attached to any description of its average. ^[1]

What the Order Index and publication status mean

The Order Index measures relative player ordering, not a prediction success rate or betting profitability. Accordingly, FantasyPros Consensus’s 65.4/100 is an ordering result, not a percentage of predictions that succeeded. The reported gaps describe differences on that measure within this cohort; they are not evidence of statistical significance or a forecast. Keeping that distinction intact allows the weekly standings to describe ranking-product accuracy without turning them into claims about overall service quality. ^[2][1]

Publication status is separate from placement: 0 of the 14 displayed products have provisional results. None therefore carries a provisional designation in this report, but published does not mean immune to revision. Results use the weekly lock policy and permitted published observations, and corrections or permission changes can alter the available evidence. The absence of provisional results describes the current publication status; it does not remove the publication and correction process from these figures. ^[1][2]

What a fantasy manager can take from this week

The useful conclusion is specific: FantasyPros Consensus led this measured Week 6 half-PPR kicker field, while FFToday and Draft Sharks tied behind it with different through-week context. Reading weekly placement beside each product’s own average distinguishes a near-baseline result from a larger departure without speculating about why it happened. This sample cannot establish season-long or future superiority, and the seasonal participation gate is separate. It is a record of this week’s relative ordering—not a promise about the next rankings a manager consults. ^[1][2]

Sources

1. Fan50 evidence record · Checked October 29, 2026
2. Fan50 methodology · Checked October 29, 2026