NFL · Empirical Bayes

True-Talent Leaderboards

A raw single-season rate is a noisy guess at a player’s real ability, and the noise is worst for the smallest samples — so a naïve leaderboard is topped by whoever got lucky in the fewest tries. This one shrinks every rate toward its position-group prior by how much the sample can be trusted, and shows a 90% credible interval instead of a point. Toggle raw vs. shrunk to watch the flukes fall back to the pack.

Target success rate · 2024

Share of targets with positive EPA, shrunk within position.

Beats raw by
21.9%
lower out-of-sample error
RMSE raw → shrunk
11.7% → 9.1%
odd vs. even weeks
Split-half reliability
0.19
how repeatable the raw stat is
Stabilizes at
52
targets to trust the number
shrunkrawthe shrink90% CI
40%50%60%70%TE avg1George KittleSF · 9467.4%2Mark AndrewsBAL · 6963.9%3Noah GrayKC · 4961.8%4Jonnu SmithMIA · 11161.6%5Trey McBrideARI · 14760.5%6Mike GesickiCIN · 8360.3%7Cole KmetCHI · 5959.8%8Isaiah LikelyBAL · 5859.4%9Grant CalcaterraPHI · 3059.0%10Zach ErtzWAS · 9358.9%11Nate AdkinsDEN · 1558.8%12Elijah HigginsARI · 2458.4%13Foster MoreauNO · 4358.3%14Payne DurhamTB · 1458.1%15Tucker KraftGB · 7158.0%16Josh OliverMIN · 2858.0%17Brock WrightDET · 1657.9%18Nick VannettTEN · 2057.5%19Austin HooperNE · 5957.1%20Stone SmarttLAC · 1956.9%21Eric SaubertSF · 1456.6%22Brenton StrangeJAX · 5356.6%23Pat FreiermuthPIT · 7856.5%24Darnell WashingtonPIT · 2556.4%25Brock BowersLV · 15356.3%26Dallas GoedertPHI · 5256.1%27Luke SchoonmakerDAL · 3656.1%28AJ BarnerSEA · 3856.0%29Drew SampleCIN · 2255.9%30Tanner HudsonCIN · 2455.8%31Daniel BellingerNYG · 1755.6%32Harrison BryantLV · 1255.3%

Each row is a player: the solid dot is the shrunk estimate, the hollow dot the raw rate, joined by the red pull of regression; the grey bar is the 90% credible interval. A hollow shrunk dot means the sample is below the stabilization line — the number is mostly the position prior. Switch to Raw rank and watch the small-sample names climb.

Target success rate · 2024 · full board

Target success rate leaderboard for the 2024 NFL season, shrunk by empirical Bayes with 90% credible intervals, ranked by the shrunk estimate.
#PlayerTeamPostargetsRawShrunk90% interval
1George KittleSFTE9474.5%67.4%60.9%73.6%
2Mark AndrewsBALTE6971.0%63.9%56.7%70.9%
3Noah Gray◦ provisionalKCTE4969.4%61.8%53.7%69.5%
4Jonnu SmithMIATE11164.9%61.6%55.3%67.7%
5Trey McBrideARITE14762.6%60.5%54.8%66.1%
6Mike GesickiCINTE8363.9%60.3%53.3%67.1%
7Cole KmetCHITE5964.4%59.8%52.1%67.3%
8Isaiah LikelyBALTE5863.8%59.4%51.7%67.0%
9Grant Calcaterra◦ provisionalPHITE3066.7%59.0%50.0%67.7%
10Zach ErtzWASTE9361.3%58.9%52.1%65.5%
11Nate Adkins◦ provisionalDENTE1573.3%58.8%48.8%68.4%
12Elijah Higgins◦ provisionalARITE2466.7%58.4%49.0%67.5%
13Foster Moreau◦ provisionalNOTE4362.8%58.3%49.9%66.5%
14Payne Durham◦ provisionalTBTE1471.4%58.1%48.1%67.9%
15Tucker KraftGBTE7160.6%58.0%50.7%65.2%
16Josh Oliver◦ provisionalMINTE2864.3%58.0%48.9%66.9%
17Brock Wright◦ provisionalDETTE1668.8%57.9%48.0%67.5%
18Nick Vannett◦ provisionalTENTE2065.0%57.5%47.9%66.8%
19Austin HooperNETE5959.3%57.1%49.4%64.7%
20Stone Smartt◦ provisionalLACTE1963.2%56.9%47.2%66.3%
21Eric Saubert◦ provisionalSFTE1464.3%56.6%46.6%66.5%
22Brenton StrangeJAXTE5358.5%56.6%48.6%64.4%
23Pat FreiermuthPITTE7857.7%56.5%49.3%63.5%
24Darnell Washington◦ provisionalPITTE2560.0%56.4%47.0%65.5%
25Brock BowersLVTE15356.9%56.3%50.6%61.9%
26Dallas Goedert◦ provisionalPHITE5257.7%56.1%48.1%64.0%
27Luke Schoonmaker◦ provisionalDALTE3658.3%56.1%47.4%64.7%
28AJ Barner◦ provisionalSEATE3857.9%56.0%47.4%64.5%
29Drew Sample◦ provisionalCINTE2259.1%55.9%46.4%65.3%
30Tanner Hudson◦ provisionalCINTE2458.3%55.8%46.4%65.0%
31Daniel Bellinger◦ provisionalNYGTE1758.8%55.6%45.8%65.3%
32Travis KelceKCTE13456.0%55.6%49.6%61.5%
33Noah FantSEATE6456.3%55.5%47.9%63.0%
34Harrison Bryant◦ provisionalLVTE1258.3%55.3%45.1%65.3%
35Brevyn Spann-Ford◦ provisionalDALTE1457.1%55.1%45.1%65.0%
36Sam LaPortaDETTE8355.4%55.1%48.0%62.1%
37T.J. HockensonMINTE6254.8%54.7%47.1%62.3%
38Julian Hill◦ provisionalMIATE2055.0%54.7%45.1%64.2%
39Hunter HenryNETE9754.6%54.6%47.9%61.3%
40Dawson Knox◦ provisionalBUFTE3354.5%54.6%45.7%63.3%
41Theo Johnson◦ provisionalNYGTE4353.5%54.1%45.7%62.4%
42Jordan AkinsCLETE5853.4%54.0%46.2%61.7%
43Lucas Krull◦ provisionalDENTE2352.2%53.9%44.4%63.2%
44Will DisslyLACTE6453.1%53.8%46.2%61.3%
45Tyler Higbee◦ provisionalLATE1250.0%53.8%43.5%63.8%
46Juwan JohnsonNOTE6852.9%53.7%46.2%61.1%
47Erick All◦ provisionalCINTE2250.0%53.2%43.7%62.6%
48John Bates◦ provisionalWASTE1346.2%52.9%42.8%63.0%
49Colby Parkinson◦ provisionalLATE4951.0%52.9%44.7%61.0%
50Tommy Tremble◦ provisionalCARTE3250.0%52.9%43.9%61.7%
51Josh Whyle◦ provisionalTENTE3850.0%52.7%44.0%61.2%
52Mo Alie-Cox◦ provisionalINDTE2347.8%52.5%43.1%61.9%
53Johnny Mundt◦ provisionalMINTE2748.1%52.4%43.2%61.5%
54Chig OkonkwoTENTE7150.7%52.4%45.0%59.7%
55Pharaoh Brown◦ provisionalSEATE1241.7%52.2%42.0%62.3%
56Charlie Woerner◦ provisionalATLTE1241.7%52.2%42.0%62.3%
57Andrew Ogletree◦ provisionalINDTE1442.9%52.1%42.1%62.1%
58Ja'Tavion Sanders◦ provisionalCARTE4348.8%52.0%43.6%60.4%
59Tyler ConklinNYJTE7349.3%51.5%44.2%58.8%
60Hayden Hurst◦ provisionalLACTE1338.5%51.4%41.3%61.5%
61Luke Farrell◦ provisionalJAXTE1741.2%51.3%41.5%61.1%
62Kyle PittsATLTE7448.6%51.1%43.8%58.4%
63Dalton KincaidBUFTE7548.0%50.7%43.5%58.0%
64Adam Trautman◦ provisionalDENTE2240.9%50.6%41.1%60.0%
65Michael Mayer◦ provisionalLVTE3243.8%50.5%41.6%59.4%
66Davis Allen◦ provisionalLATE1330.8%49.9%39.8%60.0%
67Cade OttonTBTE8746.0%49.2%42.3%56.2%
68Cade Stover◦ provisionalHOUTE2236.4%49.2%39.8%58.7%
69Taysom Hill◦ provisionalNOTE3138.7%48.7%39.8%57.7%
70Durham Smythe◦ provisionalMIATE1729.4%48.4%38.7%58.3%
71Jeremy Ruckert◦ provisionalNYJTE2835.7%48.0%38.9%57.2%
72Dalton SchultzHOUTE8543.5%47.8%40.8%54.8%
73Kylen Granson◦ provisionalINDTE3135.5%47.5%38.6%56.5%
74Gerald Everett◦ provisionalCHITE1315.4%46.8%36.8%57.0%
75Greg Dulcich◦ provisionalNYGTE128.3%46.0%35.9%56.2%
76Evan EngramJAXTE6737.3%44.9%37.5%52.4%
77Jake FergusonDALTE8637.2%43.8%36.9%50.8%
78David NjokuCLETE9937.4%43.3%36.8%50.0%

How the shrinkage works

Two estimators

Rate stats (completion %, success rate, catch rate) use a beta-binomial model: a Beta(α, β) prior fit by marginal likelihood over each position group, then a Beta posterior per player. Per-play averages (EPA, CPOE, yards) use a normal-normal model with DerSimonian–Laird between-player variance. Both pull each player toward their group by exactly how thin their sample is.

Does it help? & the fine print

The trust panel’s numbers come from a leakage-free odd/even-week holdout: fit on odd weeks, predict even-week raw. Shrinkage lowers out-of-sample error for every stat. Priors are fit per season and per position (WR and TE separately), so a TE’s baseline isn’t a skill. Regular season only, 2016–2025. Rushing and receiving efficiency are heavily scheme-driven — read the wide bands as the honesty they are.

Source: nflverse play-by-play. Counted and computed deterministically — never modeled by a language model. Built by build_nfl_leaderboards.py (byte-reproducible).