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.
Catch rate · 2025
Receptions per target, shrunk within position (WR vs TE separately). Depth-of-target confound; catchable-target rate not available here.
- Beats raw by
- 18.3%
- lower out-of-sample error
- RMSE raw → shrunk
- 11.1% → 9.1%
- odd vs. even weeks
- Split-half reliability
- 0.35
- how repeatable the raw stat is
- Stabilizes at
- 2512
- targets to trust the number
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.
Catch rate · 2025 · full board
| # | Player | Team | Pos | targets | Raw | Shrunk | 90% interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jake Ferguson◦ provisional | DAL | TE | 103 | 79.6% | 72.5% | 71.1% – 73.9% |
| 2 | George Kittle◦ provisional | SF | TE | 69 | 82.6% | 72.5% | 71.0% – 73.9% |
| 3 | Dalton Schultz◦ provisional | HOU | TE | 107 | 76.6% | 72.4% | 71.0% – 73.8% |
| 4 | Sam LaPorta◦ provisional | DET | TE | 49 | 81.6% | 72.4% | 70.9% – 73.8% |
| 5 | Ja'Tavion Sanders◦ provisional | CAR | TE | 34 | 85.3% | 72.4% | 70.9% – 73.8% |
| 6 | Noah Fant◦ provisional | CIN | TE | 41 | 82.9% | 72.4% | 70.9% – 73.8% |
| 7 | Gunnar Helm◦ provisional | TEN | TE | 55 | 80.0% | 72.4% | 70.9% – 73.8% |
| 8 | Ian Thomas◦ provisional | LV | TE | 13 | 100.0% | 72.4% | 70.9% – 73.8% |
| 9 | T.J. Hockenson◦ provisional | MIN | TE | 66 | 77.3% | 72.4% | 70.9% – 73.8% |
| 10 | Juwan Johnson◦ provisional | NO | TE | 102 | 75.5% | 72.4% | 70.9% – 73.8% |
| 11 | Adam Trautman◦ provisional | DEN | TE | 23 | 87.0% | 72.4% | 70.9% – 73.8% |
| 12 | Elijah Higgins◦ provisional | ARI | TE | 37 | 81.1% | 72.4% | 70.9% – 73.8% |
| 13 | Trey McBride◦ provisional | ARI | TE | 170 | 74.1% | 72.3% | 70.9% – 73.8% |
| 14 | Dalton Kincaid◦ provisional | BUF | TE | 50 | 78.0% | 72.3% | 70.9% – 73.8% |
| 15 | AJ Barner◦ provisional | SEA | TE | 68 | 76.5% | 72.3% | 70.9% – 73.8% |
| 16 | Colby Parkinson◦ provisional | LA | TE | 56 | 76.8% | 72.3% | 70.9% – 73.8% |
| 17 | Brenton Strange◦ provisional | JAX | TE | 60 | 76.7% | 72.3% | 70.9% – 73.8% |
| 18 | Austin Hooper◦ provisional | NE | TE | 26 | 80.8% | 72.3% | 70.8% – 73.8% |
| 19 | Jackson Hawes◦ provisional | BUF | TE | 19 | 84.2% | 72.3% | 70.8% – 73.8% |
| 20 | Pat Freiermuth◦ provisional | PIT | TE | 54 | 75.9% | 72.3% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 21 | Kyle Pitts◦ provisional | ATL | TE | 119 | 74.0% | 72.3% | 70.9% – 73.7% |
| 22 | Jeremy Ruckert◦ provisional | NYJ | TE | 29 | 79.3% | 72.3% | 70.8% – 73.8% |
| 23 | Tanner Hudson◦ provisional | CIN | TE | 24 | 79.2% | 72.3% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 24 | Greg Dulcich◦ provisional | MIA | TE | 34 | 76.5% | 72.3% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 25 | Luke Musgrave◦ provisional | GB | TE | 31 | 77.4% | 72.3% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 26 | Ben Sinnott◦ provisional | WAS | TE | 13 | 84.6% | 72.3% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 27 | John FitzPatrick◦ provisional | GB | TE | 15 | 80.0% | 72.3% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 28 | Brock Bowers◦ provisional | LV | TE | 87 | 73.6% | 72.3% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 29 | Luke Farrell◦ provisional | SF | TE | 14 | 78.6% | 72.3% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 30 | Isaiah Likely◦ provisional | BAL | TE | 36 | 75.0% | 72.3% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 31 | Mitchell Evans◦ provisional | CAR | TE | 25 | 76.0% | 72.3% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 32 | Dallas Goedert◦ provisional | PHI | TE | 82 | 73.2% | 72.3% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 33 | Jake Tonges◦ provisional | SF | TE | 46 | 73.9% | 72.3% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 34 | Josh Oliver◦ provisional | MIN | TE | 20 | 75.0% | 72.2% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 35 | Drew Sample◦ provisional | CIN | TE | 20 | 75.0% | 72.2% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 36 | Cade Stover◦ provisional | HOU | TE | 16 | 75.0% | 72.2% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 37 | Tommy Tremble◦ provisional | CAR | TE | 37 | 73.0% | 72.2% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 38 | Daniel Bellinger◦ provisional | NYG | TE | 26 | 73.1% | 72.2% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 39 | Tucker Kraft◦ provisional | GB | TE | 44 | 72.7% | 72.2% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 40 | Davis Allen◦ provisional | LA | TE | 33 | 72.7% | 72.2% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 41 | Dawson Knox◦ provisional | BUF | TE | 50 | 72.0% | 72.2% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 42 | Hunter Long◦ provisional | JAX | TE | 17 | 70.6% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.7% |
| 43 | Grant Calcaterra◦ provisional | PHI | TE | 13 | 69.2% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.7% |
| 44 | Cade Otton◦ provisional | TB | TE | 82 | 72.0% | 72.2% | 70.8% – 73.7% |
| 45 | Julian Hill◦ provisional | MIA | TE | 21 | 71.4% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.7% |
| 46 | Brevyn Spann-Ford◦ provisional | DAL | TE | 13 | 69.2% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.7% |
| 47 | Taysom Hill◦ provisional | NO | TE | 16 | 68.8% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.7% |
| 48 | Will Dissly◦ provisional | LAC | TE | 16 | 68.8% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.7% |
| 49 | John Bates◦ provisional | WAS | TE | 16 | 68.8% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.7% |
| 50 | Charlie Kolar◦ provisional | BAL | TE | 15 | 66.7% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 51 | Darnell Washington◦ provisional | PIT | TE | 44 | 70.5% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 52 | Oronde Gadsden II◦ provisional | LAC | TE | 69 | 71.0% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 53 | Tyler Higbee◦ provisional | LA | TE | 36 | 69.4% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 54 | Chig Okonkwo◦ provisional | TEN | TE | 79 | 70.9% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 55 | Michael Mayer◦ provisional | LV | TE | 50 | 70.0% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 56 | Darren Waller◦ provisional | MIA | TE | 35 | 68.6% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 57 | Mo Alie-Cox◦ provisional | IND | TE | 20 | 65.0% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 58 | David Njoku◦ provisional | CLE | TE | 48 | 68.8% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 59 | Jonnu Smith◦ provisional | PIT | TE | 55 | 69.1% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 60 | Brock Wright◦ provisional | DET | TE | 22 | 63.6% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 61 | Tanner Conner◦ provisional | MIA | TE | 15 | 60.0% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 62 | Colston Loveland◦ provisional | CHI | TE | 83 | 69.9% | 72.2% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 63 | Zach Ertz◦ provisional | WAS | TE | 73 | 68.5% | 72.1% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 64 | Travis Kelce◦ provisional | KC | TE | 109 | 69.7% | 72.1% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 65 | Mark Andrews◦ provisional | BAL | TE | 70 | 68.6% | 72.1% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 66 | Luke Schoonmaker◦ provisional | DAL | TE | 23 | 60.9% | 72.1% | 70.6% – 73.6% |
| 67 | Hunter Henry◦ provisional | NE | TE | 87 | 69.0% | 72.1% | 70.7% – 73.6% |
| 68 | Mike Gesicki◦ provisional | CIN | TE | 43 | 65.1% | 72.1% | 70.6% – 73.6% |
| 69 | Mason Taylor◦ provisional | NYJ | TE | 66 | 66.7% | 72.1% | 70.6% – 73.5% |
| 70 | Elijah Arroyo◦ provisional | SEA | TE | 26 | 57.7% | 72.1% | 70.6% – 73.5% |
| 71 | Johnny Mundt◦ provisional | JAX | TE | 19 | 47.4% | 72.0% | 70.6% – 73.5% |
| 72 | Cole Kmet◦ provisional | CHI | TE | 49 | 61.2% | 72.0% | 70.5% – 73.5% |
| 73 | Evan Engram◦ provisional | DEN | TE | 77 | 64.9% | 72.0% | 70.5% – 73.5% |
| 74 | Harold Fannin Jr.◦ provisional | CLE | TE | 108 | 66.7% | 72.0% | 70.5% – 73.4% |
| 75 | Tyler Warren◦ provisional | IND | TE | 114 | 66.7% | 72.0% | 70.5% – 73.4% |
| 76 | Noah Gray◦ provisional | KC | TE | 38 | 55.3% | 72.0% | 70.5% – 73.4% |
| 77 | Terrance Ferguson◦ provisional | LA | TE | 25 | 44.0% | 71.9% | 70.5% – 73.4% |
| 78 | Theo Johnson◦ provisional | NYG | TE | 74 | 60.8% | 71.9% | 70.4% – 73.3% |
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).