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 · 2025
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
- 91
- 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.
Target success rate · 2025 · full board
| # | Player | Team | Pos | targets | Raw | Shrunk | 90% interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | George Kittle◦ provisional | SF | TE | 69 | 68.1% | 60.5% | 54.1% – 66.7% |
| 2 | Sam LaPorta◦ provisional | DET | TE | 49 | 67.3% | 59.1% | 52.2% – 65.9% |
| 3 | AJ Barner◦ provisional | SEA | TE | 68 | 64.7% | 59.0% | 52.5% – 65.3% |
| 4 | Hunter Henry◦ provisional | NE | TE | 87 | 63.2% | 58.9% | 52.7% – 64.8% |
| 5 | Austin Hooper◦ provisional | NE | TE | 26 | 73.1% | 58.8% | 51.2% – 66.1% |
| 6 | Daniel Bellinger◦ provisional | NYG | TE | 26 | 73.1% | 58.8% | 51.2% – 66.1% |
| 7 | Oronde Gadsden II◦ provisional | LAC | TE | 69 | 63.8% | 58.6% | 52.1% – 64.9% |
| 8 | Colby Parkinson◦ provisional | LA | TE | 56 | 64.3% | 58.3% | 51.6% – 65.0% |
| 9 | Trey McBride | ARI | TE | 170 | 60.0% | 58.1% | 53.1% – 63.1% |
| 10 | Brenton Strange◦ provisional | JAX | TE | 60 | 63.3% | 58.1% | 51.5% – 64.6% |
| 11 | Dawson Knox◦ provisional | BUF | TE | 50 | 64.0% | 58.0% | 51.1% – 64.7% |
| 12 | Jackson Hawes◦ provisional | BUF | TE | 19 | 73.7% | 58.0% | 50.2% – 65.6% |
| 13 | Tucker Kraft◦ provisional | GB | TE | 44 | 63.6% | 57.6% | 50.6% – 64.5% |
| 14 | Mitchell Evans◦ provisional | CAR | TE | 25 | 68.0% | 57.6% | 50.0% – 65.0% |
| 15 | Ian Thomas◦ provisional | LV | TE | 13 | 76.9% | 57.5% | 49.4% – 65.3% |
| 16 | Dalton Kincaid◦ provisional | BUF | TE | 50 | 62.0% | 57.3% | 50.4% – 64.0% |
| 17 | Travis Kelce | KC | TE | 109 | 58.7% | 56.9% | 51.1% – 62.6% |
| 18 | Darnell Washington◦ provisional | PIT | TE | 44 | 61.4% | 56.9% | 49.8% – 63.8% |
| 19 | Adam Trautman◦ provisional | DEN | TE | 23 | 65.2% | 56.8% | 49.1% – 64.3% |
| 20 | Jake Tonges◦ provisional | SF | TE | 46 | 60.9% | 56.8% | 49.8% – 63.6% |
| 21 | Colston Loveland◦ provisional | CHI | TE | 83 | 59.0% | 56.8% | 50.5% – 62.9% |
| 22 | Dallas Goedert◦ provisional | PHI | TE | 82 | 58.5% | 56.5% | 50.3% – 62.6% |
| 23 | Dalton Schultz | HOU | TE | 107 | 57.9% | 56.4% | 50.6% – 62.2% |
| 24 | Charlie Kolar◦ provisional | BAL | TE | 15 | 66.7% | 56.4% | 48.4% – 64.2% |
| 25 | Darren Waller◦ provisional | MIA | TE | 35 | 60.0% | 56.2% | 48.9% – 63.3% |
| 26 | Mason Taylor◦ provisional | NYJ | TE | 66 | 57.6% | 55.9% | 49.4% – 62.4% |
| 27 | John Bates◦ provisional | WAS | TE | 16 | 62.5% | 55.9% | 47.9% – 63.6% |
| 28 | Greg Dulcich◦ provisional | MIA | TE | 34 | 58.8% | 55.8% | 48.5% – 63.0% |
| 29 | Tyler Higbee◦ provisional | LA | TE | 36 | 58.3% | 55.7% | 48.4% – 62.9% |
| 30 | Mo Alie-Cox◦ provisional | IND | TE | 20 | 60.0% | 55.6% | 47.9% – 63.3% |
| 31 | Josh Oliver◦ provisional | MIN | TE | 20 | 60.0% | 55.6% | 47.9% – 63.3% |
| 32 | Luke Musgrave◦ provisional | GB | TE | 31 | 58.1% | 55.5% | 48.1% – 62.9% |
| 33 | Ben Sinnott◦ provisional | WAS | TE | 13 | 61.5% | 55.5% | 47.5% – 63.5% |
| 34 | Brock Bowers◦ provisional | LV | TE | 87 | 56.3% | 55.5% | 49.3% – 61.6% |
| 35 | Hunter Long◦ provisional | JAX | TE | 17 | 58.8% | 55.3% | 47.4% – 63.1% |
| 36 | Juwan Johnson | NO | TE | 102 | 55.9% | 55.3% | 49.4% – 61.2% |
| 37 | Tommy Tremble◦ provisional | CAR | TE | 37 | 56.8% | 55.3% | 48.0% – 62.4% |
| 38 | Noah Fant◦ provisional | CIN | TE | 41 | 56.1% | 55.1% | 48.0% – 62.2% |
| 39 | Kyle Pitts | ATL | TE | 119 | 55.5% | 55.1% | 49.5% – 60.7% |
| 40 | Mike Gesicki◦ provisional | CIN | TE | 43 | 55.8% | 55.0% | 47.9% – 62.1% |
| 41 | Luke Farrell◦ provisional | SF | TE | 14 | 57.1% | 55.0% | 47.0% – 62.9% |
| 42 | Pat Freiermuth◦ provisional | PIT | TE | 54 | 55.6% | 55.0% | 48.2% – 61.7% |
| 43 | Davis Allen◦ provisional | LA | TE | 33 | 54.5% | 54.6% | 47.3% – 61.9% |
| 44 | Tanner Hudson◦ provisional | CIN | TE | 24 | 54.2% | 54.6% | 46.9% – 62.1% |
| 45 | Grant Calcaterra◦ provisional | PHI | TE | 13 | 53.8% | 54.6% | 46.5% – 62.5% |
| 46 | Brevyn Spann-Ford◦ provisional | DAL | TE | 13 | 53.8% | 54.6% | 46.5% – 62.5% |
| 47 | John FitzPatrick◦ provisional | GB | TE | 15 | 53.3% | 54.5% | 46.5% – 62.4% |
| 48 | Julian Hill◦ provisional | MIA | TE | 21 | 52.4% | 54.2% | 46.5% – 61.9% |
| 49 | Isaiah Likely◦ provisional | BAL | TE | 36 | 52.8% | 54.1% | 46.9% – 61.4% |
| 50 | Cade Stover◦ provisional | HOU | TE | 16 | 50.0% | 54.0% | 46.0% – 61.8% |
| 51 | Brock Wright◦ provisional | DET | TE | 22 | 50.0% | 53.8% | 46.0% – 61.4% |
| 52 | Elijah Higgins◦ provisional | ARI | TE | 37 | 51.3% | 53.7% | 46.5% – 60.9% |
| 53 | Johnny Mundt◦ provisional | JAX | TE | 19 | 47.4% | 53.4% | 45.6% – 61.2% |
| 54 | Zach Ertz◦ provisional | WAS | TE | 73 | 50.7% | 52.9% | 46.5% – 59.3% |
| 55 | T.J. Hockenson◦ provisional | MIN | TE | 66 | 50.0% | 52.7% | 46.2% – 59.2% |
| 56 | Cole Kmet◦ provisional | CHI | TE | 49 | 49.0% | 52.7% | 45.7% – 59.6% |
| 57 | Mark Andrews◦ provisional | BAL | TE | 70 | 50.0% | 52.6% | 46.2% – 59.1% |
| 58 | Tanner Conner◦ provisional | MIA | TE | 15 | 40.0% | 52.6% | 44.6% – 60.5% |
| 59 | Ja'Tavion Sanders◦ provisional | CAR | TE | 34 | 47.1% | 52.6% | 45.3% – 59.9% |
| 60 | Luke Schoonmaker◦ provisional | DAL | TE | 23 | 43.5% | 52.4% | 44.7% – 60.1% |
| 61 | David Njoku◦ provisional | CLE | TE | 48 | 47.9% | 52.3% | 45.4% – 59.3% |
| 62 | Jeremy Ruckert◦ provisional | NYJ | TE | 29 | 44.8% | 52.3% | 44.8% – 59.8% |
| 63 | Taysom Hill◦ provisional | NO | TE | 16 | 37.5% | 52.1% | 44.2% – 60.0% |
| 64 | Will Dissly◦ provisional | LAC | TE | 16 | 37.5% | 52.1% | 44.2% – 60.0% |
| 65 | Drew Sample◦ provisional | CIN | TE | 20 | 40.0% | 52.0% | 44.2% – 59.8% |
| 66 | Elijah Arroyo◦ provisional | SEA | TE | 26 | 42.3% | 51.9% | 44.3% – 59.5% |
| 67 | Cade Otton◦ provisional | TB | TE | 82 | 48.8% | 51.9% | 45.6% – 58.1% |
| 68 | Michael Mayer◦ provisional | LV | TE | 50 | 46.0% | 51.6% | 44.7% – 58.5% |
| 69 | Jonnu Smith◦ provisional | PIT | TE | 55 | 45.5% | 51.2% | 44.4% – 58.0% |
| 70 | Gunnar Helm◦ provisional | TEN | TE | 55 | 45.5% | 51.2% | 44.4% – 58.0% |
| 71 | Tyler Warren | IND | TE | 114 | 48.3% | 51.1% | 45.4% – 56.8% |
| 72 | Jake Ferguson | DAL | TE | 103 | 47.6% | 50.9% | 45.0% – 56.8% |
| 73 | Terrance Ferguson◦ provisional | LA | TE | 25 | 36.0% | 50.6% | 43.0% – 58.3% |
| 74 | Chig Okonkwo◦ provisional | TEN | TE | 79 | 44.3% | 49.9% | 43.6% – 56.1% |
| 75 | Noah Gray◦ provisional | KC | TE | 38 | 34.2% | 48.6% | 41.4% – 55.9% |
| 76 | Theo Johnson◦ provisional | NYG | TE | 74 | 40.5% | 48.3% | 42.0% – 54.7% |
| 77 | Harold Fannin Jr. | CLE | TE | 108 | 41.7% | 47.6% | 41.8% – 53.4% |
| 78 | Evan Engram◦ provisional | DEN | TE | 77 | 39.0% | 47.5% | 41.2% – 53.8% |
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).