Cam Skattebo

The claim here is games, not rate: 14.0 of them against the 11.7 the model wanted. 14.8 carries and 4.5 targets is the workload, and availability is the only thing I'm arguing about.

Games set to 14.0, the claim the 6 Aug override actually meant. Its reason read 'Games set to 14 (model said 11.7)' and the games never moved, because he is healthy and avail_flat 0.471 put the ceiling below his current projection -- so 184.9 landed as 15.80/g, the 4th-best rate in the league. His 14.46/g, which is exactly what he produced as a rookie, is left alone and the games now say what was meant. avail_flat is a true record of nine weeks on IR; this is a bet that a rookie's injury year does not forecast, which is a view and is labelled one. Re-read 3 Sep: no sign of falsification. Games claim still 14.0, rate 12.45/g against his own 14.46 half-PPR/g, and the board sits RB19 against ADP RB18 and ECR RB19 -- level with both markets. BASIS CORRECTED 3 SEP. The comparison above originally quoted `obs_ppr_pg`, which is FULL PPR, against a projection the board computes in HALF PPR. Every such figure in this file has been replaced with the player's own half-PPR rate, measured from nflverse weekly data over his whole career. Receptions are the whole difference, so the error scaled with target volume and was largest for receivers.

This is a view, not a correction — the model said something different and was overruled. See how it works.

Pace extrapolates the selected weeks over 17 games. It is what that stretch was worth, not a projection — no availability, matchup or regression adjustment is applied.