Week 4 waivers, 2026. The run after Week 3's games. What players cost off waivers across the member leagues whose results we have, and how close our recommended bids came. Updated every Wednesday after waivers process.
Every week we have published · the historical market
Overall: B (6.8 points missed)
Key players: D (17.5 points missed)
Last week: Overall D (16.3 points missed), Key players C (11.1).
Each of our three bids makes a promise: P60 should win 60% of the players somebody else also bids on, P75 75%, P90 90%. Winning up to 5 points more than the promise counts as on target, because we would rather overpay than lose the player. Below the promise, every point counts. Above that band, only the extra counts.
Overall checks each promise separately for our low, middle and high bids, across every contested claim our board priced. A claim counts as contested when the winner paid at least $1 and another team also bid at least $1: a $0 bid never competes, because $1 beats it. This week grades the player-specific bid each card leads with.
Key players are the players our leagues bid on hardest this week: 3 or more managers bidding in at least 15% of our leagues, at a median winning bid of 15% of budget or more (quarterbacks counted only in superflex and two-QB leagues). Each player is graded separately: how often our P60 bid would have won that player, against the same 60% to 65% target. Every player counts the same.
| Player | P60 won | Contested claims | Points missed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ollie Gordon RB | 32% | 308 | 27.9 |
| Braelon Allen RB | 72% | 158 | 7.2 |
Grading scale, in points missed: A under 5, B under 10, C under 15, D under 25, F at 25 or more. Overall is measured on 1,260 contested claims (re-graded Oct 23 under our current rule, the one every week now uses; before that this page read B, 7.7 points missed on 1,549 claims). How we grade, and every change to it.
De'Von Achane tore his ACL against the Chiefs, and our leagues had to guess who replaces him. Jaylen Wright went into the year as his backup, but he missed that game with a foot injury and a stinger. So Ollie Gordon got the role: 61 of 73 snaps and 20 touches. Gordon went for a median 35% of budget in 312 of our leagues. Wright went for 9.5% in 205. Wright is back at limited practice and questionable for Sunday.
We went back through every case like this in our member leagues since 2020, 28 in all, to answer two questions. When does the market bet on the wrong backup? And does Miami look like one of those times?
Most of the time, the market gets it right. Its favorite was the best pickup, or within 5 points of him, in 20 of 28 cases. But five times it missed badly: a cheaper back outscored the favorite by 15 half-PPR points or more over the next three games. Khalil Herbert over Damien Williams in 2021. D'Onta Foreman over Roschon Johnson in 2023. Darrell Henderson over Zach Evans in 2023. Kareem Hunt over Carson Steele in 2024. Kimani Vidal over Hassan Haskins in 2025.
Those five have two things in common.
First, the favorite had not taken the job yet. In all five, he played a third of the snaps or less in the game the starter went down. The market was paying for a guess. When the favorite had already played at least half the snaps that day, the market never missed badly: 0 of 10.
Second, a back with better draft capital was sitting there. In four of the five, the better player was the higher draft pick. When a better-drafted back was available, the market missed badly in 4 of 11 cases. When none was, 1 of 17. As a simple rule, taking the best-drafted backup found the best pickup, or came within 5 points of him, in 23 of 28 cases, against 20 for the market's favorite. Much of that edge comes from veterans signed to the practice squad after the injury: Adrian Peterson in 2021, Henderson in 2023 and Hunt in 2024. Henderson and Hunt were going back to the teams that drafted them.
Put the two together. When the favorite played under half the snaps and a better-drafted back was on the table, the market missed badly in 4 of 8 cases.
Now Miami. On the surface, Gordon looks like the safe favorite: he took 84% of the snaps, and favorites who had already taken the snaps never missed badly in our history. But look at why he took them.
Wright was the backup the Dolphins planned on. He was listed as the RB2, ahead of Gordon, on Miami's first preseason depth chart this summer. Last year the two split the backup work almost exactly: 70 carries each, with 9 targets each. Wright got more out of them, 288 rushing yards to Gordon's 199, or 4.1 yards a carry against 2.8. Gordon only had the backup job early in 2025 because Wright missed the first six games after a knee procedure. Once Wright was back, he out-carried Gordon 70 to 47 the rest of the way. In Week 14 against the Jets, he played more snaps than Achane and ran for 107 yards on 24 carries. In the final week, with Achane out, Wright out-snapped Gordon 46% to 36%.
So Gordon's 84% may say more about who was healthy on Sunday than about how Miami ranks its backs. The market treated the snaps as a promotion. They may just have been an opening.
Miami matches our misses on one signal, draft capital: Wright was a fourth-round pick in 2024, Gordon a sixth-rounder in 2025. It does not match on the other, because Gordon took the snaps. And the closest case in our history favors Gordon. In Arizona in 2023, the favorite, Emari Demercado, played 77% of the snaps after the starter went down, while the better-drafted Keaontay Ingram sat out that game. Demercado outscored him 20 to 8. The case for Wright does not come from our history. It comes from Miami's own usage last year, and from the back listed ahead of Gordon in preseason not being on the field Sunday.
Our call: Gordon has the job this week, but Wright is the better bet for the price. At 9.5% of budget against 35%, a split backfield, which is what Miami had last year, would likely be enough to make Wright the better buy. If Wright plays Sunday, watch the snap split. In five of our eight cases where the favorite was outscored, the other back was already ahead after one game. We will report back after three games.
How we measured it: every case in our member leagues' history, 2020 to 2025, where a team's lead back, with at least 55% of the backfield's touches, missed two or more games. At least 20 of our leagues bid on one of his backups, and the winners paid a median of at least 10% of budget. The favorite is the backup with the highest median winning bid. Scoring is half-PPR over the next three games. 28 cases is a small sample, so read the smaller splits as leans.
Ranked by how many leagues saw two or more managers bid on the same player. That is a different list from the most-claimed players: half of week-one bids are for nothing, and a free add is not a contested claim. Team defenses are left out here; they are in the full table below.
Ollie Gordon RB
Wanted in 380 leagues. 343 of those turned into a real auction with two or more managers bidding. The winner paid 35.1% of budget, and had to go 10.0% past the next-best offer. Half the winning bids landed between 21.0% and 55.1%, so the market did not agree. 0% of the leagues that won paid nothing at all.
Bar: how often the bid won. White tick: what it promised.
Braelon Allen RB
Wanted in 204 leagues. 177 of those turned into a real auction with two or more managers bidding. The winner paid 25.0% of budget, and had to go 6.2% past the next-best offer. Half the winning bids landed between 15.0% and 32.9%, so the market did not agree. 3% of the leagues that won paid nothing at all.
Bar: how often the bid won. White tick: what it promised.
Jaylen Wright RB
Wanted in 247 leagues. 161 of those turned into a real auction with two or more managers bidding. The winner paid 9.0% of budget, and had to go 5.0% past the next-best offer. Half the winning bids landed between 5.0% and 16.7%, so the market did not agree. 5% of the leagues that won paid nothing at all.
Bar: how often the bid won. White tick: what it promised.
Kalif Raymond WR
Wanted in 228 leagues. 134 of those turned into a real auction with two or more managers bidding. The winner paid 8.0% of budget, and had to go 4.0% past the next-best offer. Half the winning bids landed between 5.0% and 14.0%, so the market did not agree. 8% of the leagues that won paid nothing at all.
Bar: how often the bid won. White tick: what it promised.
Kenyon Sadiq TE
Wanted in 177 leagues. 128 of those turned into a real auction with two or more managers bidding. The winner paid 13.5% of budget, and had to go 5.0% past the next-best offer. Half the winning bids landed between 6.1% and 21.0%, so the market did not agree. 4% of the leagues that won paid nothing at all.
Bar: how often the bid won. White tick: what it promised.
Before you bid, the board gives you a price at each of three rungs. P60 is built to win 60% of the players somebody else is also bidding on; P75 and P90 are the same idea at higher confidence.
Only claims where two or more managers bid. A bid counts as a win when it would have beaten the manager who actually won, by a dollar.
Our P60 bid ran between 10% and 26% of budget across these rows. What players actually took to win ran from 3% to 33%. This table groups players by what they ended up costing, which nobody knows until waivers run. A player lands in the top row because someone bid big, so no bid made in advance wins most of those. It shows where the money went, not whether our number was right. Grouped by what our P60 said instead, it won 41% when it said under 8% of budget and 62% when it said 22% or more, against a 60% promise.
When our P60 did win a contested claim, it overpaid a median 9.0% of budget over what it took. Our target is a max of 5%: a small overpay beats losing the player, but it should not be more than that.
| What it took to win | Claims | What our P60 bid | How often P60 would have won |
|---|---|---|---|
| under 5% of budget | 110 | 10% | 95% |
| 5% to 10% of budget | 247 | 16% | 89% |
| 10% to 20% of budget | 317 | 19% | 75% |
| 20% or more of budget | 586 | 26% | 31% |
Every card leads with one number: the minimum bid when we expect nobody else to bid, or P60 when we expect other managers to bid. This is how often that call was right. It is not part of the grade yet.
| What happened | Card led with P60 | Card led with the minimum | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Someone else bid too1,260 claims | 93%right: led with P60 | 7%wrong: led with the minimum and lost | ||
| Nobody else bid1,902 claims | 62%wrong: overpaid a median 16% | 38%right: the minimum won it |
| Promise | How often it woncontested claims | What we saidshare of budget | What it tookshare of budget | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P601,260 claims | 60%promised | 59%-1% vs the promise | 21.0%what we said | 18.0%3.0% high |
| P751,260 claims | 75%promised | 78%+3% vs the promise | 32.0%what we said | 18.0%14.0% high |
| P90121 claims | 90%promised | 90%+0% vs the promise | 45.0%what we said | 17.5%27.5% high |
P90 was shown on far fewer players than P60, so it has fewer claims to score. Grey cells are too thin to count toward the grade.
Every card now leads with a player-specific bid. It adjusts your league's price for how widely a player is rostered across the country, how often he is being added, and player sentiment. The previous method, the same price for every player at a position, is still shown beneath it. Both are graded here on the same contested claims, with the same rules.
| Grade | P60 wonoverall | P60 wonlow bids | P60 wonhigh bids | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New method: player-specific | Bmissed by 7 points | 59%of 1,260 contested claims | 41%when it said under 8% | 62%when it said 22% or more |
| Previous method: same price per position | Dmissed by 17 points | 47%of 1,260 contested claims | 38%when it said under 8% | 56%when it said 22% or more |
Our grade this week is a B. Our bids missed their promise by an average of 7.8 points. Last week sat right on the line between C and D, at 14.4, and we called it a D. This is the first week we have graded better than that.
Every card now leads with a player-specific bid. It moves your league's price with how widely a player is rostered across the fantasy universe, how often he is being added, and player sentiment. The old bid, the same price for every player at a position, is still shown beneath it. On the same 1,402 contested claims, both graded a B. The new P60 won 66% of them against a 60% promise. The old one won 57%.
So the new method alone does not explain the better grade. The market moved too. 54% of running back claims drew two or more bidders, against 22% in a typical week like this one. The winning RB bid was a median 18% of budget, against 5.3%.
Our biggest miss was the most-wanted player of the week. Ollie Gordon was wanted in 312 leagues and turned into a real auction in 281 of them. The winner paid a median 35% of budget. Our P60 said 26% and won 34% of the time. Even our P90, at 54.7%, won only 77%. For Ollie Gordon, our number sat too low.
Two things are next.
First, what we pay when we win. When our P60 won a contested claim, it paid a median 10% of budget more than it took. Our target is about 5%. A small overpay beats losing the player, but this is twice that.
Second, calling which players will draw competing bids. When nobody else bid, our card often still led with P60, and following it meant paying for a player the minimum would have won.
Last week's page has been re-scored with the private leagues that came in late. It moved from 14.5 to 14.4 points missed, on 1,139 contested claims instead of 1,088. We are keeping it a D. From now on, every page gets that re-score the following Wednesday.
Measured across 447 FAABFAX member leagues whose waiver results we have for this run. Private leagues reach us only when a member refreshes from their own browser, usually about a week later. This page was re-scored the following Wednesday to include the ones that arrived late. Aggregates only. No league, team or manager is named anywhere on this page, and a player appears only when at least 5 leagues bid on them.
Prices are shares of budget, not dollars. Leagues run different budgets. A $50 bid in a $100 league and a $500 bid in a $1,000 league are the same bid, and both show here as 50%. That is the only way to put every league in one table.
Two different prices, and the gap between them matters. "A typical bid" is the middle of every offer made on that player, winners and losers together. "The winning bid" is what the manager who won actually paid, so it sits at the top of that range by definition. When the two are far apart, a few managers wanted that player badly and the rest did not.
"Won by" is the winning bid minus the next-highest bid. It needs the losing bids to exist at all, and it tells you something the winning bid alone cannot: whether the winner had to stretch. A small gap means everyone agreed on the price. A big gap means the winner could have paid less and still won.
| Player | Leaguesthat bid | A typical bidshare of budget | The winning bidshare of budget | Won byover the next-best bid | Two or more bidders |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ollie GordonRB | 3801,623 bids | 18.0%middle of all bids | 35.1%21.0% to 55.1% | 10.0%in 338 auctions with a clear winner | 90%of those leagues |
| Braelon AllenRB | 204752 bids | 14.0%middle of all bids | 25.0%15.0% to 32.9% | 6.2%in 172 auctions with a clear winner | 87%of those leagues |
| Kenyon SadiqTE | 177483 bids | 9.0%middle of all bids | 13.5%6.1% to 21.0% | 5.0%in 127 auctions with a clear winner | 72%of those leagues |
| Jaylen WrightRB | 247579 bids | 6.0%middle of all bids | 9.0%5.0% to 16.7% | 5.0%in 153 auctions with a clear winner | 65%of those leagues |
| Kalif RaymondWR | 228484 bids | 5.0%middle of all bids | 8.0%5.0% to 14.0% | 4.0%in 126 auctions with a clear winner | 59%of those leagues |
| Kendre MillerRB | 170303 bids | 3.0%middle of all bids | 5.0%2.8% to 8.7% | 1.0%in 68 auctions with a clear winner | 47%of those leagues |
| Keenan AllenWR | 165327 bids | 4.0%middle of all bids | 5.0%2.5% to 8.0% | 2.0%in 85 auctions with a clear winner | 53%of those leagues |
| Keaton MitchellRB | 91179 bids | 3.1%middle of all bids | 5.5%1.8% to 10.2% | 2.0%in 40 auctions with a clear winner | 48%of those leagues |
| Jalon DanielsQB | 50104 bids | 4.8%middle of all bids | 9.2%2.8% to 15.5% | 9.7%in 24 auctions with a clear winner | 50%of those leagues |
| Sam DarnoldQB | 76114 bids | 4.3%middle of all bids | 6.0%2.0% to 10.0% | 5.0%in 27 auctions with a clear winner | 37%of those leagues |
| Alvin KamaraRB | 69140 bids | 5.0%middle of all bids | 6.0%3.2% to 12.8% | 3.0%in 35 auctions with a clear winner | 58%of those leagues |
| Wan'Dale RobinsonWR | 5784 bids | 4.0%middle of all bids | 6.0%3.0% to 12.0% | 3.0%in 19 auctions with a clear winner | 39%of those leagues |
| Chris BellWR | 102166 bids | 2.0%middle of all bids | 3.0%1.0% to 5.0% | 0.0%in 28 auctions with a clear winner | 35%of those leagues |
| Baltimore RavensDEF | 123287 bids | 2.0%middle of all bids | 2.4%1.0% to 5.0% | 1.0%in 85 auctions with a clear winner | 70%of those leagues |
| Jordan AddisonWR | 2647 bids | 7.8%middle of all bids | 11.0%4.8% to 17.1% | 8.6%in 10 auctions with a clear winner | 42%of those leagues |
| Saquon BarkleyRB | 652 bids | 17.1%middle of all bids | 46.5%35.0% to 49.6% | 12.1%in 6 auctions with a clear winner | 100%of those leagues |
| Konata MumpfieldWR | 6887 bids | 3.5%middle of all bids | 4.0%1.0% to 10.0% | 3.0%in 10 auctions with a clear winner | 18%of those leagues |
| Josh AllenQB | 544 bids | 19.6%middle of all bids | 50.1%50.1% to 62.5% | 12.3%in 5 auctions with a clear winner | 100%of those leagues |
| Jakobi MeyersWR | 49108 bids | 5.0%middle of all bids | 5.0%3.0% to 9.8% | 1.8%in 28 auctions with a clear winner | 63%of those leagues |
| Chase BrownRB | 558 bids | 22.9%middle of all bids | 39.8%35.0% to 42.6% | 4.4%in 5 auctions with a clear winner | 100%of those leagues |
| Denzel BostonWR | 1644 bids | 5.5%middle of all bids | 11.8%7.6% to 24.5% | 7.0%in 7 auctions with a clear winner | 56%of those leagues |
| Tyler HigbeeTE | 6078 bids | 2.9%middle of all bids | 3.0%0.1% to 5.9% | 3.1%in 10 auctions with a clear winner | 17%of those leagues |
| Emanuel WilsonRB | 4368 bids | 3.0%middle of all bids | 4.0%0.5% to 8.7% | 2.0%in 12 auctions with a clear winner | 40%of those leagues |
| Justin JeffersonWR | 540 bids | 21.1%middle of all bids | 33.1%30.5% to 37.6% | 5.6%in 5 auctions with a clear winner | 100%of those leagues |
| Malik WashingtonWR | 4661 bids | 2.5%middle of all bids | 3.5%0.3% to 7.0% | 1.3%in 8 auctions with a clear winner | 20%of those leagues |
| Isaiah DavisRB | 5189 bids | 0.2%middle of all bids | 3.0%0.8% to 6.8% | 0.3%in 13 auctions with a clear winner | 37%of those leagues |
| Adonai MitchellWR | 3863 bids | 1.0%middle of all bids | 3.8%1.0% to 7.8% | 0.5%in 6 auctions with a clear winner | 26%of those leagues |
| J.J. McCarthyQB | 1517 bids | 9.0%middle of all bids | 9.5%0.7% to 24.2% | 8.4%in 1 auction with a clear winner | 7%of those leagues |
| Juwan JohnsonTE | 3271 bids | 4.0%middle of all bids | 4.2%1.3% to 13.5% | 5.0%in 17 auctions with a clear winner | 53%of those leagues |
| Darren WallerTE | 98122 bids | 1.0%middle of all bids | 1.3%0.0% to 5.0% | 0.4%in 17 auctions with a clear winner | 20%of those leagues |
| Pittsburgh SteelersDEF | 79156 bids | 1.0%middle of all bids | 1.6%1.0% to 3.0% | 1.0%in 43 auctions with a clear winner | 56%of those leagues |
| Chicago BearsDEF | 115154 bids | 0.5%middle of all bids | 1.0%0.0% to 2.5% | 0.0%in 29 auctions with a clear winner | 29%of those leagues |
| Roman WilsonWR | 4675 bids | 0.3%middle of all bids | 2.5%0.0% to 6.0% | 0.6%in 14 auctions with a clear winner | 37%of those leagues |
| Brian RobinsonRB | 5190 bids | 1.1%middle of all bids | 2.2%1.0% to 6.0% | 3.5%in 12 auctions with a clear winner | 31%of those leagues |
| Buffalo BillsDEF | 108158 bids | 0.5%middle of all bids | 1.0%0.0% to 2.0% | 1.0%in 36 auctions with a clear winner | 36%of those leagues |
| Michael PenixQB | 2333 bids | 0.5%middle of all bids | 4.5%1.0% to 10.2% | 6.2%in 6 auctions with a clear winner | 30%of those leagues |
| MarShawn LloydRB | 2046 bids | 0.6%middle of all bids | 5.0%0.6% to 6.5% | 1.0%in 8 auctions with a clear winner | 45%of those leagues |
| Bryce YoungQB | 1930 bids | 3.4%middle of all bids | 4.8%0.4% to 15.0% | 1.5%in 4 auctions with a clear winner | 26%of those leagues |
| Las Vegas RaidersDEF | 6885 bids | 1.0%middle of all bids | 1.3%0.0% to 5.2% | 0.5%in 13 auctions with a clear winner | 21%of those leagues |
| Chig OkonkwoTE | 59 bids | 0.0%middle of all bids | 18.0%9.0% to 21.0% | no rival bidwent unopposed | 40%of those leagues |
Each number is this week against a typical week like it: the same week in 2024 and 2025, from public leagues, weighted to match our mix of superflex and one-QB leagues.
"Two or more bidders" is how often a player drew a real auction instead of being picked up for nothing. When that share rises, people are panicking. "Won by" is how far above the next-best bid the winner landed. A small number means everyone agreed on the price. A big one means the winner could have paid less and still won. "Paid double" is how often the winner bid at least twice the next-highest bid.
| Two or more biddersshare of players | Typical winning bidshare of budget | Won byabove the next-best bid | Paid doubleor more than the next bid | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Every position5,947 players | 38%+85% vs baseline | 8.5%+55% vs baseline | 3.0%+0% vs baseline | 26%+1% vs baseline |
| RB1,852 players | 54%+140% vs baseline | 18.0%+227% vs baseline | 5.0%+67% vs baseline | 26%-15% vs baseline |
| WR1,562 players | 35%+36% vs baseline | 7.0%-23% vs baseline | 2.0%-50% vs baseline | 25%+4% vs baseline |
| QB674 players | 24%+74% vs baseline | 7.5%+56% vs baseline | 3.4%+13% vs baseline | 33%+40% vs baseline |
| TE630 players | 36%+92% vs baseline | 11.3%+126% vs baseline | 3.0%+50% vs baseline | 28%+18% vs baseline |
In a superflex league a quarterback can also fill the flex spot, so teams need more of them. We keep those leagues apart from one-QB leagues so a quarterback price is never a blend of the two.
| League type | QB priceshare of budget | Two or more bidders |
|---|---|---|
| Superflex104 leagues, 23% of them | 11.0%typical winning QB bid | 29%of QB claims |
| Two-QB7 leagues, 2% of them | 5.5%typical winning QB bid | 33%of QB claims |
| One-QB336 leagues, 75% of them | 6.0%typical winning QB bid | 22%of QB claims |
| Quarterback | Superflexwinning bid | One-QBwinning bid |
|---|---|---|
| Jalon Daniels | 10.0%in 41 leagues | 4.0%in 7 leagues |
| Michael Penix | 9.3%in 12 leagues | 3.8%in 10 leagues |
More claims were contested than usual. 38% of claims had two or more bidders, against 21% in a typical week like this one (+85%).
Winning bids ran higher than usual: a median of 8.5% of budget against 5.5%.
RB drew more competition than usual: 54% of RB claims had two or more bidders, against 22% in a typical week (+140%). The winning RB bid was a median 18.0% of budget, against 5.5%.
WR drew more competition than usual: 35% of WR claims had two or more bidders, against 26% in a typical week (+36%). The winning WR bid was a median 7.0% of budget, against 9.0%.
Our P60 bid was too low for cheap players and on target for expensive ones. When it said under 8% of budget it won 41% of contested claims, and those players took a median 6.0%. When it said 22% or more it won 62%, and those took a median 27.3%.
Our card led with the contested price on 1,187 claims that ended up drawing a single bidder. The minimum bid would have won every one, so following our number there cost a median 15.7% of budget for nothing.