Loading…
Loading…
Writes at The Pat McAfee Show (podcast)
Across 2 graded calls in 2 articles, Dan Orlovsky scores 50% accuracy and a MissedTakes Score of 0, which means their calls were no better than a naive guess on the same claims.
That is a provisional record, fewer than ten graded articles, so the numbers are not yet meaningful and they are not ranked on the leaderboard.
How accurate are NFL experts overall? →
Every number here is computed from the published methodology, and every call below opens to its own arithmetic.
All 18 calls · one square per call
1hits50% of graded
1misses50%
16waitingnot graded yet
How much better than a naive guess on the same claims. This is the ranking.
No kind has five graded calls yet, so none is rated.
2 graded calls in 2 articles, newest first. Every take from Dan Orlovsky, including the ones still waiting →
Game calls show that game’s closing betting line under their grade: a dated fact from nflverse, for context and never part of a grade. MissedTakes takes no bets and earns nothing from any sportsbook.
The same 87, by how often their calls landed, with no credit for difficulty.
Dan Orlovsky isn’t ranked yet: a record is ranked from 10 graded articles, so a lucky first handful can’t top the table.
Seattle Seahawks to beat Chicago
“Seahawks favored by three favorites have done well this weekend. What do you expect tonight, Daniel? Yeah. I like Seattle at home.”
Closing line (Nov 2): Seahawks by 3 · favorite pick, Seahawks 60%.
Los Angeles Rams to beat Giants
“Then I would say Giants covering, right, they would lose by less than a touchdown? Yes. Yeah. I'd say that. But I still think the Rams found a way to win the game.”
Closing line (Sep 21): Rams by 6.5 · favorite pick, Rams 72%. Graded on who won, not on the spread.