Waiver Wizard publishes fantasy football analysis that people use to make decisions about their own teams. This page documents how that analysis is produced, where our data comes from, what we do when we get something wrong, and where automation is involved.
Six things. Guides are evergreen references on the mechanics and fundamentals of fantasy football — how FAAB works, how to read a depth chart, how to approach a draft. Blog posts are timely analysis tied to what is actually happening in the NFL — roster moves, contract news, waiver wire strategy, and season-long roster construction. Deep dives are daily, single-player arguments: one specific, falsifiable claim about one player, with the evidence for it. The Board is our weekly ranked top ten, ordered from our internal rankings rather than written to a conclusion. Daily digests round up the day's NFL news — injuries, roster moves, and the usage changes that matter on a waiver wire — on the days there is enough of it to be worth your time. Draft coverage graded every pick of the 2026 NFL Draft on team fit and fantasy implications; it is complete coverage of a finished event rather than a running surface.
Every article carries the byline of the desk responsible for that beat — Jordan Voss for blog posts, Sam Whitfield for guides, and Waiver Wizard Editorial Team for the deep dives, the Board rankings and the daily digests. You can see who covers what on the editorial team page.
Those first two are desk names, not individual people, and we would rather tell you that plainly than let you assume otherwise. Work published under them is researched, written, and edited with a person in the loop. The deep dives, Board rankings and daily digests have no individual writer at all — they are drafted by an automated pipeline, so they carry the team byline instead of a personal one and every one of them displays an AI-assistance label next to the byline. Editorial responsibility for all of it rests with Fantasy Sports Analytics LLC.
Claims that depend on reporting are linked to the reporting, inline, at the point the claim is made. Every article ends with a sources list naming each outlet we relied on. We link to the original source wherever one exists rather than to an aggregator that reported it second.
We do not publish statistics we cannot attribute. If a number appears in an article without a source, that is an error and we want to hear about it.
Player teams, ages, experience levels, and depth chart positions are read from a reference table that is rebuilt every morning from live league data — not from a list maintained by hand. This matters more than it sounds like it should. Hand-maintained roster notes go stale silently: a player gets traded, nobody updates the file, and months later an article confidently places him on the wrong team.
Rows that stop refreshing are automatically dropped from that reference rather than allowed to sit frozen, so a player who is released, retires, or goes on season-ending injured reserve stops being available as grounding data instead of quietly persisting at whatever his status was on his last active day.
Guides and blog posts are written and reviewed by the editor whose byline they carry before publication.
Daily deep dives go through an automated accuracy review before publication. Every draft is checked against the reference data described above — team, position, experience, and depth chart role for every player named, not just the article's subject — and any article that fails is not published that day. A failed check alerts us rather than silently skipping.
We hold our published opinions to a standard of consistency: we record the position taken in each published article, and a later article may disagree with our own rankings but may not quietly reverse a stance we have already published without saying so.
We think readers are entitled to know how what they are reading was made, so:
Guides and blog posts are researched and written by our editors.
Deep dives, the Board rankings and the daily digests are AI-assisted. They are produced by an automated pipeline that researches the subject, drafts the argument, and submits it to the automated accuracy review described above. No individual writer is credited on them because there is no individual writer: they carry the Waiver Wizard Editorial Team byline and a visible AI-assistance label, and editorial responsibility for them rests with Fantasy Sports Analytics LLC.
We publish them because the underlying analysis is grounded in real data and held to a check that blocks publication on failure — and we would rather tell you plainly how they are made than leave you to guess.
When we get something wrong, we fix it and we say that we fixed it. Our corrections policy explains how to report an error and what we do with it.
Outbound links to other outlets are editorial citations. We link to a source because we relied on it, not because we were paid to.
Waiver Wizard makes money from subscriptions. Our free tier and our paid tier differ in what they offer, and that commercial reality is disclosed openly on our pricing page. No advertiser, sponsor, or commercial partner reviews or approves editorial content before publication, and no article is written to promote a third party.
We do not publish betting advice or picks. Some of our analysis references market data such as futures markets or draft position markets, because those markets are useful sources of aggregated expectation — but they are cited as evidence about player expectations, not as a recommendation to wager. Fantasy football involves judgment and uncertainty, and nothing on this site is a guarantee of any outcome. See our disclaimer.
Questions about this policy, or about how a specific article was produced, can go to jordan@fantasywaiverwizard.com or through our contact page.