For the complete documentation index, see llms.txt. Markdown variants of the ranked boards (dynasty and fantasy rankings for NFL, NBA, MLB and CFB) are available by appending.mdto those URLs or by sendingAccept: text/markdown; other pages answer 404.
This page's interactive half has not started on this device. Nothing was read, and nothing was invented in its place. Reload the page.
This page's interactive half has not started on this device. Nothing was read, and nothing was invented in its place. Reload the page.
polling · 300s tick · as of 2:04 PM ET · 15 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2022 Week 13 · Sun, Dec 4, 2022 · MetLife Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2022 Week 13
It turned at OT 0:37, 4th and 5 — 79.0 win-probability points to the Commanders on one snap, the largest move of the game.
A 20–20 tie. Biggest swing: OT 0:37, Commanders +79.0% win probability on one snap.
The snaps that bent it
The biggest swing of the game · OT 0:37 · 4th and 5
Unnamed on the sheet
Commanders
(:37) 5-T.Way punts 48 yards to NYG 37, Center-54-C.Cheeseman. 80-R.James ran ob at NYG 43 for 6 yards (39-J.Reaves; 51-D.Mayo).
79.0
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Running the ball
Commanders owned this one and still lost it — +0.10 expected points per carry, against Giants at -0.32 expected points per carry.
Commandersthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Red zone
Giants owned this one and still lost it — 2 touchdowns on 3 trips, against Commanders at 1 touchdown on 3 trips.
Giantsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Explosive plays
Commanders owned this one and still lost it — 8 chunk plays, against Giants at 5 chunk plays.
Commandersthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Every snap
Commanders owned this one and still lost it — +0.04 expected points per snap, against Giants at -0.10 expected points per snap.
Commandersthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Who won it for them
What it says about next week
Note
The model against the market, the momentum underneath, every drive — scrub to replay it
The model and the market were 7.9 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 17 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Giants.
(:37) 5-T.Way punts 48 yards to NYG 37, Center-54-C.Cheeseman. 80-R.James ran ob at NYG 43 for 6 yards (39-J.Reaves; 51-D.Mayo).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Neither side got further than 10 clear, and 8 scores later it was still level.
8 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Commanderscategory by categoryGiants
Giants ahead 5–3 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — red-zone touchdowns.
Expected points added, per play
The centre line is an average play. A bar to the right of it is a side that gained more than the situation was worth; a bar to the left is a side that lost ground. All six bars share one scale, ±0.35 points.
Every snapexpected points added per play, all downs
Dropping backexpected points added per dropback
Running itexpected points added per rush
Neither side “wins” volume or play-calling mix, so neither is drawn as a duel: Commanders ran 81 snaps at a 58% dropback rate against Giants’s 62 at 61%. Red-zone trips: Commanders 3, Giants 3.
Commanders won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.04 expected points added per play vs -0.10.
Derived from the play-by-play, no model
11 of 12 readings cleared their snap floor and were tested against four comparisons: this week's whole slate, the team's own season, the week before, and the team's own ordinary spread. Every bar below is set in that team's own week-to-week swing, never in league points — one team's swing runs 1.6 to 3.1 times the entire league's spread.
2 of 12 readings cleared their snap floor in this game, which is under the three this column needs before it will draw the rule. The readings themselves stand.
NYG's play-action rate turned over: 41.7% in week 12 against 15.8% here — they faked the run then and dropped back clean now, a turn of 2.1 of their own weekly swings across the two.
38 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 12.2 points. · −0.7σ from their own normal
WAS's play-action rate turned over: 43.5% in week 12 against 12.8% here — they faked the run then and dropped back clean now, a turn of 2.6 of their own weekly swings across the two.
47 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 12.0 points. · −0.7σ from their own normal
The season-grain rooms, pointed at this one game
11 of 12 readings cleared their snap floor. Every deviation below is measured in that team's own game-to-game swing, not in league points — because one game's swing runs from 1.6 to 3.1 times the whole league's spread.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -29 pts to 16 pts
Over Expected room →Commanders-8.5 ptsright on their number · −0.9 vs their -7.6 pts, and they swing ±8.4 week to week (−0.11× that swing) · 81 snaps
Giants-7.5 ptsright on their number · −1.7 vs their -5.8 pts, and they swing ±8.5 week to week (−0.20× that swing) · 62 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 12% to 86%
Tendencies room →Commanders53.0%right on their number · +4.0 vs their 49.1%, and they swing ±14.4 week to week (+0.28× that swing) · 66 early downs
Giants55.1%right on their number · +3.2 vs their 51.9%, and they swing ±12.8 week to week (+0.25× that swing) · 49 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -10% to 56%
Tendencies room →Commanders12.8%inside their normal wobble · −8.0 vs their 20.7%, and they swing ±12.0 week to week (−0.66× that swing) · 47 dropbacks
Giants15.8%inside their normal wobble · −8.9 vs their 24.7%, and they swing ±12.2 week to week (−0.73× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -36% to 107%
Fourth Down room →Commanders25.0%right on their number · −10.3 vs their 35.3%, and they swing ±28.1 week to week (−0.37× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
Giants—Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 24.3%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -6% to 70%
Tendencies room →Commanders23.7%right on their number · +2.6 vs their 21.0%, and they swing ±10.0 week to week (+0.26× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
Giants40.4%right on their number · +0.6 vs their 39.8%, and they swing ±11.2 week to week (+0.05× that swing) · 47 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -6% to 44%
Tendencies room →Commanders10.5%inside their normal wobble · −8.3 vs their 18.8%, and they swing ±9.8 week to week (−0.84× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
Giants25.5%leaned — got home · +8.7 vs their 16.8%, and they swing ±8.5 week to week (+1.03× that swing) · 47 dropbacks
NYG's sack or hit rate was the night's one real departure: 25.5%, 8.7 points above their season mean of 16.8% and 1.0 times their own 8.5-point weekly swing.
Who was out, who dressed and never took a snap, and who was on the field how much. Game-day list and snap counts from the weekly roster and snap feeds. Practice-squad and injured-reserve players are not shown — they were never on the game-day list.
Washington Commanders
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
New York Giants
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Who moved the needle
Passing · WAS
27/41, 275 yds, 2 TD, 0 INT
-0.3 expected points added · +2.7% completion over expected
Passing · NYG
25/31, 200 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
-2.3 expected points added · +15.7% completion over expected
Receiving · WAS
8/12 for 105 yds, 1 TD
30% of team targets · 8.1 expected points added
What each man’s workload was worth, against what he actually banked. Final. Usage and expected points land with the weekly sync, not live.
Terry McLaurin banked 6.2 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terry McLaurinWR · Alpha Receiver | 24.5 | +6.2 | 91% | 91% | 30% | 41% | 8/12, 105 yd, 1 TD |
| Saquon BarkleyRB · Bell Cow Back | 19.1 | +2.9 | 88% | 78% | 18% | 0% | 18 car, 63 yd, 1 TD · 5/5, 18 yd |
| Taylor HeinickeQB · Starter QB | 17.6 | +3.2 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 27/41, 275 yd, 2 TD · 2 car, 6 yd |
| Daniel JonesQB · Starter QB | 17.1 | −1.7 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 25/31, 200 yd, 1 TD · 12 car, 71 yd |
| Jahan DotsonWR · Featured Receiver | 16.4 | +4.7 | 79% | 87% | 23% | 28% | 5/9, 54 yd, 1 TD |
| Isaiah HodginsWR · Featured Receiver | 15.4 | +4.2 | 80% | 80% | 21% | 25% | 5/6, 44 yd, 1 TD |
| Darius SlaytonWR · Alpha Receiver | 15.0 | +1.7 | 92% | 85% | 29% | 72% | 6/8, 90 yd |
| Curtis SamuelWR · Rotational Receiver | 14.6 | +2.0 | 66% | 81% | 18% | 18% | 3 car, 23 yd · 6/7, 63 yd |
| Brian RobinsonRB · Committee Back | 13.1 | −1.3 | 47% | 28% | 5% | 0% | 21 car, 96 yd · 2/2, 15 yd |
| Antonio GibsonRB · Receiving Back | 7.9 | −1.9 | 49% | 64% | 10% | 2% | 9 car, 39 yd · 2/4, 20 yd |
| Daniel BellingerTE · Rotational Receiver | 7.4 | +0.7 | 97% | 88% | 18% | 3% | 5/5, 24 yd |
| Richie JamesWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.0 | +0.7 | 52% | 53% | 11% | 8% | 3/3, 20 yd |
| Logan ThomasTE · Rotational Receiver | 5.0 | −1.0 | 56% | 66% | 10% | 8% | 3/4, 20 yd |
| Matt BreidaRB | 1.4 | 0.0 | 14% | 13% | 4% | 0% | 1/1, 4 yd |
| Cam SimsWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.8 | −2.0 | — | — | — | — | 7 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Jonathan WilliamsRB | 0.1 | −0.4 | — | — | — | — | 2 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Gary BrightwellRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Chris MyarickTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 12% | 5% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Marcus JohnsonWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 15% | 5% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Cole TurnerTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 28% | 13% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Alex EricksonWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
4 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 5 lines have no expected-points read and sit off the plane.
Expected points are modelled in full PPR, so the “vs expected” column stays in that unit whichever format the pills are set to. Switching the pills changes the points column, not the plane.
The whole game as one hundred yards. The Giants attack right, the Commanders attack left, so a change of possession is a reversal you can see. Reading down is the order the snaps were played — not the clock, so a two-minute drill gets the same room as any other fourteen snaps. This game is final.
(:37) 5-T.Way punts 48 yards to NYG 37, Center-54-C.Cheeseman. 80-R.James ran ob at NYG 43 for 6 yards (39-J.Reaves; 51-D.Mayo).
OT 0:37 · Commanders · 4th & 5 at WAS 15 · gained nothing · -0.40 EP · +79.0% win probability
187 snaps placed · 14 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 201 plays across 27 drives, personnel groupings on 201 snaps, manual charting on 172. Everything here paints once the weekly sync ingests the game — there is no live play-level feed in this product, so nothing on this page updates while a game is being played.
8 of 27 drives ended in points. The longest march was WAS moving 90 yards from the WAS 10 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; NYG attacks right, WAS attacks left. Hatching marks a trip inside the twenty.
Offensive grouping on every pass and run. A group needs five snaps in this game before it gets a number — under that the sample is a coin flip and the cell reads a dash instead. The names of the eleven on the field are only recorded from 2023 onward, so this game gives the grouping without the roster.
201 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
201 plays
Bar length is win probability the play movedHow the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Commanders3
Giants0Commanders9Giants0Commanders10Giants0Commanders10Giants3Commanders10Giants9Commanders10Giants10Commanders13Giants10Commanders13Giants13Commanders13Giants19Commanders13Giants20How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the second read.
Commanders19Giants20Commanders20Giants20How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
The sack was on the quarterback.
How the play was built
Two in the backfield, a man in motion.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
How the play was built
Empty backfield, a screen, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
Two in the backfield, a run-pass option, nobody in motion.
The sack was on the quarterback.
How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the second read, thrown away.
Win probability is the league play-by-play model, 98.5% of plays · a dash means none was published
Just the plays, on their own page: Commanders at Giants, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taylor Heinicke | 27/41 | 275 | 2 | 0 | 5 | −0.3 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brian Robinson | 21 | 96 | 4.6 | 0 | +3.3 |
| Antonio Gibson | 9 | 39 | 4.3 | 0 | +0.2 |
| Curtis Samuel | 3 | 23 | 7.7 | 0 | +0.3 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terry McLaurin | 8 | 12 | 105 | 1 | 30% | +8.1 |
| Curtis Samuel | 6 | 7 | 63 | 0 | 18% | +1.4 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kamren Curl | 9 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jamin Davis | 7 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jonathan Allen | 5 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Danny Johnson |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daniel Jones | 25/31 | 200 | 1 | 0 | 4 | −2.3 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daniel Jones |
Every number on them comes from the same read as this page, and each one says in words where it came from.
How the win probability moved, the three snaps that bent it, and every drive in order.
/football/games/2022_13_WAS_NYG
The cards are drawn from the play-by-play sync, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Commanders closed -2.5 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Total closed 40 and landed exactly there — a push.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| Taylor Heinicke | 2 | 6 | 3.0 | 0 | +0.3 |
| Jonathan Williams | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | −0.4 |
| Jahan Dotson | 5 | 9 | 54 | 1 | 23% | +1.6 |
| Antonio Gibson | 2 | 4 | 20 | 0 | 10% | −0.2 |
| Logan Thomas | 3 | 4 | 20 | 0 | 10% | +0.5 |
| Brian Robinson | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 5% | +1.0 |
| Cam Sims | 1 | 2 | -2 | 0 | 5% | −1.3 |
| 5 |
| 0 |
| 1.0 |
| 0 |
| 2 |
| Jon Bostic | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kendall Fuller | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Daron Payne | 3 | 1 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Darrick Forrest | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Christian Holmes | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bobby McCain | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 |
| 71 |
| 5.9 |
| 0 |
| −1.2 |
| Saquon Barkley | 18 | 63 | 3.5 | 1 | −2.7 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Darius Slayton | 6 | 8 | 90 | 0 | 29% | +2.7 |
| Isaiah Hodgins | 5 | 6 | 44 | 1 | 21% | +3.8 |
| Daniel Bellinger | 5 | 5 | 24 | 0 | 18% | −0.4 |
| Richie James | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 11% | −1.3 |
| Saquon Barkley | 5 | 5 | 18 | 0 | 18% | −0.6 |
| Matt Breida | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4% | +0.1 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Julian Love | 10 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dexter Lawrence | 3 | 5 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nick McCloud | 6 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Micah McFadden | 3 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Fabian Moreau | 3 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Zyon Gilbert | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kayvon Thibodeaux | 2 | 3 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylon Smith | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jason Pinnock | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Tony Jefferson | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
