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.
Not startedThis page's interactive half has not started on this device. Nothing was read, and nothing was invented in its place. Reload the page.
polling · 1800s tick · as of 10:05 AM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2022 Week 16 · Mon, Dec 26, 2022 · Lucas Oil Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2022 Week 16
It turned at Q1 8:32, 1st and 10, on Michael Davis — 9.4 win-probability points to the Chargers on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Los Angeles Chargers 20–3 — never really in doubt late. Biggest swing: Q1 8:32, Chargers +9.4% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q1 8:32 · 1st and 10
Michael Davis
Chargers
(8:32) 9-N.Foles pass deep right intended for 80-J.Woods INTERCEPTED by 43-M.Davis at LAC 11. 43-M.Davis to LAC 41 for 30 yards (80-J.Woods).
9.4
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Third down
Chargers won this one — 8 of 17 on third down, against Colts at 0 of 10 on third down.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Chargers won this one — -0.05 expected points per snap, against Colts at -0.57 expected points per snap.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Chargers won this one — 50% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Colts at 34% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Throwing the ball
Chargers won this one — -0.09 expected points per dropback, against Colts at -0.69 expected points per dropback.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
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 9.4 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 21 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Colts.
(8:32) 9-N.Foles pass deep right intended for 80-J.Woods INTERCEPTED by 43-M.Davis at LAC 11. 43-M.Davis to LAC 41 for 30 yards (80-J.Woods).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Austin Ekeler's 1-yard rushing touchdown with 8:44 left in the 2nd put Los Angeles Chargers ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 4 scores that followed.
5 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Chargerscategory by categoryColts
Chargers ahead 9–0 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — third-down rate.
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, ±0.69 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: Chargers ran 64 snaps at a 56% dropback rate against Colts’s 50 at 72%. Red-zone trips: Chargers 4, Colts 1.
Chargers won the down-to-down efficiency fight: -0.05 expected points added per play vs -0.57.
Derived from the play-by-play, no model
12 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.
IND's fourth-and-short go rate, 100.0%, was the highest of the 22 team-games charted in week 16 — 25.0 points clear of the next team along.
3 fourth-and-short calls this game, floor 3 — 14 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 34.8 points. · +1.8σ from their own normal
LAC's early-down pass rate, 47.8%, is past their previous low of 50.9% in week 5 — the lowest of their 15 charted games through week 16.
46 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 11.4 points. · −1.4σ from their own normal
IND's early-down pass rate turned over: 41.4% in week 15 against 63.9% here — they ran early then and passed early now, a turn of 2.4 of their own weekly swings across the two.
36 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.4 points. · +0.7σ from their own normal
The season-grain rooms, pointed at this one game
12 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 -21 pts to 20 pts
Over Expected room →Chargers-1.8 ptsleaned — ran more than the situation asked · −6.1 vs their 4.3 pts, and they swing ±5.8 week to week (−1.05× that swing) · 64 snaps
Colts1.6 ptsinside their normal wobble · +5.5 vs their -3.9 pts, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (+0.84× that swing) · 50 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 32% to 93%
Tendencies room →Chargers47.8%leaned — ran early · −15.9 vs their 63.7%, and they swing ±11.4 week to week (−1.39× that swing) · 46 early downs
Colts63.9%inside their normal wobble · +7.0 vs their 56.9%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (+0.74× that swing) · 36 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -8% to 50%
Tendencies room →Chargers27.8%right on their number · +1.1 vs their 26.7%, and they swing ±8.6 week to week (+0.13× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Colts8.3%inside their normal wobble · −8.0 vs their 16.3%, and they swing ±9.2 week to week (−0.87× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -53% to 125%
Fourth Down room →Chargers20.0%inside their normal wobble · −10.4 vs their 30.4%, and they swing ±18.2 week to week (−0.57× that swing) · 5 fourth-and-short calls
Colts100.0%leaned — went for it · +63.7 vs their 36.3%, and they swing ±34.8 week to week (+1.83× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 60%
Tendencies room →Chargers30.6%right on their number · −0.7 vs their 31.3%, and they swing ±11.2 week to week (−0.06× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Colts8.3%leaned — sat back · −7.0 vs their 15.3%, and they swing ±6.6 week to week (−1.06× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 31%
Tendencies room →Chargers25.0%leaned — got home · +11.5 vs their 13.5%, and they swing ±7.0 week to week (+1.65× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Colts19.4%inside their normal wobble · +5.5 vs their 14.0%, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (+0.84× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
IND's fourth-and-short go rate was the night's one real departure: 100.0%, 63.7 points above their season mean of 36.3% and 1.8 times their own 34.8-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.
Los Angeles Chargers
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Indianapolis Colts
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · LAC
24/31, 235 yds, 0 TD, 1 INT
-3.0 expected points added · +10.9% completion over expected
Passing · IND
17/29, 144 yds, 0 TD, 3 INT
-24.7 expected points added · -8.1% completion over expected
Receiving · LAC
11/14 for 104 yds, 0 TD
47% of team targets · -1.7 expected points added
What each man’s workload was worth, against what he actually banked. Final. Usage and expected points land the morning after the game, not live.
Mike Williams banked 4.8 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austin EkelerRB · Committee Back | 23.9 | +0.1 | 60% | 58% | 13% | 2% | 18 car, 67 yd, 2 TD · 4/4, 12 yd |
| Keenan AllenWR · Alpha Receiver | 21.4 | −3.6 | 84% | 89% | 47% | 45% | 11/14, 104 yd |
| Mike WilliamsWR · Rotational Receiver | 11.6 | +4.8 | 85% | 92% | 13% | 14% | 4/4, 76 yd |
| Zack MossRB · Bell Cow Back | 8.0 | +0.9 | 69% | 61% | 4% | 0% | 12 car, 65 yd · 1/1, 5 yd |
| Michael PittmanWR · Alpha Receiver | 7.9 | −3.0 | 100% | 100% | 25% | 32% | 4/7, 39 yd |
| Jelani WoodsTE · Rotational Receiver | 7.3 | −2.0 | 63% | 61% | 18% | 36% | 3/5, 43 yd |
| Alec PierceWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.6 | +0.1 | 73% | 78% | 14% | 8% | 3/4, 26 yd |
| Justin HerbertQB · Starter QB | 5.5 | −11.6 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 24/31, 235 yd, 1 INT · 5 car, 1 yd |
| Joshua KelleyRB | 5.2 | −0.9 | 34% | 39% | 3% | 3% | 9 car, 33 yd · 1/1, 9 yd |
| Deon JacksonRB · Receiving Back | 3.9 | −0.3 | 15% | 22% | 11% | 0% | 3/3, 9 yd |
| Parris CampbellWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.9 | −3.4 | 88% | 92% | 18% | 19% | 2/5, 19 yd |
| Josh PalmerWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.6 | −1.1 | 59% | 69% | 10% | 22% | 2/3, 16 yd |
| Tre' McKittyTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.0 | −0.9 | 46% | 33% | 7% | 3% | 1/2, 10 yd |
| Donald ParhamTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.8 | −1.7 | 35% | 31% | 7% | 12% | 1/2, 8 yd |
| Mo Alie-CoxTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.2 | −1.9 | 44% | 44% | 7% | 12% | 1/2, 2 yd |
| Jordan WilkinsRB | 0.4 | −1.6 | 15% | 17% | 4% | 0% | 1 car, 4 yd · 0/1, 0 yd |
| Ashton DulinWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 17% | 17% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| DeAndre CarterWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 19% | 17% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Nick FolesQB · Starter QB | -0.2 | −10.2 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 17/29, 144 yd, 3 INT · 1 car, 0 yd |
2 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 Colts attack right, the Chargers 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.
(1:39) (Shotgun) 10-J.Herbert sacked at LAC 19 for -6 yards (sack split by 99-D.Buckner and 54-D.Odeyingbo). FUMBLES (99-D.Buckner) [54-D.Odeyingbo], RECOVERED by IND-51-K.Paye at LAC 21.
Q3 1:39 · Chargers · 3rd & 3 at LAC 25 · lost 4 · -5.06 EP · −16.0% win probability
141 snaps placed · 11 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 152 plays across 21 drives, personnel groupings on 152 snaps, manual charting on 133. Everything here paints the morning after the week's games — there is no live play-level feed in this product, so nothing on this page updates while a game is being played.
5 of 21 drives ended in points. The longest march was LAC moving 88 yards from the LAC 12 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; IND attacks right, LAC 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.
152 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
152 plays
Bar length is win probability the play movedHow the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Chargers6
Colts0Chargers7Colts0Chargers7Colts3Chargers10Colts3Chargers13Colts3How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
The sack was on the quarterback.
Chargers19Colts3Chargers20Colts3Win 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: Chargers at Colts, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Herbert | 24/31 | 235 | 0 | 1 | 4 | −3.0 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austin Ekeler | 18 | 67 | 3.7 | 2 | +1.4 |
| Joshua Kelley | 9 | 33 | 3.7 | 0 | −2.2 |
| Justin Herbert |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keenan Allen | 11 | 14 | 104 | 0 | 47% | −1.7 |
| Mike Williams | 4 | 4 | 76 | 0 | 13% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drue Tranquill | 3 | 7 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Michael Davis | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 1 | 3 |
| Alohi Gilman |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nick Foles | 17/29 | 144 | 0 | 3 | 7 | −24.7 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|
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_16_LAC_IND
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Chargers closed -3.5 and covered, winning by 17.
Total closed 44.5; the game landed 23 — under by 21.5.
Conditions and crew
| 5 |
| 1 |
| 0.2 |
| 0 |
| +0.5 |
| +9.3 |
| Josh Palmer | 2 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 10% | +1.3 |
| Austin Ekeler | 4 | 4 | 12 | 0 | 13% | −0.3 |
| Tre' McKitty | 1 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 7% | −1.1 |
| Joshua Kelley | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 3% | +0.3 |
| Donald Parham | 1 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 7% | −0.1 |
| 2 |
| 4 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Bryce Callahan | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Morgan Fox | 3 | 1 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kenneth Murray | 2 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Khalil Mack | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kyle Van Noy | 2 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Derwin James | 0 | 2 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Sebastian Joseph | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Zack Moss | 12 | 65 | 5.4 | 0 | +0.7 |
| Jordan Wilkins | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | −0.3 |
| Nick Foles | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | −4.2 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jelani Woods | 3 | 5 | 43 | 0 | 18% | −4.5 |
| Michael Pittman | 4 | 7 | 39 | 0 | 25% | −0.5 |
| Alec Pierce | 3 | 4 | 26 | 0 | 14% | +3.9 |
| Parris Campbell | 2 | 5 | 19 | 0 | 18% | −6.9 |
| Deon Jackson | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 11% | −2.4 |
| Zack Moss | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 4% | +0.0 |
| Mo Alie-Cox | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 7% | −2.4 |
| Jordan Wilkins | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −0.9 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rodney McLeod | 3 | 6 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Julian Blackmon | 4 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bobby Okereke | 6 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Zaire Franklin | 3 | 4 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rodney Thomas | 5 | 1 | 0.0 | 1 | 2 |
| DeForest Buckner | 1 | 3 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Kwity Paye | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dayo Odeyingbo | 2 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Brandon Facyson | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| E.J. Speed | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
