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 .md to those URLs or by sending Accept: text/markdown; other pages answer 404.
DYNATYZE
DYNATYZE
Loading
Game Center
polling · 1800s tick · as of 12:42 AM ET · 16 to play
Chicago Bears 30, Raiders 12 — and it was over early.
It turned at Q1 10:12, 4th and 4, on Daniel Carlson — 9.1 win-probability points to the Bears on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
The biggest swing of the game · Q1 10:12 · 4th and 4
Daniel Carlson
Bears
(10:12) 2-D.Carlson 41 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Left, Center-50-J.Bobenmoyer, Holder-6-A.Cole.
Raiders closed -2.5 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Chicago Bears 30–12 — never really in doubt late. Biggest swing: Q1 10:12, Bears +9.1% win probability on one snap.
9.1
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
Tyler ScottBearsQ1 7:04(7:04) (Shotgun) 17-T.Bagent pass short middle to 13-T.Scott to LV 38 for 13 yards (23-D.Long).
7.2pts
Brian HoyerRaidersQ2 2:35(2:35) (Shotgun) 7-B.Hoyer pass incomplete deep left to 16-J.Meyers. PENALTY on CHI-29-T.Stevenson, Defensive Pass Interference, 14 yards, enforced at CHI 39 - No Play.
6.9pts
What separated them
Third down
Bears won this one — 8 of 13 on third down, against Raiders at 2 of 9 on third down.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Giveaways
Bears won this one — no giveaways, against Raiders at 3 giveaways.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Bears won this one — +0.19 expected points per snap, against Raiders at -0.24 expected points per snap.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Running the ball
Bears won this one — +0.16 expected points per carry, against Raiders at -0.29 expected points per carry.
Drawn from the weekly play-by-play file, which paints on the Monday 4:00 AM ET sync after the game.
The model against the market, the momentum underneath, every drive — scrub to replay it
How the game was won
The model and the market were 7.4 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 18 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
MarketModelmodel higher on Bearshigher on Raiders165 of 174 plays carry both curves
(10:12) 2-D.Carlson 41 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Left, Center-50-J.Bobenmoyer, Holder-6-A.Cole.
Swing +9.1 for BearsExpected points +4.09 for BearsThe model had Bears 12 points higher than the market did.play 13
The solid line is the betting market's home win probability; the dashed line is the play-by-play model's. The shaded band between them is the disagreement — emerald where the model liked the home team more, red where it liked the away team more. Drag across the curve or use arrow keys to replay the game; gold diamonds mark the biggest swings.
Highest-leverage plays
1st · 10:12LV +9% win prob(10:12) 2-D.Carlson 41 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Left, Center-50-J.Bobenmoyer, Holder-6-A.Cole.
1st · 7:04CHI +7% win prob(7:04) (Shotgun) 17-T.Bagent pass short middle to 13-T.Scott to LV 38 for 13 yards (23-D.Long).
2nd · 2:35CHI +7% win prob(2:35) (Shotgun) 7-B.Hoyer pass incomplete deep left to 16-J.Meyers. PENALTY on CHI-29-T.Stevenson, Defensive Pass Interference, 14 yards, enforced at CHI 39 - No Play.
2nd · 3:52CHI +6% win prob(3:52) (Shotgun) 7-B.Hoyer pass short middle to 81-A.Hooper to CHI 24 for 12 yards (53-T.Edwards).
2nd · 11:14CHI +6% win prob(11:14) 16-T.Gill punts 43 yards to LV 23, Center-48-P.Scales, downed by CHI-20-T.Homer.
1st · 12:19CHI +6% win prob(12:19) 7-B.Hoyer pass short middle to 17-D.Adams to CHI 29 for 15 yards (9-J.Brisker).
SettledThe modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
The margin ledger
D'Onta Foreman's 2-yard rushing touchdown with 3:49 left in the 1st put Chicago Bears ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 7 scores that followed.
Lead
1st3:49D'Onta Foreman·2-yd TD run2-yard rushing touchdownLead never changed again+70–7
Bears ahead 8–1 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — turnovers.
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
−0.24Raiders: −0.24 expected points added per play
+0.19Bears: +0.19 expected points added per play
Dropping backexpected points added per dropback
−0.22Raiders: −0.22 expected points added per play
+0.22Bears: +0.22 expected points added per play
Running itexpected points added per rush
−0.29Raiders: −0.29 expected points added per play
+0.16Bears: +0.16 expected points added per play
Neither side “wins” volume or play-calling mix, so neither is drawn as a duel: Raiders ran 61 snaps at a 77% dropback rate against Bears’s 67 at 49%. Red-zone trips: Raiders 2, Bears 3.
NoteBears won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.19 expected points added per play vs -0.24.
Derived from the play-by-play, no model
The Read
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.
LV's early-down pass rate turned over: 42.6% in week 6 against 71.4% here — they ran early then and passed early now, a turn of 2.8 of their own weekly swings across the two.
49 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 10.5 points.
LV's fourth-and-short go rate turned over: 0.0% in week 6 against 50.0% here — they took the kick then and went for it now, a turn of 2.8 of their own weekly swings across the two.
4 fourth-and-short calls this game, floor 3 — 16 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 17.9 points.
LV's pass rate over expected turned over: −11.7 pts in week 6 against +4.8 pts here — they ran more than the situation asked then and threw more than the situation asked now, a turn of 2.6 of their own weekly swings across the two.
60 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.3 points.
CHI's pass rate over expected turned over: −16.1 pts in week 6 against −4.0 pts here — they ran more than the situation asked then and threw more than the situation asked now, a turn of 2.2 of their own weekly swings across the two.
67 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 5.4 points.
The season-grain rooms, pointed at this one game
Was this normal for them?
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.
their week-to-week swingall 32 teams
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -19 pts to 14 pts
inside their normal wobble · −4.3 vs their 13.4%, and they swing ±6.4 week to week (−0.67× that swing) · 33 dropbacks
Bears6.4%
inside their normal wobble · −6.1 vs their 12.4%, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (−0.94× that swing) · 47 dropbacks
NoteLV's early-down pass rate was the night's one real departure: 71.4%, 16.9 points above their season mean of 54.5% and 1.6 times their own 10.5-point weekly swing.
The Game Day Roster
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.
5 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 4 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 field map
Every snap, where it happened
The whole game as one hundred yards. The Bears attack right, the Raiders 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.
Raiders←Bears→
Q1Q2Q3Q4
Daniel Carlson−10% win probabilitymoment 1 of 4
(10:12) 2-D.Carlson 41 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Left, Center-50-J.Bobenmoyer, Holder-6-A.Cole.
Q1 10:12 · Raiders · 4th & 4 at CHI 23 · gained nothing · -4.09 EP · −9.7% win probability
163 snaps placed · 11 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
The Film Room · post-game
Post-game film: 174 plays across 18 drives, personnel groupings on 163 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 169. 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.
Possession by possession
The field rail
7 of 18 drives ended in points. The longest march was CHI moving 93 yards from the CHI 7 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; CHI attacks right, LV attacks left. Hatching marks a trip inside the twenty.
Every snap
Play stream
174 of 174 plays
Team
Quarter
Down
Play type
Expected points added
Event
Charted
Plays shown
174
EPA per play
-0.02
Success rate
40%
Yards
558
Who was on the field
Personnel groupings
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. Open any play above to see the eleven men who were actually on the field for it.
Raiders1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR39-0.2090%
Bears1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR30+0.2670%
Bears1 RB, 2 TE, 2 WR24+0.2033%
Raiders2 RB, 1 TE, 2 WR13+0.0154%
Bears2 RB, 1 TE, 2 WR7+0.1414%
Raiders1 RB, 2 TE, 2 WR5-0.9460%
Bears1 RB, 3 TE, 1 WR4——
Raiders2 RB, 2 TE, 1 WR3——
Bears2 RB, 2 TE, 1 WR2——
Raiders2 RB, 0 TE, 3 WR1——
snapsepapass rate
174 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
Every play
Ball
When
Play
Only
Who
174 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
1st quarter38 plays
Punt5 plays, from the Bears 25 to the Bears 29
No good7 plays, from the Raiders 43 to the Bears 23
Raiders0Bears6
Raiders0Bears7
Touchdown13 plays, from the Bears 31 to the Raiders 2
Punt10 plays, from the Raiders 25 to the Bears 47
The period ended2 plays
2nd quarter50 plays
Punt9 plays, from the Bears 16 to the Bears 34
Intercepted2 plays, from the Raiders 23 to the Raiders 27
Raiders0Bears13
Raiders0Bears14
Touchdown7 plays, from the Raiders 34 to the Raiders 3
Raiders3Bears14
Field goal17 plays, from the Raiders 25 to the Bears 21
The period ended14 plays, from the Bears 21 to the Raiders 47
3rd quarter35 plays
Punt7 plays, from the Raiders 24 to the Raiders 45
Raiders3Bears20
Raiders3Bears21
Touchdown17 plays, from the Bears 12 to the Raiders 5
The period ended11 plays, from the Raiders 25 to the Bears 15
4th quarter51 plays
Raiders6Bears21
Field goal7 plays, from the Bears 9 to the Bears 5
Raiders6Bears24
Field goal15 plays, from the Bears 27 to the Raiders 27
Raiders6Bears30
Touchdown2 plays
Intercepted6 plays, from the Raiders 21 to the Raiders 36
Punt6 plays, from the Bears 25 to the Bears 30
Raiders12Bears30
Touchdown9 plays, from the Raiders 40 to the Bears 9
The period ended3 plays
Win probability is the league play-by-play model, 98.5% of plays · a dash means none was published
