Gridiron · Game Center · 2026
The Over Expected Room
Every run and pass carries a number for how likely a pass was, given the down, the distance, the field, the clock and the scoreboard. This room is that subtraction, 2018 to 2026.
Threw on 69.2% of 247 plays where the situations called for 63.7%. 7,907 runs and passes across the first 5 weeks of the 2026 regular season. 1,337 more snaps are set aside — penalties that wiped the play, victory-formation kneels and spikes — because none of them was a call anybody made. 248 of the plays counted here are scrambles: the box score files them as runs, the model counts them as dropbacks, and so does this room.
Offense. What each offense called, against what its situations asked for. Every snap. Every run and pass of the regular season, sacks and scrambles included. 32 rows clear the 40-dropback floor in this split.
The model reads down, distance, the field, the clock and the scoreboard and says how often a league passes from there. Subtract it from what the play-caller actually did and you get the one play-calling figure that survives game script.
7,907 runs and passes across the first 5 weeks of the 2026 regular season. 1,337 more snaps are set aside — penalties that wiped the play, victory-formation kneels and spikes — because none of them was a call anybody made. 248 of the plays counted here are scrambles: the box score files them as runs, the model counts them as dropbacks, and so does this room.
Painted after the last game's play-by-play landed · the room repaints as each game's play-by-play lands, usually within two hours of the final, or the next morning when its release runs late
This room runs the full play-by-play era, 2018 onward. The Tendency Room answers a charted question — who faked the handoff, who threw it away, who dropped it — and charting only starts in 2022, so it holds four seasons where this one holds eight.
Before you read anybody's residual
Is the model any good?
Ten rungs of what the model predicted, against what the league actually did inside each rung. The two columns should track, and where they part is the model’s own error — read that first, because every number below this card is measured against it. Widest miss in 2026: −4.4 points in the 65% rung.
| Model said | Plays | Predicted | Actual | Miss | Predicted vs actual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–10% | 79 | 6.3% | 5.1% | −1.2 | Predicted 6.3%, actual 5.1%, a miss of −1.2 points. |
| 10–20% | 169 | 15.8% | 16.0% | +0.2 | Predicted 15.8%, actual 16.0%, a miss of +0.2 points. |
| 20–30% | 410 | 25.1% | 22.9% | −2.1 | Predicted 25.1%, actual 22.9%, a miss of −2.1 points. |
| 30–40% | 591 | 35.6% | 32.7% | −3.0 | Predicted 35.6%, actual 32.7%, a miss of −3.0 points. |
| 40–50% | 1,760 | 45.9% | 44.4% | −1.5 | Predicted 45.9%, actual 44.4%, a miss of −1.5 points. |
| 50–60% | 980 | 54.1% | 50.3% | −3.8 | Predicted 54.1%, actual 50.3%, a miss of −3.8 points. |
| 60–70% | 785 | 64.9% | 60.5% | −4.4 | Predicted 64.9%, actual 60.5%, a miss of −4.4 points. |
| 70–80% | 802 | 74.7% | 73.3% | −1.4 | Predicted 74.7%, actual 73.3%, a miss of −1.4 points. |
| 80–90% | 669 | 85.2% | 82.7% | −2.6 | Predicted 85.2%, actual 82.7%, a miss of −2.6 points. |
| 90–100% | 1,662 | 95.8% | 95.2% | −0.6 | Predicted 95.8%, actual 95.2%, a miss of −0.6 points. |
The white hairline is what the model predicted; the painted bar is what happened, and the Miss column is the difference. Ink DEPTH is the size of the rung — one hue, so the thin rungs read as thin without colour pretending to grade them.
32 teams · every snap
Pass rate over expected
Actual pass rate minus the rate the situations asked for. Positive means more passing than the spots called for. A scramble counts as a pass and a sack counts as a pass, because that is a dropback and a dropback is what the model is predicting — the box score files both as something else. This cohort averages −2.2 points.
| # | Team | Plays | Actual | Exp. | Over exp. | Spread | EPA/play |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 247 | 69.2% | 63.7% | +5.6 | +0.05 | ||
| 2 | 264 | 67.0% | 62.9% | +4.2 | +0.12 | ||
| 3 | 305 | 68.5% | 64.7% | +3.8 | +0.13 | ||
| 4 | 248 | 68.5% | 65.3% | +3.3 | −0.11 | ||
| 5 | 222 | 55.0% | 51.8% | +3.1 | +0.29 | ||
| 6 | 248 | 57.3% | 55.0% | +2.3 | +0.18 | ||
| 7 | 232 | 69.8% | 67.7% | +2.2 | −0.09 | ||
| 8 | 265 | 65.7% | 64.3% | +1.3 | +0.14 | ||
| 9 | 289 | 68.2% | 66.8% | +1.3 | −0.01 | ||
| 10 | 223 | 62.8% | 61.8% | +1.0 | −0.02 | ||
| 11 | 268 | 64.6% | 63.7% | +0.8 | +0.03 | ||
| 12 | 249 | 59.4% | 59.9% | −0.5 | −0.05 | ||
| 13 | 259 | 62.5% | 63.0% | −0.5 | −0.03 | ||
| 14 | 233 | 58.4% | 59.9% | −1.6 | +0.20 | ||
| 15 | 250 | 66.8% | 68.7% | −1.9 | −0.03 | ||
| 16 | 224 | 60.7% | 62.7% | −2.0 | +0.02 | ||
| 17 | 226 | 63.3% | 65.7% | −2.4 | −0.03 | ||
| 18 | 301 | 62.8% | 65.6% | −2.9 | −0.09 | ||
| 19 | 257 | 58.0% | 60.9% | −2.9 | +0.01 | ||
| 20 | 258 | 60.5% | 63.8% | −3.3 | −0.04 | ||
| 21 | 292 | 51.4% | 55.2% | −3.8 | +0.11 | ||
| 22 | 251 | 57.4% | 61.3% | −4.0 | −0.07 | ||
| 23 | 234 | 54.3% | 58.4% | −4.2 | +0.02 | ||
| 24 | 233 | 56.2% | 61.0% | −4.8 | −0.10 | ||
| 25 | 219 | 51.6% | 56.4% | −4.8 | +0.18 | ||
| 26 | 232 | 52.2% | 58.1% | −5.9 | +0.19 | ||
| 27 | 228 | 60.5% | 67.1% | −6.5 | −0.11 | ||
| 28 | 215 | 62.8% | 71.3% | −8.5 | −0.09 | ||
| 29 | 210 | 60.5% | 69.5% | −9.0 | −0.14 | ||
| 30 | 238 | 52.9% | 62.2% | −9.3 | −0.05 | ||
| 31 | 245 | 59.2% | 69.3% | −10.1 | −0.16 | ||
| 32 | 242 | 45.9% | 56.9% | −11.0 | −0.03 |
A row with fewer than 40 plays in this situation shows an em-dash instead of a residual. The play count is still printed, because how many snaps there were is the honest fact about a thin cell and a percentage taken off them would not be.
CIN · every snap of 2026
Where the deviation lives
One residual cannot tell a coach who airs it out on third-and-fifteen from one who does it on first-and-ten. Five bands of how obvious the call was, with the league’s pass rate beside the rate CIN threw. This card reads the whole season regardless of the situation filter above — the bands ARE a situation split, and splitting a split is how a denominator becomes three.
The model expects a run. Short yardage, a lead, the clock running.
Leaning run, but genuinely open — most first-and-tens live here.
Leaning pass. The coin is warm.
The model expects a pass and the defense probably does too.
Everyone knows. Third and long, two-minute, two scores down.
The white hairline is the league’s pass rate in that band; the painted bar is CIN's. The number on the right is the gap in percentage points.
CIN · every snap
What defying it returned
Four cells: the model wanted a run or a pass, and CIN agreed or did not. Expected points added PER SNAP inside each one, so the two defiant cells can be read against the two obedient ones beside them. Below 25 snaps a cell shows its count and withholds its average.
Model said run
defiedPassed anyway
+0.03
44 snaps · EPA per snap
Model said run
Ran it
−0.13
46 snaps · EPA per snap
Model said pass
defiedRan anyway
−0.03
30 snaps · EPA per snap
Model said pass
Threw it
+0.15
127 snaps · EPA per snap
Expected pointsExpected points on 65 of 78 finished games — expected points are scored after each game day, so week 5's 13 newest finals join this room when they are scored.
The read
CIN threw 5.6 points more than the situations asked for, 1st of 32 at offense grain in every snap. Defiance paid best when passing into a run look (+0.03 per snap) and paid worst when running into a pass look (−0.03).