The adjusted scores quantify team play quality, with emphasis on stable metrics (success rate) and downplaying higher variance events (turnovers, special team, penalties, fumble luck, etc). Adjusted expected points added (EPA), in conjunction with opportunity-based metrics like total plays and drives, projects adjusted points. Adjusted scores have been tested against actual scores and offer slightly better predictive ability, though their primary benefit is explanatory.
All 2025-2022 and historical Adjusted Scores and other site metrics are available in a downloadable format to paid subscribers via Google Sheet.
* Buccaneers-Browns will be added to the late window after rain delay
Find previous advanced reviews here
** Adjusted Scores table:
“Pass” - Pass rate over expectation (based on context of each play and historical averages
“Success” - Success rate on offense, a key metric in adjusted score vs actual
“H & A” - Home or away team
Bills (-7) vs Chargers
Despite a +4 turnover advantage (+11.5 EPA), the Los Angeles Chargers figured out how to lose another game, this time to the now 3-0 Buffalo Bills. While you might think that “luck” was leaning in the Chargers favor due to turnovers, overall the adjusted scores point to the Bills being lucky to get the 8-point win.
The Bills enjoyed a +7.4 EPA advantage in special teams and penalties, two of the highest variance aspects of the game. They also separated with a +13.7 EPA advantage on late downs, especially on fourth downs. The Bills converted both of their fourth downs, including a 4th & 6 that netted 29 yards post-penalty (+4.4 EPA), while the Chargers failed on their one 4th & 10 try (-2.6 EPA). Both teams were bad on third downs, but the Chargers were worse going 6-for-15 (-7.4) versus the Bills at 6-for-12 (-2.8).
Altogether, the Bills and Chargers had identical EPA efficiencies (-0.06 per play), and the Chargers had minimally better offensive success rate (45.8% to 45.3%). But the Chargers missed a field goal from 45 yards out and failed to score touchdowns on all but one of their four red-zone possessions (Bills went 3-for-4). According to the numbers, the Chargers gave up marginal win probability gains by choosing to kick field goals on 4th & 3 on four different occasions.
Both teams posted good rushing efficiencies, though the quarterbacks were the sources of EPA value, +3.5 EPA on six designed runs for Josh Allen and +1.6 on two carries for Justin Herbert. The net EPA for James Cook masks the underlying strength of his performance, with a hugely negative fumble lost (-5.4 EPA) offsetting the +5.0 EPA gained on his other 23 carries.
Both quarterbacks performed at around flat EPA, but Allen suffered significantly more negative EPA from turnovers (two picks and one fumble lost, -10 EPA) and four sacks taken (-5 EPA). He mitigates some of those losses with +4.2 EPA on designed runs and scrambles, plus being fairly successful on pass attempts that didn’t end up in the arms of Chargers’ defenders.
Herbert’s underlying numbers were a bit ugly, without the same level of mistakes, but also absent the passing and rushing upside. The Chargers schedule gauntlet continues with a road trip to Seattle up next.
