Actual INTs Thrown 6 5.45% INT Rate
Expected INTs (xINT) 3.1 2.82% Expected Rate
Regression Gap (Luck) -2.9 INTs High Negative Variance
EPA / Play Impact -0.18 -19.8 Total EPA Lost
Interactive Stadium Passing Chart Click field to target a pass
Complete Incomplete Interception TWP (Saved)
Bell Curve: 1,000 season iterations of this TWP profile. Red needle = Current 2026 Pace. 98.4th Percentile Unfortunate Variance
Analytical Diagnosis: In 2025, Drake Maye enjoyed an unsustainably low 32% TWP-to-INT conversion rate (defenders dropped 8 interceptable passes). In 2026, his actual interceptable pass rate jumped modestly from 2.9% to 5.2% due to high pressure, but his conversion rate spiked to 105% (including 1 tipped interception). That produces an apparent 400% slump despite underlying metrics indicating a ~3.2 interception expectation.
Interactive simulation ready. Click anywhere on the field to simulate an attempt. Simulation Engine v4.2 • n=110

Understanding The Anatomy of a Second-Year Quarterback Slump

Why do quarterbacks who lead teams to the Super Bowl suddenly toss six interceptions in three weeks? Mathematical sports analytics separates true mechanics decay from turnover variance.

1. TWP vs. INT Conversion Variance

An interception requires two independent events: the QB throwing into danger (a Turnover-Worthy Play), and a defender catching it. Defender catch rates fluctuate wildly from 30% to 80% over 100-pass windows. A QB can play identically while their box-score INT rate triples purely on bounce luck.

2. The Two-High Post-Super Bowl Blueprint

Super Bowl finalists face the toughest defensive game-planning in the league. Opposing coordinators abandon blitz-heavy schemes for umbrella Cover-2/Cover-4 shells, taking away deep boundary go-balls and forcing QBs into tight-window boundary dig routes under heavy pass rush.

3. Mean Reversion & Rest of Season Forecast

Over full 17-game seasons (~550 attempts), interception rates tightly regress toward the underlying TWP rate. Drake Maye's 2026 trajectory projects to regress back toward ~2.3% INT rate as defensive drop rates normalize, assuming offensive line pressure stabilizes under 35%.

Trace the saved watermark counting rules and fixture limits

Read the explanation

The quarterback simulator multiplies pass attempts by entered turnover-worthy percentage. With illustrative one hundred attempts at four percent, four expected risky plays result; two hundred attempts give eight. Both bars show expected plays at sixty pixels per play. These are authored expectations, while its individual throw generator adds separate pressure and depth rules. Do not confuse a display expectation with measured athlete performance. The scoreboard uses a fixed point five two baseline interception conversion. Ten expected risky plays therefore give five point two baseline interceptions. An entered eighty-percent conversion instead yields eight, rounded by the source, giving disparity two point eight. Both bars count interceptions at sixty pixels per interception. The baseline is a source constant, not an independently verified current league statistic. Its assigned EPA formula charges minus four point two for each interception, then adds a pressure-dependent authored payoff for remaining plays. Illustrative five interceptions cost twenty-one units; eight cost thirty-three point six. Both bars show magnitude of this cost at sixteen pixels per assigned EPA unit. Monte Carlo and throw logs remain synthetic outputs under these assumptions, not calibrated player forecasts or a guarantee that outcome disparity is random luck.

Enjoy this tool? Build your own with Super