Same football evidence. Different AI research desks.

Efficiency moved the most, volume the least

Passing efficiency shows the largest gap. Pass EPA per dropback averaged 0.056 in games below 10 mph and -0.011 at 15+ mph, a -0.067 difference with a 95% interval from -0.104 to -0.031. Completion rate went from 60.3% to 58.0%, an interval of -3.4 to -1.1 percentage points. Play-calling moved too, but less: on neutral early downs, offenses dropped back on 52.1% of snaps in 15+ mph games versus 54.0% in calm ones, a -1.8 point gap with an interval from -3.4 to -0.4 points. The volume difference is supported, but it is the smallest of the four.

The registered adjusted model, which treats wind as a continuous variable and controls for temperature, week, and season, points the same direction on all four primaries. Combined points fell an adjusted 1.39 per 5 mph of reported wind (95% interval -2.26 to -0.52), and pass EPA per dropback fell 0.020 per 5 mph (-0.033 to -0.008). Venue, opponent, and offensive quality remain uncontrolled in both versions, so some of the gap may still reflect who was playing rather than the wind.

One expected pattern did not appear. Average target depth was computed in the locked analysis as a secondary outcome, not one of the four registered primaries, and it showed no supported difference at the 15 mph threshold. Offenses in windy games completed fewer throws and got less out of each dropback, but this sample offers no evidence that they systematically shortened their passes to compensate.

What this means for a lineup, and what it does not

Treat this as a population-level nudge rather than a lineup command. On average, a 15+ mph game came with roughly four fewer combined points, a modest cut in neutral-down passing, and a real dip in completion rate and efficiency. That supports shading a passing game's expectations down when reported wind reaches that range; it does not justify benching a starter on wind alone. Three scope notes matter here. The wind figure is a single reported game value, not gusts or in-game variation, and a forecast checked on a phone app before kickoff may not match the value recorded for the game. Games at 10 mph or more but below 15 mph sit in neither group of the headline comparison, so that comparison says nothing about the middle band fantasy players face most often. And the headline table reports only the 15 mph cut against calm games, so on its own it cannot separate a step change at 15 mph from a gradual slide; the registered 10 and 20 mph thresholds and the piecewise-linear wind spline were run as sensitivity checks but are not summarized in this article.

What changed at 15 mph

The study compared 153 games at or above the registered 15 mph threshold against 871 games below 10 mph. Neutral early-down dropback rate fell from 54.0% to 52.1% (-1.8 points, 95% interval -3.4 to -0.4), meaning offenses leaned on the run more when the wind picked up. Completion rate slipped from 60.3% to 58.0% (-2.3 points, 95% interval -3.4 to -1.1). The efficiency hit was the largest in relative terms: pass EPA per dropback went from +0.056 in calm games to -0.011 in windy ones, a -0.067 change (95% interval -0.104 to -0.031).

One thing did not clearly move: average target depth. In an unregistered exploratory check, there was no supported difference at the 15 mph threshold, so the pattern looks like fewer and less efficient throws rather than a shift toward exclusively short passes.

The pattern holds up, but only to a point

The direction of every primary result was stable when each season was left out in turn, and a continuous analysis adjusting for temperature, week, and season fixed effects pointed the same way — for example, completion rate fell about 0.8 points per additional 5 mph of reported wind (95% interval -1.1 to -0.4). But the extreme end of the scale is thin: only 31 games reached 20+ mph, so the 20 mph threshold is underpowered and should not be treated as a standalone cutoff.

What this means for fantasy decisions

The practical takeaway is a threshold, not a panic button. Below 15 mph of reported wind, the historical differences in this sample were small enough that weather alone is a weak reason to bench a passer or receiver. At 15 mph and above, the combined evidence — fewer dropbacks, worse completion rate, negative pass efficiency, and roughly four fewer combined points per game — makes wind a legitimate tiebreaker in close lineup calls, especially for QB-WR stacks whose value depends on efficient passing volume. Because the effect is a game-level association, it applies to the game environment broadly; it does not tell you any specific player will underperform, and running-game pieces have historically been on the favorable side of the shift in dropback rate.