Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.3194th
  Defense+0.0586th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense51.6%97th
  Defense37.6%90th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1949th
  Defense+1.1861st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2287th
  Defense−0.1199th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4494th
  Defense+0.2246th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.6%96th
  Defense40.2%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense40.2%94th
  Defense33.0%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3694th
  Defense2.2896th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.7%91st
  Defense26.7%97th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense3.2%5th
  Defense1.7%31st

Percentiles among the 128 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2014

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Alabama allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   WVU
2. W
   FAU
3. W
   USM
4. W
   FLA
5. L
   MISS
6. W
   ARK
7. W
   TA&M
8. W
   TENN
9. W
   LSU
10. W
    MSST
11. W
    WCU
12. W
    AUB
13. W
    MIZ
14. L
    OSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Alabama.

Players, 2014

1. Blake SimsQB385 plays · +0.318 pts/play · 19th of 199 QBs
   2.29WAR1.60 to 2.90
2. Amari CooperWR139 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 1st of 469 WRs
   0.57WAR0.35 to 0.80
3. T.J. YeldonRB192 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 26th of 350 RBs
   0.44WAR0.30 to 0.58
4. Derrick HenryRB116 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 68th of 350 RBs
   0.29WAR0.20 to 0.38
5. JK ScottP48 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 11th of 94 punters
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.24
6. Adam GriffithPK16 plays · +0.369 pts/play · 54th of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
7. DeAndrew WhiteWR61 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 197th of 469 WRs
   0.10WAR0.01 to 0.20
8. O.J. HowardTE22 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 3rd of 212 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.08

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Alabama's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Alabama's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.19 of the 0.24 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at ARKQ3 3:06 4th & 1 at ALA 44, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. at OSUQ4 5:24 4th & 9 at OSU 43, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
3. at ARKQ4 5:45 4th & 4 at ARK 46, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
4. at LSUQ3 7:58 4th & 1 at ALA 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
5. vs WVUQ3 1:27 4th & 1 at WVU 10, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
6. at ARKQ4 2:50 4th & 6 at ALA 47, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
7. at ARKQ2 0:43 4th & 10 at ARK 37, up 1Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
8. at MISSQ4 11:31 4th & 4 at MISS 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

38th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Alabama's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   WVU
2. W

   FAU
3. W

   USM
4. W

   FLA
5. L

   MISS
6. W

   ARK
7. W

   TA&M
8. W

   TENN
9. W

   LSU
10. W

    MSST
11. W

    WCU
12. W

    AUB
13. W

    MIZ
14. L

    OSU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Alabama's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard+1.60
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts+0.14
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.35

Game by game

• WVUW 33-23 vs WVU93% → 97%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +13
• FAUW 41-0 vs FAU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• USMW 52-12 vs USM100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• FLAW 42-21 vs FLA87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +18
• MISSL 17-23 at MISS65% → 4%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −4
• ARKW 14-13 at ARK77% → 95%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• TA&MW 59-0 vs TA&M82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21
• TENNW 34-20 at TENN85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• LSUW 20-13 at LSU71% → 82%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +15
• MSSTW 25-20 vs MSST71% → 93%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +3
• WCUW 48-14 vs WCU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• AUBW 55-44 vs AUB69% → 97%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• MIZW 42-13 at MIZ67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +38, Clock +1
• OSUL 35-42 at OSU73% → 10%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2

Points of win probability, from Alabama's side.

Closest call

ALA 24-22 AUB (2021) - Alabama dropped to a 4.4% win probability before pulling it out.