Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1773rd
  Defense−0.0999th
• 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.
  Offense45.7%72nd
  Defense31.8%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1634th
  Defense+1.3411th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1583rd
  Defense−0.1598th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2671st
  Defense−0.0494th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.7%82nd
  Defense35.3%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.9%46th
  Defense26.8%91st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1384th
  Defense2.3394th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.4%85th
  Defense25.0%90th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.1%40th
  Defense1.7%33rd

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, 2015

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
   WIS
2. W
   MTSU
3. L
   MISS
4. W
   ULM
5. W
   UGA
6. W
   ARK
7. W
   TA&M
8. W
   TENN
9. W
   LSU
10. W
    MSST
11. W
    CHSO
12. W
    AUB
13. W
    FLA
14. W
    MSU
15. W
    CLEM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Alabama.

Players, 2015

1. Jake CokerQB356 plays · +0.300 pts/play · 27th of 205 QBs
   2.00WAR1.39 to 2.62
2. Derrick HenryRB313 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 4th of 333 RBs
   0.79WAR0.54 to 1.03
3. Calvin RidleyWR89 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 33rd of 411 WRs
   0.28WAR0.15 to 0.41
4. JK ScottP47 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 10th of 92 punters
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.23
5. Adam GriffithPK24 plays · +0.369 pts/play · 23rd of 115 kickers
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.23
6. ArDarius StewartWR69 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 165th of 411 WRs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.20
7. Kenyan DrakeRB76 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 202nd of 333 RBs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
8. Richard MullaneyWR50 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 267th of 411 WRs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.13

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9829821st of 128Roster talent: 982, 1st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  3153151st of 128Recruiting: 315, 1st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  22%22%122nd of 127Returning production: 22%, 122nd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +29.0+29.02nd of 128SP+ rating: +29.0, 2nd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2015

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.15 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. vs FLAQ3 8:04 4th & 1 at FLA 13, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. vs TENNQ3 9:00 4th & 2 at TENN 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. at TA&MQ4 11:17 4th & 3 at TA&M 3, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs ARKQ4 6:24 4th & 1 at ALA 49, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at TA&MQ2 9:07 4th & 3 at TA&M 46, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at TA&MQ3 0:03 4th & 8 at TA&M 36, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs MISSQ2 11:52 4th & 3 at MISS 3, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at CLEMQ2 4:25 4th & 2 at ALA 30, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

8th 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

   WIS
2. W

   MTSU
3. L

   MISS
4. W

   ULM
5. W

   UGA
6. W

   ARK
7. W

   TA&M
8. W

   TENN
9. W

   LSU
10. W

    MSST
11. W

    CHSO
12. W

    AUB
13. W

    FLA
14. W

    MSU
15. W

    CLEM

What moved it, 2015

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+3.11
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.76

Game by game

• WISW 35-17 vs WIS77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• MTSUW 37-10 vs MTSU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• MISSL 37-43 vs MISS71% → 3%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• ULMW 34-0 vs ULM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UGAW 38-10 at UGA47% → 100%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +55, Clock +2
• ARKW 27-14 vs ARK84% → 98%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• TA&MW 41-23 at TA&M56% → 99%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2
• TENNW 19-14 vs TENN80% → 96%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +2
• LSUW 30-16 vs LSU65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• MSSTW 31-6 at MSST67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• CHSOW 56-6 vs CHSO99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• AUBW 29-13 at AUB83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• FLAW 29-15 vs FLA87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• MSUW 38-0 vs MSU75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27
• CLEMW 45-40 at CLEM59% → 97%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +45, Clock +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.