Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.2188th
  Defense−0.1098th
• 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.
  Offense47.4%91st
  Defense34.8%95th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1534th
  Defense+1.0984th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2695th
  Defense−0.0991st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1752nd
  Defense−0.1197th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.0%89th
  Defense39.3%97th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.6%58th
  Defense26.9%93rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.6199th
  Defense2.6077th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.0%97th
  Defense20.4%55th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.3%98th
  Defense21.4%96th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   FSU
2. W
   FRES
3. W
   CSU
4. W
   VAN
5. W
   MISS
6. W
   TA&M
7. W
   ARK
8. W
   TENN
9. W
   LSU
10. W
    MSST
11. W
    MER
12. L
    AUB
13. W
    CLEM
14. W
    UGA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Alabama.

Players, 2017

1. Jalen HurtsQB229 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 102nd of 226 QBs
   0.76WAR0.30 to 1.20
2. Damien HarrisRB75 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 99th of 352 RBs
   0.29WAR0.23 to 0.35
3. Bo ScarbroughRB77 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 159th of 352 RBs
   0.21WAR0.15 to 0.26
4. Tua TagovailoaQB34 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 195th of 226 QBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17
5. Calvin RidleyWR55 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 194th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
6. Josh JacobsRB22 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 263rd of 352 RBs
   0.05WAR0.04 to 0.07
7. JK ScottP33 plays · +0.028 pts/play · 64th of 95 punters
   0.02WAR−0.04 to 0.06
8. Irv Smith Jr.TE6 plays · +0.033 pts/play · 67th of 199 TEs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9989981st of 130Roster talent: 998, 1st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  3143141st of 130Recruiting: 314, 1st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%35th of 128Returning production: 73%, 35th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +33.5+33.51st of 128SP+ rating: +33.5, 1st of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.13 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 AUBQ3 0:53 4th & 9 at AUB 17, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
2. at AUBQ3 8:08 4th & 1 at ALA 32, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. at UGAQ3 0:08 4th & 2 at ALA 44, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at UGAQ4 3:49 4th & 4 at UGA 7, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
5. at AUBQ4 2:29 4th & 22 at AUB 41, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs FSUQ4 12:28 4th & 3 at FSU 24, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at UGAQ3 13:03 4th & 3 at ALA 29, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs LSUQ2 2:52 4th & 3 at midfield, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

38th of 130 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

   FSU
2. W

   FRES
3. W

   CSU
4. W

   VAN
5. W

   MISS
6. W

   TA&M
7. W

   ARK
8. W

   TENN
9. W

   LSU
10. W

    MSST
11. W

    MER
12. L

    AUB
13. W

    CLEM
14. W

    UGA

What moved it, 2017

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+1.40
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.16
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.09

Game by game

• FSUW 24-7 vs FSU73% → 98%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• FRESW 41-10 vs FRES99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• CSUW 41-23 vs CSU97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +6
• VANW 59-0 at VAN91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +13
• MISSW 66-3 vs MISS98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• TA&MW 27-19 at TA&M96% → 98%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +11, Clock +1
• ARKW 41-9 vs ARK99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• TENNW 45-7 vs TENN99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• LSUW 24-10 vs LSU92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• MSSTW 31-24 at MSST86% → 86%Before kickoff +36 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +27, Clock +2
• MERW 56-0 vs MER100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• AUBL 14-26 at AUB69% → 2%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts −2
• CLEMW 24-6 at CLEM70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• UGAW 26-23 at UGA60% → 89%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +17

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.