Alabama

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.4699th
  Defense+0.0962nd
• 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.
  Offense57.9%99th
  Defense37.5%87th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3067th
  Defense+1.3915th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2191st
  Defense+0.0458th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.6899th
  Defense+0.1364th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense60.8%99th
  Defense40.5%96th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense47.5%99th
  Defense31.6%58th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2991st
  Defense2.6376th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.0%92nd
  Defense18.3%34th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense10.5%97th
  Defense18.3%75th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   MIZ
2. W
   TA&M
3. W
   MISS
4. W
   UGA
5. W
   TENN
6. W
   MSST
7. W
   UK
8. W
   AUB
9. W
   LSU
10. W
    ARK
11. W
    FLA
12. W
    ND
13. W
    OSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Alabama.

Players, 2020

1. Mac JonesQB259 plays · +0.293 pts/play · 7th of 212 QBs
   1.42WAR0.89 to 1.92
2. Najee HarrisRB177 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 6th of 338 RBs
   0.70WAR0.58 to 0.83
3. DeVonta SmithWR81 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 1st of 409 WRs
   0.34WAR0.23 to 0.45
4. Brian Robinson Jr.RB37 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 237th of 338 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.15
5. John MetchieWR38 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 138th of 409 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
6. Jaylen WaddleWR21 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 191st of 409 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
7. Jahleel BillingsleyTE13 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 60th of 191 TEs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.03
8. Miller ForristallTE17 plays · +0.049 pts/play · 60th of 191 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.04

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9869862nd of 127Roster talent: 986, 2nd of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  3103102nd of 127Recruiting: 310, 2nd of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  50%50%89th of 127Returning production: 50%, 89th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +28.3+28.32nd of 127SP+ rating: +28.3, 2nd of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.04 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 FLAQ4 9:53 4th & 2 at FLA 2, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. vs OSUQ3 7:47 4th & 2 at OSU 2, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs UGAQ1 9:09 4th & 2 at ALA 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
4. at TENNQ1 12:14 4th & 1 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
5. vs UGAQ2 9:00 4th & 4 at UGA 15, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. at ARKQ1 10:54 4th & 2 at ARK 28, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs MSSTQ3 6:43 4th & 3 at ALA 19, up 27Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at MISSQ2 11:10 4th & 10 at MISS 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

18th of 127 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

   MIZ
2. W

   TA&M
3. W

   MISS
4. W

   UGA
5. W

   TENN
6. W

   MSST
7. W

   UK
8. W

   AUB
9. W

   LSU
10. W

    ARK
11. W

    FLA
12. W

    ND
13. W

    OSU

What moved it, 2020

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+1.82
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.71

Game by game

• MIZW 38-19 at MIZ97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +8
• TA&MW 52-24 vs TA&M87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• MISSW 63-48 at MISS93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +13
• UGAW 41-24 vs UGA68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts −1
• TENNW 48-17 at TENN91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13
• MSSTW 41-0 vs MSST97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• UKW 63-3 vs UK97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +4
• AUBW 42-13 vs AUB94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• LSUW 55-17 at LSU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +7
• ARKW 52-3 at ARK97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• FLAW 52-46 at FLA86% → 91%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +25, Clock +2
• NDW 31-14 vs ND90% → 98%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +17, Possession & field position −1
• OSUW 52-24 vs OSU75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1

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.