Auburn

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+0.2790th
  Defense+0.1644th
• 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.
  Offense49.4%91st
  Defense43.1%43rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1640th
  Defense+1.2241st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1569th
  Defense+0.1147th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.5399th
  Defense+0.2342nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.8%87th
  Defense48.0%43rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.3%94th
  Defense32.2%55th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3090th
  Defense2.8552nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.2%77th
  Defense22.3%76th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.5%81st
  Defense3.7%98th

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 Auburn 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
   ARK
2. W
   SJSU
3. W
   KSU
4. W
   LT
5. W
   LSU
6. L
   MSST
7. W
   SC
8. W
   MISS
9. L
   TA&M
10. L
    UGA
11. W
    SAM
12. L
    ALA
13. L
    WIS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Auburn.

Players, 2014

1. Nick MarshallQB305 plays · +0.291 pts/play · 50th of 199 QBs
   1.66WAR1.17 to 2.23
2. Cameron Artis-PayneRB227 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 29th of 350 RBs
   0.44WAR0.27 to 0.60
3. D'haquille WilliamsWR51 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 55th of 469 WRs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.30
4. Sammie CoatesWR52 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 94th of 469 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.26
5. Daniel CarlsonPK16 plays · +0.511 pts/play · 19th of 114 kickers
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
6. Jeremy JohnsonQB17 plays · +0.361 pts/play · 178th of 199 QBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
7. Quan BrayWR35 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 238th of 469 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. Ricardo LouisWR39 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 325th of 469 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.10

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 Auburn'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 Auburn's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.08 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 ALAQ4 6:55 4th & 8 at ALA 14, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
2. at MISSQ4 3:22 4th & 2 at AUB 25, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at UGAQ4 11:25 4th & 13 at UGA 15, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
4. at WISQ3 9:32 4th & 5 at WIS 33, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at MSSTQ2 2:43 4th & 3 at AUB 43, down 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at UGAQ1 4:43 4th & 1 at AUB 37, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at ALAQ2 11:01 4th & 4 at ALA 7, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at MSSTQ2 14:57 4th & 4 at MSST 4, down 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

111th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   ARK
2. W

   SJSU
3. W

   KSU
4. W

   LT
5. W

   LSU
6. L

   MSST
7. W

   SC
8. W

   MISS
9. L

   TA&M
10. L

    UGA
11. W

    SAM
12. L

    ALA
13. L

    WIS

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Auburn'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−0.55
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.18
• Timeouts+0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.10

Game by game

• ARKW 45-21 vs ARK92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +12
• SJSUW 59-13 vs SJSU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +4
• KSUW 20-14 at KSU72% → 95%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• LTW 45-17 vs LT98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• LSUW 41-7 vs LSU76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +26
• MSSTL 23-38 at MSST62% → 2%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −47, Possession & field position +2
• SCW 42-35 vs SC85% → 90%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• MISSW 35-31 at MISS45% → 87%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +42, Possession & field position +3
• TA&ML 38-41 vs TA&M85% → 7%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• UGAL 7-34 at UGA47% → 0%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −45
• SAMW 31-7 vs SAM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +3
• ALAL 44-55 at ALA31% → 3%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• WISL 31-34 at WIS72% → 13%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +20

Points of win probability, from Auburn's side.

Closest call

TA&M 24-28 AUB (2018) - Auburn dropped to a 12.7% win probability before pulling it out.