Auburn

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+0.1464th
  Defense+0.0855th
• 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.
  Offense46.1%76th
  Defense46.6%20th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.044th
  Defense+1.0496th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1270th
  Defense+0.1414th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2061st
  Defense+0.0283rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.7%71st
  Defense51.0%18th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.5%74th
  Defense36.2%24th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0474th
  Defense3.248th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.0%94th
  Defense16.7%20th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense3.2%8th
  Defense1.5%19th

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 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
   LOU
2. W
   JXST
3. L
   LSU
4. L
   MSST
5. W
   SJSU
6. W
   UK
7. L
   ARK
8. L
   MISS
9. W
   TA&M
10. L
    UGA
11. W
    IDHO
12. L
    ALA
13. W
    MEM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Auburn.

Players, 2015

1. Jeremy JohnsonQB132 plays · +0.309 pts/play · 106th of 205 QBs
   0.76WAR0.52 to 1.01
2. Sean WhiteQB179 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 107th of 205 QBs
   0.75WAR0.47 to 1.06
3. Peyton BarberRB191 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 42nd of 333 RBs
   0.39WAR0.24 to 0.53
4. Jovon RobinsonRB96 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 96th of 333 RBs
   0.27WAR0.20 to 0.32
5. Daniel CarlsonPK24 plays · +0.511 pts/play · 4th of 115 kickers
   0.23WAR0.16 to 0.29
6. Ricardo LouisWR90 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 125th of 411 WRs
   0.15WAR0.03 to 0.28
7. D'haquille WilliamsWR13 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 308th of 411 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
8. Kevin PhillipsP46 plays · +0.037 pts/play · 79th of 92 punters
   0.03WAR−0.04 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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8658657th of 128Roster talent: 865, 7th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2782788th of 128Recruiting: 278, 8th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  20%20%123rd of 127Returning production: 20%, 123rd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +14.6+14.623rd of 128SP+ rating: +14.6, 23rd 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 Auburn'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 0.24 of the 0.32 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 UKQ4 2:19 4th & 1 at AUB 47, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−8.5 pts
2. at MEMQ3 8:37 4th & 1 at AUB 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
3. vs ALAQ3 10:01 4th & 1 at AUB 48, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
4. at TA&MQ4 6:33 4th & 1 at TA&M 14, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
5. vs LOUQ4 0:00 4th & 18 at AUB 46, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.0 pts
6. at TA&MQ4 13:39 4th & 3 at TA&M 3, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
7. vs MSSTQ4 1:07 4th & 3 at MSST 34, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
8. vs SJSUQ4 10:02 4th & 1 at SJSU 8, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

64th 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

   LOU
2. W

   JXST
3. L

   LSU
4. L

   MSST
5. W

   SJSU
6. W

   UK
7. L

   ARK
8. L

   MISS
9. W

   TA&M
10. L

    UGA
11. W

    IDHO
12. L

    ALA
13. W

    MEM

What moved it, 2015

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−0.10
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts+0.12
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.18

Game by game

• LOUW 31-24 vs LOU75% → 96%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• JXSTW 27-20 vs JXST100% → 92%Before kickoff +50 · On the field −7: Scoreboard +5, Timeouts −2
• LSUL 21-45 at LSU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• MSSTL 9-17 vs MSST53% → 3%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• SJSUW 35-21 vs SJSU89% → 98%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1
• UKW 30-27 at UK48% → 94%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• ARKL 46-54 at ARK32% → 6%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts +12
• MISSL 19-27 vs MISS30% → 5%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• TA&MW 26-10 at TA&M24% → 98%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +61, Clock +3
• UGAL 13-20 vs UGA42% → 4%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• IDHOW 56-34 vs IDHO98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +5
• ALAL 13-29 vs ALA17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• MEMW 31-10 at MEM54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2

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.