Auburn

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0767th
• 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%74th
  Defense41.9%66th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0811th
  Defense+1.1474th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1675th
  Defense−0.0283rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2264th
  Defense+0.1845th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.9%68th
  Defense45.5%71st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.7%65th
  Defense34.5%40th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2283rd
  Defense2.7371st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.0%80th
  Defense21.7%72nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.6%83rd
  Defense19.4%85th

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, 2016

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. L
   CLEM
2. W
   ARST
3. L
   TA&M
4. W
   LSU
5. W
   ULM
6. W
   MSST
7. W
   ARK
8. W
   MISS
9. W
   VAN
10. L
    UGA
11. W
    AAMU
12. L
    ALA
13. L
    OU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Auburn.

Players, 2016

1. Sean WhiteQB208 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 105th of 218 QBs
   0.76WAR0.41 to 1.10
2. Kamryn PettwayRB164 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 15th of 347 RBs
   0.72WAR0.58 to 0.86
3. Kerryon JohnsonRB136 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 70th of 347 RBs
   0.43WAR0.31 to 0.57
4. Daniel CarlsonPK23 plays · +0.644 pts/play · 3rd of 116 kickers
   0.28WAR0.21 to 0.35
5. Jeremy JohnsonQB27 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 195th of 218 QBs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.15
6. Kevin PhillipsP38 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 69th of 82 punters
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.14
7. Tony StevensWR32 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 311th of 417 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.10
8. John Franklin IIIWR19 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 383rd of 417 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.05

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, 2016

• 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.
  2772777th of 128Recruiting: 277, 7th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  57%57%84th of 128Returning production: 57%, 84th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.3+15.321st of 128SP+ rating: +15.3, 21st 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, 2016

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 0.25 of the 0.30 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 LSUQ4 2:56 4th & 1 at LSU 12, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−8.7 pts
2. at MISSQ4 8:13 4th & 2 at MISS 30, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.2 pts
3. vs LSUQ4 12:36 4th & 1 at LSU 20, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
4. at OUQ3 5:30 4th & 1 at AUB 34, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs TA&MQ3 7:56 4th & 3 at AUB 49, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. at MSSTQ2 8:09 4th & 2 at MSST 40, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. at UGAQ3 9:59 4th & 2 at AUB 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
8. vs VANQ3 5:57 4th & 4 at VAN 36, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

71st 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. L

   CLEM
2. W

   ARST
3. L

   TA&M
4. W

   LSU
5. W

   ULM
6. W

   MSST
7. W

   ARK
8. W

   MISS
9. W

   VAN
10. L

    UGA
11. W

    AAMU
12. L

    ALA
13. L

    OU

What moved it, 2016

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−0.15
• Possession & field position+0.08
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.03

Game by game

• CLEML 13-19 vs CLEM28% → 12%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −34, Clock −3
• ARSTW 51-14 vs ARST87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +15
• TA&ML 16-29 vs TA&M63% → 2%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• LSUW 18-13 vs LSU35% → 87%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• ULMW 58-7 vs ULM98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• MSSTW 38-14 at MSST53% → 99%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +49, Clock +2
• ARKW 56-3 vs ARK89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• MISSW 40-29 at MISS53% → 98%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• VANW 23-16 vs VAN95% → 96%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts +1
• UGAL 7-13 at UGA68% → 5%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −3
• AAMUW 55-0 vs AAMU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• ALAL 12-30 at ALA11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15
• OUL 19-35 at OU33% → 2%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −36, Possession & field position +4

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.