Auburn

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1458th
  Defense+0.0183rd
• 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.
  Offense43.5%49th
  Defense38.2%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1528th
  Defense+1.2147th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0643rd
  Defense−0.0791st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2365th
  Defense+0.0966th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.4%51st
  Defense41.8%90th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.5%36th
  Defense32.1%57th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9146th
  Defense2.7570th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.0%71st
  Defense23.0%83rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.4%71st
  Defense19.4%88th

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, 2018

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
   WASH
2. W
   ALST
3. L
   LSU
4. W
   ARK
5. W
   USM
6. L
   MSST
7. L
   TENN
8. W
   MISS
9. W
   TA&M
10. L
    UGA
11. W
    LIB
12. L
    ALA
13. W
    PUR

Bars above the line: better than expected for Auburn.

Players, 2018

1. Jarrett StidhamQB311 plays · +0.251 pts/play · 54th of 225 QBs
   1.46WAR0.99 to 1.99
2. JaTarvious WhitlowRB126 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 96th of 351 RBs
   0.39WAR0.29 to 0.47
3. Kam MartinRB70 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 200th of 351 RBs
   0.22WAR0.17 to 0.26
4. Ryan DavisWR52 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 107th of 434 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.21
5. Anders CarlsonPK16 plays · +0.301 pts/play · 69th of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
6. Darius SlaytonWR49 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 259th of 434 WRs
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.15
7. Anthony SchwartzWR15 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 375th of 434 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
8. Chandler CoxFB12 plays · +0.033 pts/play · 297th of 351 RBs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.02

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  82782714th of 130Roster talent: 827, 14th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2682687th of 130Recruiting: 268, 7th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  83%83%20th of 129Returning production: 83%, 20th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +23.6+23.67th of 130SP+ rating: +23.6, 7th of 130 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, 2018

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.16 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 WASHQ3 7:03 4th & 4 at WASH 37, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. vs TA&MQ4 14:09 4th & 2 at AUB 10, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at UGAQ3 12:21 4th & 2 at UGA 44, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs USMQ4 2:00 4th & 1 at USM 6, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at MSSTQ4 6:33 4th & 7 at MSST 30, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
6. vs TENNQ4 14:54 4th & 5 at TENN 35, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs LSUQ4 12:57 4th & 5 at LSU 35, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. at MISSQ2 11:38 4th & 2 at MISS 29, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

88th of 130 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

   WASH
2. W

   ALST
3. L

   LSU
4. W

   ARK
5. W

   USM
6. L

   MSST
7. L

   TENN
8. W

   MISS
9. W

   TA&M
10. L

    UGA
11. W

    LIB
12. L

    ALA
13. W

    PUR

What moved it, 2018

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−0.19
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.57

Game by game

• WASHW 21-16 vs WASH52% → 96%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• ALSTW 63-9 vs ALST100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0
• LSUL 21-22 vs LSU81% → 8%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −53, Clock −4
• ARKW 34-3 vs ARK97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• USMW 24-13 vs USM96% → 97%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +9
• MSSTL 9-23 at MSST57% → 1%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −2
• TENNL 24-30 vs TENN86% → 5%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• MISSW 31-16 at MISS65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +42, Clock +1
• TA&MW 28-24 vs TA&M61% → 87%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +2
• UGAL 10-27 at UGA17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22
• LIBW 53-0 vs LIB97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• ALAL 21-52 at ALA5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• PURW 63-14 vs PUR62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +39

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.