Cincinnati

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+0.2788th
  Defense+0.1926th
• 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.
  Offense45.8%72nd
  Defense47.0%15th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2881st
  Defense+1.2049th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1050th
  Defense+0.1724th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4293rd
  Defense+0.2245th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.2%62nd
  Defense50.9%16th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.6%80th
  Defense38.8%9th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1075th
  Defense3.0825th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.3%93rd
  Defense17.2%19th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.9%10th
  Defense1.4%13th

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 Cincinnati 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
   TOL
2. W
   M-OH
3. L
   OSU
4. L
   MEM
5. L
   MIA
6. W
   SMU
7. W
   USF
8. W
   TULN
9. W
   ECU
10. W
    CONN
11. W
    TEM
12. W
    HOU
13. L
    VT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Cincinnati.

Players, 2014

1. Gunner KielQB345 plays · +0.311 pts/play · 25th of 199 QBs
   2.01WAR1.37 to 2.61
2. Munchie LegauxQB65 plays · +0.280 pts/play · 149th of 199 QBs
   0.34WAR0.25 to 0.42
3. Mike BooneRB74 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 87th of 350 RBs
   0.26WAR0.19 to 0.32
4. Rod MooreRB124 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 109th of 350 RBs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.31
5. Mekale McKayWR56 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 62nd of 469 WRs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.31
6. Shaq WashingtonWR84 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 70th of 469 WRs
   0.20WAR0.09 to 0.31
7. Chris MooreWR49 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 81st of 469 WRs
   0.18WAR0.08 to 0.27
8. Max MorrisonWR49 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 92nd of 469 WRs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.23

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 Cincinnati'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 Cincinnati'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 0.06 of the 0.12 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 TEMQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at TEM 46, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
2. vs USFQ3 10:44 4th & 1 at CIN 47, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs HOUQ4 2:03 4th & 5 at HOU 35, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at TEMQ3 12:15 4th & 7 at TEM 34, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs ECUQ3 4:44 4th & 2 at CIN 39, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at TEMQ4 0:25 4th & 11 at TEM 42, up 8Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs M-OHQ2 7:52 4th & 3 at M-OH 3, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs USFQ2 3:07 4th & 8 at USF 42, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

27th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Cincinnati's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   TOL
2. W

   M-OH
3. L

   OSU
4. L

   MEM
5. L

   MIA
6. W

   SMU
7. W

   USF
8. W

   TULN
9. W

   ECU
10. W

    CONN
11. W

    TEM
12. W

    HOU
13. L

    VT

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Cincinnati'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+0.92
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.28

Game by game

• TOLW 58-34 vs TOL79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• M-OHW 31-24 vs M-OH97% → 94%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard +8, Timeouts +1
• OSUL 28-50 at OSU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20, Possession & field position +1
• MEML 14-41 vs MEM63% → 1%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −61, Clock −1
• MIAL 34-55 at MIA16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −20
• SMUW 41-3 at SMU85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21
• USFW 34-17 vs USF70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31
• TULNW 38-14 at TULN57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +47, Clock +2
• ECUW 54-46 vs ECU40% → 95%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• TEMW 14-6 at TEM58% → 96%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• HOUW 38-31 vs HOU65% → 89%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• VTL 17-33 at VT54% → 1%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −1

Points of win probability, from Cincinnati's side.

Closest call

CIN 21-17 M-OH (2017) - Cincinnati dropped to a 4.8% win probability before pulling it out.