Clemson

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+0.1028th
  Defense−0.0399th
• 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.
  Offense42.0%40th
  Defense31.1%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1014th
  Defense+1.338th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0014th
  Defense−0.0899th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2253rd
  Defense+0.0297th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.6%31st
  Defense36.8%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.6%47th
  Defense22.6%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7334th
  Defense1.9399th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.4%38th
  Defense31.9%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.6%75th
  Defense2.9%88th

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 Clemson 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
   UGA
2. W
   SCST
3. L
   FSU
4. W
   UNC
5. W
   NCSU
6. W
   LOU
7. W
   BC
8. W
   SYR
9. W
   WAKE
10. L
    GT
11. W
    GAST
12. W
    SC
13. W
    OU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Clemson.

Players, 2014

1. Deshaun WatsonQB145 plays · +0.391 pts/play · 96th of 199 QBs
   1.06WAR0.84 to 1.28
2. Cole StoudtQB270 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 101st of 199 QBs
   1.01WAR0.56 to 1.38
3. Wayne GallmanRB153 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 48th of 350 RBs
   0.35WAR0.24 to 0.45
4. Mike WilliamsWR66 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 32nd of 469 WRs
   0.29WAR0.19 to 0.40
5. Bradley PinionP57 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 20th of 94 punters
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.24
6. Ammon LakipPK21 plays · +0.354 pts/play · 27th of 114 kickers
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20
7. C.J. DavidsonRB64 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 204th of 350 RBs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15
8. Artavis ScottWR75 plays · +0.065 pts/play · 225th of 469 WRs
   0.09WAR−0.02 to 0.20

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 Clemson'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 Clemson'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 0.15 of the 0.22 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 SYRQ3 6:36 4th & 1 at SYR 1, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
2. vs LOUQ4 1:24 4th & 4 at LOU 4, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. vs LOUQ4 10:29 4th & 4 at CLEM 49, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs UNCQ2 3:52 4th & 1 at CLEM 47, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. at FSUQ2 2:06 4th & 1 at CLEM 25, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs LOUQ2 3:13 4th & 1 at CLEM 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs LOUQ3 5:21 4th & 2 at CLEM 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs LOUQ3 0:00 4th & 3 at LOU 23, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

22nd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   UGA
2. W

   SCST
3. L

   FSU
4. W

   UNC
5. W

   NCSU
6. W

   LOU
7. W

   BC
8. W

   SYR
9. W

   WAKE
10. L

    GT
11. W

    GAST
12. W

    SC
13. W

    OU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Clemson'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+1.53
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.13
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.29

Game by game

• UGAL 21-45 at UGA22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −1
• SCSTW 73-7 vs SCST97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +4
• FSUL 17-23 at FSU8% → 14%Before kickoff −42 · On the field +6: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts +12
• UNCW 50-35 vs UNC77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• NCSUW 41-0 vs NCSU84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19, Clock −1
• LOUW 23-17 vs LOU70% → 96%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +31
• BCW 17-13 at BC73% → 94%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• SYRW 16-6 vs SYR85% → 97%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• WAKEW 34-20 at WAKE92% → 98%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• GTL 6-28 at GT60% → 0%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −52, Clock +1
• GASTW 28-0 vs GAST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• SCW 35-17 vs SC61% → 98%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts −1
• OUW 40-6 vs OU33% → 100%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +58

Points of win probability, from Clemson's side.

Closest call

CLEM 38-35 UK (2023) - Clemson dropped to a 1.0% win probability before pulling it out.