Georgia Tech

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+0.3598th
  Defense+0.1736th
• 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.
  Offense53.6%99th
  Defense49.4%3rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1637th
  Defense+1.1473rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3297th
  Defense+0.1720th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.5197th
  Defense+0.2052nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense57.6%99th
  Defense53.3%3rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.4%95th
  Defense39.7%7th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3694th
  Defense3.0231st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.3%98th
  Defense20.0%55th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.4%90th
  Defense3.0%92nd

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 Georgia Tech 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
   WOF
2. W
   TULN
3. W
   GASO
4. W
   VT
5. W
   MIA
6. L
   DUKE
7. L
   UNC
8. W
   PITT
9. W
   UVA
10. W
    NCSU
11. W
    CLEM
12. W
    UGA
13. L
    FSU
14. W
    MSST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Georgia Tech.

Players, 2014

1. Justin ThomasQB316 plays · +0.253 pts/play · 63rd of 199 QBs
   1.50WAR0.91 to 2.11
2. Synjyn DaysRB131 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 64th of 350 RBs
   0.31WAR0.18 to 0.42
3. Zach LaskeyRB154 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 96th of 350 RBs
   0.23WAR0.11 to 0.34
4. DeAndre SmelterWR46 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 142nd of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.20
5. Harrison ButkerPK14 plays · +0.358 pts/play · 70th of 114 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.14
6. Ryan RodwellP25 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 68th of 94 punters
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
7. Deon HillRB9 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 291st of 350 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03
8. Tony ZenonRB8 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 291st of 350 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03

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 Georgia Tech'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 Georgia Tech's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.09 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 CLEMQ2 0:01 4th & 14 at GT 27, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.9 pts
2. vs UVAQ2 10:06 4th & 11 at UVA 27, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
3. vs CLEMQ2 9:07 4th & 2 at CLEM 8, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs MIAQ2 3:40 4th & 5 at GT 34, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs DUKEQ3 9:02 4th & 7 at DUKE 35, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at PITTQ2 4:59 4th & 2 at GT 33, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs DUKEQ2 14:13 4th & 3 at DUKE 8, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at VTQ4 13:14 4th & 4 at GT 20, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

1st of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   WOF
2. W

   TULN
3. W

   GASO
4. W

   VT
5. W

   MIA
6. L

   DUKE
7. L

   UNC
8. W

   PITT
9. W

   UVA
10. W

    NCSU
11. W

    CLEM
12. W

    UGA
13. L

    FSU
14. W

    MSST

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Georgia Tech'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+3.17
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.13
• Timeouts+0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.41

Game by game

• WOFW 38-19 vs WOF97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +7
• TULNW 38-21 at TULN79% → 98%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• GASOW 42-38 vs GASO94% → 85%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −8: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts +1
• VTW 27-24 at VT31% → 95%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• MIAW 28-17 vs MIA48% → 98%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +1
• DUKEL 25-31 vs DUKE63% → 6%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• UNCL 43-48 at UNC42% → 25%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −13, Possession & field position −1
• PITTW 56-28 at PITT37% → 100%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +60, Clock +2
• UVAW 35-10 vs UVA52% → 100%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +1
• NCSUW 56-23 at NCSU58% → 100%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +45, Clock +1
• CLEMW 28-6 vs CLEM40% → 100%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +52, Clock −1
• UGAW 30-24 at UGA14% → 69%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +18
• FSUL 35-37 vs FSU33% → 5%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• MSSTW 49-34 vs MSST27% → 99%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +50, Possession & field position +1

Points of win probability, from Georgia Tech's side.

Closest call

GT 28-27 VT (2022) - Georgia Tech dropped to a 3.3% win probability before pulling it out.