Houston Christian
Expected points
YardLine's expected-points model values every snap by what a drive from that spot is worth on average, so a drive can be judged against where it started. How it works →
Drives vs. expectation, 2016
Points over expected per drive, from where each drive started.
Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.
Points over expected per trip inside the opponent's 40.
Average expected points where drives started.
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 Houston Christian 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.
Game by game
Bars above the line: better than expected for Houston Christian.
Fourth downs
YardLine's fourth-down model values going for it, kicking and punting on every real fourth down, so each call can be checked against the numbers. How it works →
Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2016
Calls that matched the option with the best modeled win probability.
Summed over every call that differed, in points of win probability.
Went for it when going beat every other option by a point or more.
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 Houston Christian's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.00 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right.
Costliest calls against the numbers
- at UTEPQ1 6:47 4th & 7 at UTEP 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
- at WKUQ4 8:27 4th & 11 at WKU 24, down 47Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)<0.1 pts
- at UTEPQ3 5:01 4th & 5 at midfield, down 32Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
- at UTEPQ1 13:45 4th & 8 at UTEP 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
Every call this season (21)
- Q1 7:564th & 3 at WKU 39, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
- Q1 0:344th & 8 at WKU 8, down 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q2 11:194th & 9 at HCU 20, down 18 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 1:464th & 8 at HCU 44, down 21 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 15:004th & 16 at WKU 46, down 27 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 8:234th & 14 at HCU 10, down 40 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 8:234th & 12 at HCU 10, down 33 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 4:314th & 4 at HCU 21, down 47 · PuntedAgreed
- Q4 8:274th & 11 at WKU 24, down 47 · Went for itClose call
- Q4 6:214th & 20 at HCU 37, down 47 · PuntedAgreed
- Q1 13:454th & 8 at UTEP 42, down 7 · PuntedClose call
- Q1 6:474th & 7 at UTEP 42, down 7 · PuntedClose call
- Q1 1:304th & 5 at HCU 25, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 14:534th & 10 at HCU 25, down 21 · PuntedAgreed
- Q2 8:364th & 10 at UTEP 35, down 28 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
- Q2 1:314th & 7 at UTEP 47, down 25 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 15:004th & 3 at HCU 31, down 25 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 9:024th & 5 at HCU 14, down 32 · PuntedAgreed
- Q3 5:014th & 5 at midfield, down 32 · PuntedClose call
- Q4 10:224th & 8 at HCU 43, down 32 · PuntedAgreed
- Q4 1:404th & 4 at UTEP 49, down 32 · Went for itAgreed
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Tries that matched the option with the better modeled win probability.
Summed over every try that differed, in points of win probability.
Went for two when it beat kicking by a point or more.
Win probability
YardLine's model estimates each team's chance of winning before kickoff and again after every play, from the score, clock, down, distance and field position. How it works →
Record vs. expectation, 2016
Expected wins adds up Houston Christian's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.
What moved it, 2016
Every game starts at Houston Christian'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−0.56
- Timeouts−0.01
- Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.04
Game by game
- WKUL 3-50 at WKU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −28
- UTEPL 10-42 at UTEP26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −28
Points of win probability, from Houston Christian's side.
Season arc, 2016
Every completed game this season, in order - each tile is Houston Christian's own win-probability curve.
Biggest swings of 2016
The largest single-play change in Houston Christian's win probability this season - one snap that moved the outcome the most.
Stolen wins
Houston Christian's own lowest win probability at any point in a game it went on to win, across the whole archive - the deepest holes it climbed out of.
Let it slip
Houston Christian's own highest win probability at any point in a game it went on to lose, across the whole archive - the biggest leads it didn't hold.
Stock & rivalries
Stock
Houston Christian's leaguewide Elo rating, tracked like a stock price - built from game results and margins, not the model's own win-probability predictions.
Series & rivalries
Houston Christian's most-played opponents across the whole archive - open one for the full head-to-head history.