Kentucky

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0942nd
  Defense+0.1046th
• 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.
  Offense39.4%18th
  Defense45.1%30th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3194th
  Defense+1.0891st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1584th
  Defense+0.0746th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0422nd
  Defense+0.1746th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.2%14th
  Defense48.4%35th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.8%45th
  Defense37.5%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6522nd
  Defense2.8943rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.1%15th
  Defense14.7%5th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.2%34th
  Defense2.1%61st

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, 2015

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 Kentucky 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
   UL
2. W
   SC
3. L
   FLA
4. W
   MIZ
5. W
   EKU
6. L
   AUB
7. L
   MSST
8. L
   TENN
9. L
   UGA
10. L
    VAN
11. W
    CLT
12. L
    LOU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kentucky.

Players, 2015

1. Patrick TowlesQB312 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 76th of 205 QBs
   1.29WAR0.82 to 1.80
2. Stanley WilliamsRB138 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 47th of 333 RBs
   0.37WAR0.24 to 0.51
3. Drew BarkerQB70 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 174th of 205 QBs
   0.23WAR0.12 to 0.34
4. Garrett JohnsonWR66 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 65th of 411 WRs
   0.22WAR0.10 to 0.34
5. Jojo KempRB77 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 123rd of 333 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.27
6. Austin MacGinnisPK14 plays · +0.568 pts/play · 33rd of 115 kickers
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
7. Mikel HortonRB71 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 163rd of 333 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
8. Landon FosterP48 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 26th of 92 punters
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.22

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 Kentucky'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63563538th of 128Roster talent: 635, 38th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20920929th of 128Recruiting: 209, 29th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  72%72%49th of 127Returning production: 72%, 49th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.3−0.377th of 128SP+ rating: −0.3, 77th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Kentucky's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 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 MIZQ4 13:44 4th & 1 at UK 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. at VANQ4 5:30 4th & 3 at UK 20, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. vs LOUQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at LOU 3, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. at MSSTQ2 0:03 4th & 2 at MSST 31, down 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs FLAQ4 0:33 4th & 27 at UK 30, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
6. vs AUBQ3 1:03 4th & 3 at AUB 14, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs ULQ2 2:16 4th & 1 at UL 26, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs MIZQ2 6:55 4th & 6 at MIZ 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

98th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   UL
2. W

   SC
3. L

   FLA
4. W

   MIZ
5. W

   EKU
6. L

   AUB
7. L

   MSST
8. L

   TENN
9. L

   UGA
10. L

    VAN
11. W

    CLT
12. L

    LOU

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Kentucky'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−1.28
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Timeouts−0.11
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.03

Game by game

• ULW 40-33 vs UL89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15
• SCW 26-22 at SC35% → 93%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• FLAL 9-14 vs FLA39% → 4%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• MIZW 21-13 vs MIZ57% → 97%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +3
• EKUW 34-27 vs EKU98% → 54%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −44: Timeouts −12, Clock +7
• AUBL 27-30 vs AUB52% → 6%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• MSSTL 16-42 at MSST21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• TENNL 21-52 vs TENN27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −33, Clock −1
• UGAL 3-27 at UGA14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −18
• VANL 17-21 at VAN42% → 9%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• CLTW 58-10 vs CLT95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• LOUL 24-38 vs LOU41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −46, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Kentucky's side.

Closest call

APSU 13-49 UK (2016) - Kentucky dropped to a 0.7% win probability before pulling it out.