Kentucky

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1461st
  Defense+0.1819th
• 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.
  Offense42.9%43rd
  Defense49.3%4th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2569th
  Defense+1.0892nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1782nd
  Defense+0.217th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1235th
  Defense+0.1650th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.5%65th
  Defense53.4%8th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.5%15th
  Defense39.5%4th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0865th
  Defense3.531st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.0%61st
  Defense13.6%3rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.2%47th
  Defense14.2%19th

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, 2016

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. L
   USM
2. L
   FLA
3. W
   NMSU
4. W
   SC
5. L
   ALA
6. W
   VAN
7. W
   MSST
8. W
   MIZ
9. L
   UGA
10. L
    TENN
11. W
    APSU
12. W
    LOU
13. L
    GT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kentucky.

Players, 2016

1. Stephen JohnsonQB302 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 75th of 218 QBs
   1.12WAR0.56 to 1.73
2. Stanley WilliamsRB114 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 88th of 347 RBs
   0.37WAR0.21 to 0.53
3. Benjamin Snell, Jr.RB82 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 96th of 347 RBs
   0.35WAR0.28 to 0.42
4. Benny Snell Jr.RB55 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 188th of 347 RBs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.24
5. Garrett JohnsonWR46 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 104th of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.25
6. Jojo KempRB49 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 212th of 347 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
7. Austin MacGinnisPK17 plays · +0.457 pts/play · 27th of 116 kickers
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.20
8. Jeff BadetWR45 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 156th of 417 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 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 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65265233rd of 128Roster talent: 652, 33rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20820830th of 128Recruiting: 208, 30th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  79%79%33rd of 128Returning production: 79%, 33rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.6−2.678th of 128SP+ rating: −2.6, 78th 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, 2016

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.17 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 VANQ4 1:38 4th & 1 at VAN 10, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−12.0 pts
2. vs SCQ2 12:03 4th & 1 at UK 27, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at TENNQ3 3:12 4th & 1 at UK 25, down 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at MIZQ2 4:16 4th & 1 at UK 21, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs USMQ2 9:33 4th & 3 at UK 40, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs SCQ2 5:38 4th & 2 at UK 40, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at MIZQ4 1:06 4th & 12 at MIZ 37, up 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at TENNQ2 6:27 4th & 6 at UK 49, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

31st 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. L

   USM
2. L

   FLA
3. W

   NMSU
4. W

   SC
5. L

   ALA
6. W

   VAN
7. W

   MSST
8. W

   MIZ
9. L

   UGA
10. L

    TENN
11. W

    APSU
12. W

    LOU
13. L

    GT

What moved it, 2016

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−0.79
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.28

Game by game

• USML 35-44 vs USM74% → 5%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −59, Clock −2
• FLAL 7-45 at FLA15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18
• NMSUW 62-42 vs NMSU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• SCW 17-10 vs SC57% → 96%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• ALAL 6-34 at ALA3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• VANW 20-13 vs VAN59% → 56%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −2, Possession & field position −2
• MSSTW 40-38 vs MSST52% → 95%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +34, Possession & field position +1
• MIZW 35-21 at MIZ39% → 99%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +57, Clock +2
• UGAL 24-27 vs UGA40% → 5%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• TENNL 36-49 at TENN21% → 1%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• APSUW 49-13 vs APSU99% → 1%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −99: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• LOUW 41-38 at LOU5% → 83%Before kickoff −45 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position +2
• GTL 18-33 vs GT38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −43, 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.