Kentucky

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1362nd
  Defense+0.1532nd
• 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.
  Offense43.6%59th
  Defense47.5%13th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2257th
  Defense+1.1180th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1068th
  Defense+0.1322nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1756th
  Defense+0.1740th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.0%56th
  Defense53.0%7th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.5%46th
  Defense35.0%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9254th
  Defense3.296th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.3%68th
  Defense16.1%15th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.5%41st
  Defense14.4%24th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   USM
2. W
   EKU
3. W
   SC
4. L
   FLA
5. W
   EMU
6. W
   MIZ
7. L
   MSST
8. W
   TENN
9. L
   MISS
10. W
    VAN
11. L
    UGA
12. L
    LOU
13. L
    NU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kentucky.

Players, 2017

1. Stephen JohnsonQB368 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 46th of 226 QBs
   1.45WAR0.85 to 2.03
2. Benny Snell Jr.RB237 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 9th of 352 RBs
   0.73WAR0.50 to 0.92
3. Austin MacGinnisPK24 plays · +0.552 pts/play · 2nd of 110 kickers
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.33
4. Sihiem KingRB76 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 205th of 352 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
5. Garrett JohnsonWR53 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 103rd of 426 WRs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.19
6. Tavin RichardsonWR39 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 215th of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
7. Matt PantonP56 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 20th of 95 punters
   0.09WAR0.00 to 0.17
8. C.J. ConradTE19 plays · +0.045 pts/play · 44th of 199 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.04

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67167132nd of 130Roster talent: 671, 32nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20820831st of 130Recruiting: 208, 31st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  67%67%53rd of 128Returning production: 67%, 53rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.7+2.761st of 128SP+ rating: +2.7, 61st of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.19 of the 0.27 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 1:48 4th & 2 at MIZ 2, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.5 pts
2. at SCQ4 8:59 4th & 1 at SC 26, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. vs EMUQ4 1:38 4th & 2 at UK 48, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. at VANQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at VAN 22, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. at NUQ4 4:24 4th & 3 at NU 30, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at MSSTQ2 3:08 4th & 1 at UK 27, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at USMQ3 10:36 4th & 2 at UK 38, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs EKUQ4 4:20 4th & 1 at UK 35, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

43rd of 130 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

   USM
2. W

   EKU
3. W

   SC
4. L

   FLA
5. W

   EMU
6. W

   MIZ
7. L

   MSST
8. W

   TENN
9. L

   MISS
10. W

    VAN
11. L

    UGA
12. L

    LOU
13. L

    NU

What moved it, 2017

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+0.39
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.10

Game by game

• USMW 24-17 at USM77% → 95%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• EKUW 27-16 vs EKU98% → 97%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +7
• SCW 23-13 at SC33% → 96%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• FLAL 27-28 vs FLA39% → 18%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −35, Clock −4
• EMUW 24-20 vs EMU84% → 88%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +2
• MIZW 40-34 vs MIZ70% → 87%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position −1
• MSSTL 7-45 at MSST16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −19
• TENNW 29-26 vs TENN64% → 85%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• MISSL 34-37 vs MISS62% → 7%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• VANW 44-21 at VAN41% → 100%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• UGAL 13-42 at UGA5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• LOUL 17-44 vs LOU25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1
• NUL 23-24 at NU30% → 6%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −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.