Kentucky

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0833rd
  Defense+0.0473rd
• 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.
  Offense44.1%57th
  Defense39.5%76th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1012th
  Defense+1.1571st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1060th
  Defense+0.0172nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0624th
  Defense+0.0867th
• 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
  Defense44.4%74th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.4%22nd
  Defense30.4%71st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1074th
  Defense2.7668th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.3%84th
  Defense20.8%65th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.3%18th
  Defense20.7%98th

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, 2018

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
   CMU
2. W
   FLA
3. W
   MUR
4. W
   MSST
5. W
   SC
6. L
   TA&M
7. W
   VAN
8. W
   MIZ
9. L
   UGA
10. L
    TENN
11. W
    MTSU
12. W
    LOU
13. W
    PSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kentucky.

Players, 2018

1. Benny Snell Jr.RB265 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 2nd of 351 RBs
   1.06WAR0.86 to 1.26
2. Terry WilsonQB314 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 86th of 225 QBs
   0.94WAR0.35 to 1.49
3. Asim RoseRB51 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 229th of 351 RBs
   0.17WAR0.14 to 0.21
4. Lynn Bowden Jr.WR74 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 106th of 434 WRs
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.24
5. Max DuffyP58 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 29th of 91 punters
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.17
6. C.J. ConradTE26 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 34th of 204 TEs
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.09
7. Tavin RichardsonWR11 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 393rd of 434 WRs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.03
8. Sihiem KingRB2 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 300th of 351 RBs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.01

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67067032nd of 130Roster talent: 670, 32nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20320334th of 130Recruiting: 203, 34th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  34%34%111th of 129Returning production: 34%, 111th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.1+13.125th of 130SP+ rating: +13.1, 25th of 130 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, 2018

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.12 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. at PSUQ4 11:24 4th & 1 at UK 28, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. at FLAQ4 2:04 4th & 6 at FLA 42, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs VANQ4 5:55 4th & 2 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at PSUQ2 0:05 4th & 2 at UK 28, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs MTSUQ4 4:01 4th & 2 at MTSU 14, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at TENNQ3 13:57 4th & 4 at UK 40, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at FLAQ4 10:18 4th & 8 at FLA 38, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at MIZQ3 6:34 4th & 13 at MIZ 34, down 11Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

2nd 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

   CMU
2. W

   FLA
3. W

   MUR
4. W

   MSST
5. W

   SC
6. L

   TA&M
7. W

   VAN
8. W

   MIZ
9. L

   UGA
10. L

    TENN
11. W

    MTSU
12. W

    LOU
13. W

    PSU

What moved it, 2018

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+1.63
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.23
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.50

Game by game

• CMUW 35-20 vs CMU90% → 98%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• FLAW 27-16 at FLA14% → 97%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +83: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• MURW 48-10 vs MUR99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MSSTW 28-7 vs MSST20% → 100%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +80: Scoreboard +61, Clock −1
• SCW 24-10 vs SC39% → 99%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts +2
• TA&ML 14-20 at TA&M30% → 14%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts +20
• VANW 14-7 vs VAN74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• MIZW 15-14 at MIZ27% → 20%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −19, Possession & field position +4
• UGAL 17-34 vs UGA19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• TENNL 7-24 at TENN59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −1
• MTSUW 34-23 vs MTSU85% → 97%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• LOUW 56-10 at LOU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +19
• PSUW 27-24 at PSU27% → 87%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +43, Clock +4

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.