Navy

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+0.3299th
  Defense+0.0758th
• 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.
  Offense49.5%92nd
  Defense44.1%38th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1842nd
  Defense+1.1854th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3399th
  Defense−0.0279th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3691st
  Defense+0.1935th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.3%98th
  Defense47.6%46th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.9%38th
  Defense35.8%29th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5199th
  Defense2.9632nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.0%99th
  Defense18.3%29th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%65th
  Defense1.4%12th

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 Navy 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
   COLG
2. W
   ECU
3. W
   CONN
4. W
   AF
5. L
   ND
6. W
   TULN
7. W
   USF
8. W
   MEM
9. W
   SMU
10. W
    TLSA
11. L
    HOU
12. W
    ARMY
13. W
    PITT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Navy.

Players, 2015

1. Keenan ReynoldsQB305 plays · +0.331 pts/play · 34th of 205 QBs
   1.89WAR1.27 to 2.57
2. Chris SwainFB169 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 25th of 333 RBs
   0.45WAR0.26 to 0.63
3. Quentin EzellFB50 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 206th of 333 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
4. DeBrandon Sanders?35 plays · +0.134 pts/play
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
5. Austin GrebePK9 plays · +0.444 pts/play · 94th of 115 kickers
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
6. Jamir TillmanWR34 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 335th of 411 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.09

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 Navy'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.
  307307121st of 128Roster talent: 307, 121st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  108108109th of 128Recruiting: 108, 109th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%52nd of 127Returning production: 71%, 52nd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.1+12.128th of 128SP+ rating: +12.1, 28th 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 Navy'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 0.04 of the 0.10 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 ARMYQ4 3:03 4th & 7 at ARMY 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. vs ARMYQ4 3:36 4th & 7 at ARMY 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at MEMQ2 0:26 4th & 3 at MEM 43, up 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at NDQ2 9:11 4th & 1 at NAVY 35, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at NDQ3 0:18 4th & 2 at ND 23, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs AFQ3 6:29 4th & 1 at NAVY 26, up 27Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs ARMYQ3 2:21 4th & 3 at NAVY 43, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs ARMYQ2 0:18 4th & 10 at ARMY 46, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

6th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   COLG
2. W

   ECU
3. W

   CONN
4. W

   AF
5. L

   ND
6. W

   TULN
7. W

   USF
8. W

   MEM
9. W

   SMU
10. W

    TLSA
11. L

    HOU
12. W

    ARMY
13. W

    PITT

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Navy'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+2.86
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.43

Game by game

• COLGW 48-10 vs COLG72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30
• ECUW 45-21 vs ECU61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +38, Clock +1
• CONNW 28-18 at CONN73% → 98%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• AFW 33-11 vs AF66% → 99%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +35
• NDL 24-41 at ND11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• TULNW 31-14 vs TULN91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +13
• USFW 29-17 vs USF77% → 98%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• MEMW 45-20 at MEM25% → 100%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +66, Clock +2
• SMUW 55-14 vs SMU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• TLSAW 44-21 at TLSA70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• HOUL 31-52 at HOU44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −40, Clock −1
• ARMYW 21-17 vs ARMY94% → 89%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +1
• PITTW 44-28 vs PITT59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +1

Points of win probability, from Navy's side.

Closest call

NAVY 27-24 TULN (2020) - Navy dropped to a 3.6% win probability before pulling it out.