Navy

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+0.2892nd
  Defense+0.255th
• 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.
  Offense52.1%97th
  Defense47.8%12th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1739th
  Defense+1.2331st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2997th
  Defense+0.1328th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2778th
  Defense+0.422nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense56.2%97th
  Defense50.9%20th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.5%86th
  Defense40.7%3rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4699th
  Defense3.1817th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.1%99th
  Defense15.9%13th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.0%99th
  Defense13.5%16th

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 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
   FOR
2. W
   CONN
3. W
   TULN
4. L
   AF
5. W
   HOU
6. W
   MEM
7. L
   USF
8. W
   ND
9. W
   TLSA
10. W
    ECU
11. W
    SMU
12. L
    TEM
13. L
    ARMY
14. L
    LT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Navy.

Players, 2016

1. Will WorthQB296 plays · +0.348 pts/play · 24th of 218 QBs
   1.93WAR1.17 to 2.67
2. Dishan Romine?45 plays · +0.341 pts/play
   0.29WAR0.22 to 0.35
3. Toneo Gulley?36 plays · +0.311 pts/play
   0.21WAR0.16 to 0.26
4. Shawn WhiteFB69 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 195th of 347 RBs
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.25
5. Chris HighFB67 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 198th of 347 RBs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.25
6. Jamir TillmanWR43 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 194th of 417 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
7. Zach AbeyWR51 plays · +0.060 pts/play · 320th of 417 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.03 to 0.14
8. Alex BartaP19 plays · +0.015 pts/play · 81st of 82 punters
   0.01WAR−0.02 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 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  343343117th of 128Roster talent: 343, 117th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  116116102nd of 128Recruiting: 116, 102nd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  27%27%121st of 128Returning production: 27%, 121st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.8+6.852nd of 128SP+ rating: +6.8, 52nd 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 Navy'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 0.10 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. at ARMYQ4 4:07 4th & 4 at NAVY 40, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.5 pts
2. vs MEMQ4 5:40 4th & 1 at MEM 15, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. vs MEMQ4 13:29 4th & 1 at NAVY 25, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs NDQ4 1:19 4th & 6 at ND 30, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
5. vs TEMQ2 11:57 4th & 1 at NAVY 34, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at USFQ1 4:56 4th & 1 at NAVY 47, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs CONNQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at NAVY 34, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at ARMYQ2 13:27 4th & 1 at NAVY 31, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

12th 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

   FOR
2. W

   CONN
3. W

   TULN
4. L

   AF
5. W

   HOU
6. W

   MEM
7. L

   USF
8. W

   ND
9. W

   TLSA
10. W

    ECU
11. W

    SMU
12. L

    TEM
13. L

    ARMY
14. L

    LT

What moved it, 2016

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+0.85
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.54

Game by game

• FORW 52-16 vs FOR94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• CONNW 28-24 vs CONN62% → 83%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +21, Possession & field position −3
• TULNW 21-14 at TULN72% → 91%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +37, Clock +1
• AFL 14-28 at AF21% → 1%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• HOUW 46-40 vs HOU9% → 89%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +80: Scoreboard +25, Possession & field position +3
• MEMW 42-28 vs MEM40% → 98%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• USFL 45-52 at USF19% → 11%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• NDW 28-27 vs ND50% → 83%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +22, Possession & field position +2
• TLSAW 42-40 vs TLSA47% → 86%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +2
• ECUW 66-31 at ECU65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• SMUW 75-31 at SMU60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +44, Clock +1
• TEML 10-34 vs TEM45% → 0%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• ARMYL 17-21 at ARMY72% → 5%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −3
• LTL 45-48 vs LT51% → 5%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −49, Clock −2

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.