Navy

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+0.1981st
  Defense+0.2112th
• 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.
  Offense47.8%92nd
  Defense46.0%22nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1119th
  Defense+1.2535th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2292nd
  Defense+0.0650th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0322nd
  Defense+0.414th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.4%96th
  Defense50.2%23rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.0%26th
  Defense36.5%19th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4195th
  Defense2.7266th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.5%99th
  Defense22.7%74th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense9.9%99th
  Defense15.1%36th

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 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
   FAU
2. W
   TULN
3. W
   CIN
4. W
   TLSA
5. W
   AF
6. L
   MEM
7. L
   UCF
8. L
   TEM
9. W
   SMU
10. L
    ND
11. L
    HOU
12. L
    ARMY
13. W
    UVA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Navy.

Players, 2017

1. Malcolm PerryQB153 plays · +0.554 pts/play · 38th of 226 QBs
   1.59WAR1.10 to 2.10
2. Anthony GargiuloFB75 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 115th of 352 RBs
   0.27WAR0.20 to 0.33
3. Chris HighFB117 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 151st of 352 RBs
   0.22WAR0.11 to 0.33
4. Zach AbeyWR228 plays · +0.043 pts/play · 51st of 426 WRs
   0.18WAR−0.14 to 0.47
5. Darryl Bonner?30 plays · +0.165 pts/play
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
6. Bennett MoehringPK13 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 92nd of 110 kickers
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.11
7. Keoni-Kordell MakekauWR15 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 378th of 426 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
8. Garret LewisQB27 plays · +0.023 pts/play · 214th of 226 QBs
   0.01WAR−0.04 to 0.07

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  37637691st of 130Roster talent: 376, 91st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12012095th of 130Recruiting: 120, 95th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  28%28%117th of 128Returning production: 28%, 117th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.7−0.773rd of 128SP+ rating: −0.7, 73rd 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 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 0.20 of the 0.28 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 SMUQ4 0:00 4th & 1 at SMU 1, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−14.6 pts
2. vs AFQ4 6:08 4th & 1 at AF 7, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
3. at TLSAQ4 5:24 4th & 1 at NAVY 32, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at HOUQ4 10:44 4th & 3 at NAVY 26, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs ARMYQ1 0:55 4th & 2 at ARMY 11, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at NDQ3 0:20 4th & 4 at ND 20, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs ARMYQ2 0:09 4th & 2 at ARMY 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at TLSAQ2 14:27 4th & 5 at TLSA 43, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

51st of 130 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   FAU
2. W

   TULN
3. W

   CIN
4. W

   TLSA
5. W

   AF
6. L

   MEM
7. L

   UCF
8. L

   TEM
9. W

   SMU
10. L

    ND
11. L

    HOU
12. L

    ARMY
13. W

    UVA

What moved it, 2017

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+0.29
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.16

Game by game

• FAUW 42-19 at FAU63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +42, Clock +1
• CINW 42-32 vs CIN67% → 97%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• TLSAW 31-21 at TLSA70% → 98%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• AFW 48-45 vs AF69% → 80%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14, Possession & field position +2
• MEML 27-30 at MEM31% → 11%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −2
• UCFL 21-31 vs UCF21% → 5%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• TEML 26-34 at TEM65% → 1%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −49
• SMUW 43-40 vs SMU47% → 94%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +38, Possession & field position −1
• NDL 17-24 at ND7% → 4%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• HOUL 14-24 at HOU29% → 3%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• ARMYL 13-14 vs ARMY52% → 20%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33, Possession & field position −4
• UVAW 49-7 vs UVA51% → 100%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +46

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.