Navy

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+0.0625th
  Defense+0.2211th
• 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.
  Offense40.3%22nd
  Defense47.0%16th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1730th
  Defense+1.2724th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1368th
  Defense+0.0750th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.241st
  Defense+0.432nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.8%33rd
  Defense51.0%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.
  Offense26.4%3rd
  Defense36.8%18th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0769th
  Defense3.0131st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.7%87th
  Defense17.0%24th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.3%72nd
  Defense10.9%4th

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Navy.

Players, 2018

1. Malcolm PerryQB161 plays · +0.473 pts/play · 57th of 225 QBs
   1.43WAR1.03 to 1.86
2. Garret LewisQB96 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 157th of 225 QBs
   0.36WAR0.14 to 0.62
3. Anthony GargiuloFB80 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 140th of 351 RBs
   0.31WAR0.24 to 0.37
4. Nelson SmithFB72 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 158th of 351 RBs
   0.27WAR0.22 to 0.33
5. Zach AbeyWR86 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 128th of 434 WRs
   0.13WAR0.02 to 0.25
6. Owen WhiteP47 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 25th of 91 punters
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.17
7. Bennett MoehringPK10 plays · +0.340 pts/play · 94th of 112 kickers
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.09
8. Tazh MaloyWR23 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 365th of 434 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  349349115th of 130Roster talent: 349, 115th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12612699th of 130Recruiting: 126, 99th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  78%78%33rd of 129Returning production: 78%, 33rd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.2−10.2101st of 130SP+ rating: −10.2, 101st 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 Navy's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.16 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 TULNQ4 1:07 4th & 19 at NAVY 16, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.2 pts
2. vs MEMQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at NAVY 29, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
3. at ARMYQ3 12:52 4th & 2 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs HOUQ2 0:54 4th & 11 at HOU 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
5. at AFQ2 10:13 4th & 1 at NAVY 20, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. at TULNQ3 9:42 4th & 3 at TULN 3, down 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs TEMQ3 1:24 4th & 8 at TEM 30, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at ARMYQ4 3:02 4th & 12 at NAVY 32, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

127th 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.

1. L

   HAW
2. W

   MEM
3. W

   LEH
4. L

   SMU
5. L

   AF
6. L

   TEM
7. L

   HOU
8. L

   ND
9. L

   CIN
10. L

    UCF
11. W

    TLSA
12. L

    TULN
13. L

    ARMY

What moved it, 2018

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−2.61
• Possession & field position−0.10
• Clock−0.13
• Timeouts+0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.28

Game by game

• HAWL 41-59 at HAW84% → 0%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −57, Timeouts −2
• MEMW 22-21 vs MEM28% → 73%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +16, Possession & field position −3
• LEHW 51-21 vs LEH98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• SMUL 30-31 at SMU67% → 15%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts +23
• AFL 7-35 at AF58% → 0%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −52, Clock −1
• TEML 17-24 vs TEM34% → 5%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• HOUL 36-49 vs HOU24% → 2%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• NDL 22-44 vs ND6% → 1%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −13
• CINL 0-42 at CIN18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −20
• UCFL 24-35 at UCF6% → 2%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −11
• TLSAW 37-29 vs TLSA64% → 97%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• TULNL 28-29 at TULN30% → 15%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −2
• ARMYL 10-17 at ARMY33% → 3%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −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.