Navy

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.3096th
  Defense+0.0864th
• 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.
  Offense48.6%89th
  Defense40.8%69th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3494th
  Defense+1.2053rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3199th
  Defense−0.0274th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3388th
  Defense+0.1847th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.3%72nd
  Defense46.5%63rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense43.8%96th
  Defense30.4%75th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3090th
  Defense2.4690th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.7%76th
  Defense21.1%67th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.4%97th
  Defense24.3%89th

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, 2019

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Navy.

Players, 2019

1. Malcolm PerryQB307 plays · +0.490 pts/play · 1st of 228 QBs
   2.82WAR2.07 to 3.54
2. Jamale CarothersFB95 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 104th of 349 RBs
   0.38WAR0.29 to 0.47
3. Nelson SmithFB85 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 168th of 349 RBs
   0.25WAR0.16 to 0.34
4. CJ WilliamsRB47 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 233rd of 349 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
5. Keoni-Kordell MakekauWR26 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 255th of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
6. Tazh MaloyWR23 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 280th of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
7. Owen WhiteP31 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 70th of 100 punters
   0.03WAR0.00 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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  335335119th of 130Roster talent: 335, 119th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  128128100th of 130Recruiting: 128, 100th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%75th of 130Returning production: 56%, 75th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.9+9.931st of 130SP+ rating: +9.9, 31st 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, 2019

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.09 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 8:33 4th & 9 at SMU 29, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
2. at KSUQ4 8:26 4th & 2 at KSU 21, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at TLSAQ3 4:10 4th & 2 at NAVY 47, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs AFQ3 12:34 4th & 3 at NAVY 47, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs ARMYQ2 6:22 4th & 1 at NAVY 22, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at KSUQ4 0:15 4th & 3 at KSU 46, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at KSUQ1 4:26 4th & 3 at KSU 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at TLSAQ4 10:11 4th & 2 at TLSA 42, up 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

1st 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. W

   HC
2. W

   ECU
3. L

   MEM
4. W

   AF
5. W

   TLSA
6. W

   USF
7. W

   TULN
8. W

   CONN
9. L

   ND
10. W

    SMU
11. W

    HOU
12. W

    ARMY
13. W

    KSU

What moved it, 2019

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+3.05
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.08

Game by game

• HCW 45-7 vs HC92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• ECUW 42-10 vs ECU66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +36
• MEML 23-35 at MEM20% → 2%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• AFW 34-25 vs AF41% → 94%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +36, Possession & field position +2
• TLSAW 45-17 at TLSA44% → 100%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +56, Clock +2
• USFW 35-3 vs USF82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +20
• TULNW 41-38 vs TULN60% → 96%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +33, Possession & field position +1
• CONNW 56-10 at CONN95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +9
• NDL 20-52 at ND24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −26
• SMUW 35-28 vs SMU55% → 98%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +40
• HOUW 56-41 at HOU68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +40, Clock +1
• ARMYW 31-7 vs ARMY76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• KSUW 20-17 at KSU52% → 93%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3

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.