Navy

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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−0.0211th
  Defense+0.1635th
• 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.
  Offense35.1%6th
  Defense43.4%48th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2965th
  Defense+1.2453rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0514th
  Defense+0.1233rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1242nd
  Defense+0.2338th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.7%7th
  Defense48.0%50th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.5%9th
  Defense33.0%44th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6221st
  Defense3.0533rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.9%63rd
  Defense16.8%22nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.2%67th
  Defense13.5%17th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   BYU
2. W
   TULN
3. L
   AF
4. W
   TEM
5. W
   ECU
6. L
   HOU
7. L
   SMU
8. L
   MEM
9. L
   TLSA
10. L
    ARMY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Navy.

Players, 2020

1. Nelson SmithFB116 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 55th of 338 RBs
   0.41WAR0.27 to 0.52
2. Jamale CarothersFB95 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 83rd of 338 RBs
   0.34WAR0.26 to 0.43
3. CJ WilliamsRB24 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 267th of 338 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
4. Dalen MorrisQB111 plays · +0.033 pts/play · 182nd of 212 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.15 to 0.34
5. Xavier ArlineQB66 plays · +0.055 pts/play · 182nd of 212 QBs
   0.07WAR−0.12 to 0.28
6. Bijan NicholsPK8 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 73rd of 97 kickers
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04
7. Chance WarrenRB8 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 291st of 338 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Myles FellsRB6 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 308th of 338 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  266266114th of 127Roster talent: 266, 114th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  127127109th of 127Recruiting: 127, 109th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  49%49%93rd of 127Returning production: 49%, 93rd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.3−9.3104th of 127SP+ rating: −9.3, 104th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.03 of the 0.05 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 TLSAQ3 7:08 4th & 2 at TLSA 15, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. at ECUQ3 11:41 4th & 4 at ECU 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. vs TLSAQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at NAVY 20, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. at ARMYQ2 12:41 4th & 1 at NAVY 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at SMUQ4 2:39 4th & 8 at SMU 14, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at TULNQ3 8:14 4th & 16 at TULN 40, down 24Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs TEMQ3 12:37 4th & 3 at NAVY 25, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at AFQ1 3:26 4th & 3 at NAVY 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

73rd of 127 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

   BYU
2. W

   TULN
3. L

   AF
4. W

   TEM
5. W

   ECU
6. L

   HOU
7. L

   SMU
8. L

   MEM
9. L

   TLSA
10. L

    ARMY

What moved it, 2020

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−1.44
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.72

Game by game

• BYUL 3-55 vs BYU44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −48
• TULNW 27-24 at TULN33% → 60%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position +3
• AFL 7-40 at AF67% → 0%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −58
• TEMW 31-29 vs TEM36% → 90%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2
• ECUW 27-23 at ECU51% → 86%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +40, Clock +3
• HOUL 21-37 vs HOU13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• SMUL 37-51 at SMU17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• MEML 7-10 vs MEM16% → 15%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −26, Clock −2
• TLSAL 6-19 vs TLSA18% → 2%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −27, Clock −2
• ARMYL 0-15 at ARMY28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, 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.