Navy

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0634th
  Defense+0.1525th
• 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.
  Offense36.9%9th
  Defense37.8%84th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2655th
  Defense+1.461st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0643rd
  Defense−0.0997th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1936th
  Defense+0.435th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.1%5th
  Defense41.9%91st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.4%27th
  Defense30.9%45th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9018th
  Defense2.5297th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.4%78th
  Defense22.8%89th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.7%93rd
  Defense20.4%92nd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Navy.

Players, 2022

1. Tai LavataiQB157 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 109th of 234 QBs
   0.59WAR0.16 to 0.95
2. Xavier ArlineQB80 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 144th of 234 QBs
   0.35WAR0.13 to 0.60
3. Daba FofanaFB131 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 98th of 384 RBs
   0.30WAR0.17 to 0.41
4. Maquel HaywoodRB65 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 158th of 384 RBs
   0.20WAR0.15 to 0.24
5. Anton Hall Jr.RB52 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 231st of 384 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.18
6. Vincent Terrell Jr.WR53 plays · +0.033 pts/play · 373rd of 455 WRs
   0.03WAR−0.04 to 0.09
7. Bijan NicholsPK3 plays · +0.259 pts/play · 106th of 110 kickers
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02
8. Kai Puailoa-RojasRB5 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 346th of 384 RBs
   0.01WAR0.01 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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2022

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.12 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 ARMYQ3 1:06 4th & 1 at NAVY 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
2. vs MEMQ2 1:44 4th & 2 at NAVY 30, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. vs TEMQ3 12:21 4th & 1 at NAVY 34, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. at ECUQ3 12:55 4th & 2 at NAVY 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at ARMYQ2 12:36 4th & 1 at ARMY 26, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. at UCFQ3 8:22 4th & 4 at UCF 28, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at SMUQ4 3:40 4th & 1 at SMU 8, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs DELQ4 12:23 4th & 2 at NAVY 22, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

53rd of 131 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

   DEL
2. L

   MEM
3. W

   ECU
4. L

   AF
5. W

   TLSA
6. L

   SMU
7. L

   HOU
8. W

   TEM
9. L

   CIN
10. L

    ND
11. W

    UCF
12. L

    ARMY

What moved it, 2022

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−1.01
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.15
• Timeouts+0.24
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.80

Game by game

• DELL 7-14 vs DEL80% → 5%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −58, Clock −4
• MEML 13-37 vs MEM31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• ECUW 23-20 at ECU9% → 25%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +3, Clock +1
• AFL 10-13 at AF12% → 4%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• TLSAW 53-21 vs TLSA31% → 100%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +62, Timeouts −2
• SMUL 34-40 at SMU14% → 4%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −19
• HOUL 20-38 vs HOU30% → 2%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −37, Clock −4
• TEMW 27-20 vs TEM77% → 92%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +19, Clock +2
• CINL 10-20 at CIN9% → 3%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −1
• NDL 32-35 vs ND9% → 6%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• UCFW 17-14 at UCF10% → 95%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +85: Scoreboard +52, Clock +2
• ARMYL 17-20 at ARMY53% → 20%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts +25

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.