Navy

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0317th
  Defense+0.0576th
• 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.
  Offense37.1%12th
  Defense40.8%61st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1616th
  Defense+1.2071st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0221st
  Defense−0.0993rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1018th
  Defense+0.2827th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.5%19th
  Defense46.3%61st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense21.1%1st
  Defense28.2%74th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8417th
  Defense2.8281st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.2%38th
  Defense20.0%79th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.0%64th
  Defense17.7%69th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   ND
2. W
   WAG
3. L
   MEM
4. L
   USF
5. W
   UNT
6. W
   CLT
7. L
   AF
8. L
   TEM
9. W
   UAB
10. W
    ECU
11. L
    SMU
12. L
    ARMY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Navy.

Players, 2023

1. Xavier ArlineQB103 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 138th of 250 QBs
   0.43WAR0.19 to 0.69
2. Tai LavataiQB109 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 144th of 250 QBs
   0.39WAR0.13 to 0.66
3. Alex TeczaRB120 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 69th of 383 RBs
   0.31WAR0.19 to 0.41
4. Blake HorvathQB44 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 186th of 250 QBs
   0.20WAR0.07 to 0.32
5. Daba FofanaFB53 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 230th of 383 RBs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
6. Braxton WoodsonQB46 plays · +0.044 pts/play · 230th of 250 QBs
   0.04WAR−0.05 to 0.13
7. Riley RiethmanP63 plays · +0.025 pts/play · 95th of 103 punters
   0.03WAR−0.12 to 0.16
8. Eli HeidenreichWR15 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 371st of 457 WRs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04

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, 2023

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 0.20 of the 0.30 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 ARMYQ4 9:34 4th & 13 at ARMY 17, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−11.7 pts
2. vs USFQ3 7:14 4th & 1 at NAVY 17, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
3. vs ECUQ4 8:49 4th & 2 at ECU 10, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. at MEMQ3 0:20 4th & 2 at NAVY 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. at ARMYQ4 0:03 4th & 2 at NAVY 2, up 8Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.4 pts
6. at ARMYQ2 12:10 4th & 5 at ARMY 30, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. at ARMYQ3 8:53 4th & 9 at ARMY 34, up 10Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at TEMQ1 1:08 4th & 1 at NAVY 15, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

83rd of 133 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

   ND
2. W

   WAG
3. L

   MEM
4. L

   USF
5. W

   UNT
6. W

   CLT
7. L

   AF
8. L

   TEM
9. W

   UAB
10. W

    ECU
11. L

    SMU
12. L

    ARMY

What moved it, 2023

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+0.39
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.06

Game by game

• NDL 3-42 at ND8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• WAGW 24-0 vs WAG99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• MEML 24-28 at MEM16% → 5%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −2
• USFL 30-44 vs USF58% → 1%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• UNTW 27-24 vs UNT65% → 97%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• CLTW 14-0 at CLT64% → 99%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• AFL 6-17 vs AF24% → 2%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• TEML 18-32 at TEM62% → 1%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts −3
• UABW 31-6 vs UAB39% → 100%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +53, Timeouts −1
• ECUW 10-0 vs ECU58% → 97%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• SMUL 14-59 at SMU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −11
• ARMYL 11-17 at ARMY48% → 91%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +54, Timeouts −4

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.