Ole Miss

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1239th
  Defense0.0098th
• 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.
  Offense41.0%29th
  Defense39.7%75th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3694th
  Defense+0.9999th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0117th
  Defense−0.0698th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2354th
  Defense+0.0793rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.7%24th
  Defense44.9%67th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.8%48th
  Defense28.5%88th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.4511th
  Defense2.6377th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.5%5th
  Defense22.4%76th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.3%30th
  Defense2.9%88th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Ole Miss 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
   BOIS
2. W
   VAN
3. W
   UL
4. W
   MEM
5. W
   ALA
6. W
   TA&M
7. W
   TENN
8. L
   LSU
9. L
   AUB
10. W
    PRES
11. L
    ARK
12. W
    MSST
13. L
    TCU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Ole Miss.

Players, 2014

1. Bo WallaceQB357 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 87th of 199 QBs
   1.22WAR0.61 to 1.80
2. Jaylen WaltonRB99 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 121st of 350 RBs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.26
3. Laquon TreadwellWR53 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 79th of 469 WRs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.27
4. Cody CoreWR38 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 142nd of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
5. Vince SandersWR38 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 142nd of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18
6. Will GleesonP44 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 50th of 94 punters
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14
7. Quincy AdeboyejoWR16 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 363rd of 469 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
8. Gary WunderlichPK6 plays · +0.366 pts/play · 102nd of 114 kickers
   0.04WAR0.02 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 Ole Miss'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, 2014

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 Ole Miss'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 0.15 of the 0.21 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 LSUQ3 7:58 4th & 1 at LSU 43, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it4.4 pts
2. vs MSSTQ4 12:05 4th & 1 at MISS 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.9 pts
3. vs MEMQ4 13:04 4th & 2 at MEM 2, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it3.0 pts
4. vs MSSTQ2 1:12 4th & 1 at MISS 47, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
5. at LSUQ4 11:06 4th & 3 at MISS 42, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
6. vs MEMQ4 10:41 4th & 3 at MISS 37, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.0 pts
7. at TA&MQ3 5:44 4th & 2 at MISS 27, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)1.0 pts
8. at TA&MQ2 6:06 4th & 1 at MISS 42, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

54th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Ole Miss's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   BOIS
2. W

   VAN
3. W

   UL
4. W

   MEM
5. W

   ALA
6. W

   TA&M
7. W

   TENN
8. L

   LSU
9. L

   AUB
10. W

    PRES
11. L

    ARK
12. W

    MSST
13. L

    TCU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Ole Miss'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−0.29
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.27

Game by game

• BOISW 35-13 vs BOIS77% → 11%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• VANW 41-3 at VAN87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• ULW 56-15 vs UL96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• MEMW 24-3 vs MEM92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13
• ALAW 23-17 vs ALA35% → 96%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +4
• TA&MW 35-20 at TA&M48% → 97%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +54, Clock +2
• TENNW 34-3 vs TENN85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18
• LSUL 7-10 at LSU59% → 6%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −3
• AUBL 31-35 vs AUB55% → 13%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −42, Possession & field position −3
• PRESW 48-0 vs PRES100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• ARKL 0-30 at ARK57% → 0%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −50, Clock −1
• MSSTW 31-17 vs MSST44% → 99%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +2
• TCUL 3-42 vs TCU45% → 0%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −43

Points of win probability, from Ole Miss's side.

Closest call

MISS 29-28 TA&M (2016) - Ole Miss dropped to a 7.5% win probability before pulling it out.