Rutgers

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+0.1653rd
  Defense+0.2513th
• 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.
  Offense44.7%65th
  Defense44.2%31st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1846th
  Defense+1.329th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0220th
  Defense+0.249th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3684th
  Defense+0.2823rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.1%71st
  Defense48.4%38th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.6%39th
  Defense35.1%32nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6928th
  Defense2.9935th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.8%17th
  Defense19.9%50th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense3.1%6th
  Defense1.4%13th

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 Rutgers 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
   WSU
2. W
   HOW
3. L
   PSU
4. W
   NAVY
5. W
   TULN
6. W
   MICH
7. L
   OSU
8. L
   NEB
9. L
   WIS
10. W
    IU
11. L
    MSU
12. W
    MD
13. W
    UNC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rutgers.

Players, 2014

1. Gary NovaQB297 plays · +0.266 pts/play · 65th of 199 QBs
   1.48WAR0.95 to 2.03
2. Leonte CarrooWR74 plays · +0.242 pts/play · 16th of 469 WRs
   0.34WAR0.22 to 0.45
3. Desmon PeoplesRB93 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 151st of 350 RBs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.21
4. Paul JamesRB54 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 161st of 350 RBs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
5. Robert MartinRB48 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 183rd of 350 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.17
6. Kyle FedericoPK16 plays · +0.395 pts/play · 46th of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
7. Josh HicksRB42 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 201st of 350 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
8. Justin GoodwinRB69 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 219th of 350 RBs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15

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 Rutgers'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 Rutgers's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 11 clear-cut ones account for 0.29 of the 0.34 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 MDQ4 0:00 4th & 30 at RUTG 16, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−10.9 pts
2. vs IUQ3 4:09 4th & 1 at IU 39, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.0 pts
3. at WSUQ4 8:07 4th & 2 at RUTG 16, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. vs PSUQ4 3:02 4th & 6 at PSU 44, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
5. at NAVYQ4 4:40 4th & 1 at RUTG 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
6. at NAVYQ4 7:11 4th & 1 at NAVY 25, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. vs WISQ2 10:20 4th & 1 at RUTG 19, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
8. at WSUQ3 7:48 4th & 2 at WSU 19, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

4th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   WSU
2. W

   HOW
3. L

   PSU
4. W

   NAVY
5. W

   TULN
6. W

   MICH
7. L

   OSU
8. L

   NEB
9. L

   WIS
10. W

    IU
11. L

    MSU
12. W

    MD
13. W

    UNC

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Rutgers'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+2.06
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.13
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.47

Game by game

• WSUW 41-38 at WSU27% → 93%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +53, Clock +4
• HOWW 38-25 vs HOW99% → 99%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +5
• PSUL 10-13 vs PSU35% → 6%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• NAVYW 31-24 at NAVY38% → 94%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• TULNW 31-6 vs TULN79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +23
• MICHW 26-24 vs MICH55% → 95%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +3
• OSUL 17-56 at OSU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −10
• NEBL 24-42 at NEB15% → 1%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20
• WISL 0-37 vs WIS22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −29
• IUW 45-23 vs IU67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +32, Possession & field position +1
• MSUL 3-45 at MSU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• MDW 41-38 at MD25% → 94%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +56, Clock +4
• UNCW 40-21 at UNC40% → 98%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +58, Clock +4

Points of win probability, from Rutgers's side.

Closest call

HOW 14-52 RUTG (2016) - Rutgers dropped to a 2.6% win probability before pulling it out.