Vanderbilt

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−0.041st
  Defense+0.1734th
• 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.
  Offense38.4%14th
  Defense46.1%20th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.076th
  Defense+1.1378th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.067th
  Defense+0.1245th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.016th
  Defense+0.2921st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.1%37th
  Defense50.1%20th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense21.9%1st
  Defense37.0%20th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5719th
  Defense3.0429th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.7%26th
  Defense20.0%54th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense3.3%4th
  Defense1.9%47th

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 Vanderbilt 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
   TEM
2. L
   MISS
3. W
   MASS
4. L
   SC
5. L
   UK
6. L
   UGA
7. W
   CHSO
8. L
   MIZ
9. W
   ODU
10. L
    FLA
11. L
    MSST
12. L
    TENN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Vanderbilt.

Players, 2014

1. Johnny McCraryQB100 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 144th of 199 QBs
   0.40WAR0.26 to 0.57
2. Patton RobinetteQB81 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 153rd of 199 QBs
   0.30WAR0.16 to 0.43
3. Ralph WebbRB167 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 69th of 350 RBs
   0.29WAR0.16 to 0.45
4. Stephen RiversQB37 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 173rd of 199 QBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
5. Wade FreebeckQB50 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 181st of 199 QBs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15
6. Latevius RayfordWR35 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 258th of 469 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
7. Dallas RiversRB33 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 250th of 350 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
8. Tommy OpenshawPK5 plays · +0.368 pts/play · 107th of 114 kickers
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05

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 Vanderbilt'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 Vanderbilt'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 0.05 of the 0.07 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 TENNQ4 7:41 4th & 1 at VAN 11, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. vs MASSQ4 5:00 4th & 12 at MASS 37, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
3. at UKQ3 7:02 4th & 3 at VAN 27, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
4. at UGAQ3 2:10 4th & 1 at UGA 48, down 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. at UGAQ4 8:04 4th & 2 at UGA 22, down 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs ODUQ1 4:37 4th & 6 at ODU 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs TEMQ2 8:35 4th & 6 at TEM 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at UGAQ2 12:59 4th & 3 at UGA 32, down 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

95th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   TEM
2. L

   MISS
3. W

   MASS
4. L

   SC
5. L

   UK
6. L

   UGA
7. W

   CHSO
8. L

   MIZ
9. W

   ODU
10. L

    FLA
11. L

    MSST
12. L

    TENN

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Vanderbilt'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−1.12
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.35

Game by game

• TEML 7-37 vs TEM69% → 3%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −59, Clock −4
• MISSL 3-41 vs MISS13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• MASSW 34-31 vs MASS86% → 94%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +20
• SCL 34-48 vs SC8% → 2%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −16, Clock −1
• UKL 7-17 at UK13% → 4%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −19
• UGAL 17-44 at UGA2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• CHSOW 21-20 vs CHSO87% → 96%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• MIZL 14-24 at MIZ6% → 3%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts −1
• ODUW 42-28 vs ODU76% → 99%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Possession & field position +1
• FLAL 10-34 vs FLA14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• MSSTL 0-51 at MSST3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• TENNL 17-24 vs TENN11% → 5%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1

Points of win probability, from Vanderbilt's side.

Closest call

VAN 31-30 WKU (2016) - Vanderbilt dropped to a 3.5% win probability before pulling it out.