Vanderbilt

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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−0.085th
  Defense−0.0387th
• 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.
  Offense37.2%11th
  Defense38.9%80th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.088th
  Defense+1.0297th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0218th
  Defense−0.1196th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.155th
  Defense+0.0671st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.4%11th
  Defense41.6%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.
  Offense27.5%13th
  Defense33.6%46th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6317th
  Defense2.3693rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.9%22nd
  Defense27.5%96th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense3.8%1st
  Defense1.4%12th

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, 2015

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
   WKU
2. L
   UGA
3. W
   APSU
4. L
   MISS
5. W
   MTSU
6. L
   SC
7. W
   MIZ
8. L
   HOU
9. L
   FLA
10. W
    UK
11. L
    TA&M
12. L
    TENN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Vanderbilt.

Players, 2015

1. Johnny McCraryQB251 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 91st of 205 QBs
   1.04WAR0.60 to 1.45
2. Ralph WebbRB258 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 29th of 333 RBs
   0.44WAR0.25 to 0.67
3. Kyle ShurmurQB86 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 167th of 205 QBs
   0.26WAR0.15 to 0.37
4. Tommy OpenshawPK86 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 58th of 115 kickers
   0.12WAR−0.04 to 0.26
5. Trent SherfieldWR64 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 225th of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.16
6. Dallas RiversRB53 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 215th of 333 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
7. Caleb ScottWR31 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 289th of 411 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.11
8. Latevius RayfordWR25 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 308th of 411 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61061044th of 128Roster talent: 610, 44th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18218247th of 128Recruiting: 182, 47th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  101%101%1st of 127Returning production: 101%, 1st of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.6−1.683rd of 128SP+ rating: −1.6, 83rd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2015

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.24 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 UKQ4 1:03 4th & 10 at UK 24, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.3 pts
2. vs UKQ4 6:56 4th & 8 at UK 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. vs TA&MQ3 14:56 4th & 1 at VAN 30, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. at SCQ3 8:04 4th & 2 at SC 5, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. at FLAQ4 0:36 4th & 25 at VAN 24, down 2Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.7 pts
6. vs MIZQ3 11:12 4th & 3 at MIZ 40, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
7. vs WKUQ3 11:19 4th & 1 at VAN 26, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
8. vs MIZQ4 4:25 4th & 1 at VAN 26, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

85th 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

   WKU
2. L

   UGA
3. W

   APSU
4. L

   MISS
5. W

   MTSU
6. L

   SC
7. W

   MIZ
8. L

   HOU
9. L

   FLA
10. W

    UK
11. L

    TA&M
12. L

    TENN

What moved it, 2015

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−0.90
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.26

Game by game

• WKUL 12-14 vs WKU88% → 7%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• UGAL 14-31 vs UGA15% → 1%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• APSUW 47-7 vs APSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MISSL 16-27 at MISS5% → 3%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts −1
• MTSUW 17-13 at MTSU41% → 95%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• SCL 10-19 at SC38% → 3%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• MIZW 10-3 vs MIZ47% → 96%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +3
• HOUL 0-34 at HOU22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −24
• FLAL 7-9 at FLA12% → 5%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• UKW 21-17 vs UK58% → 91%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• TA&ML 0-25 vs TA&M30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• TENNL 28-53 at TENN11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −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.