Vanderbilt

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0524th
  Defense+0.0954th
• 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.
  Offense41.6%31st
  Defense43.5%51st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1424th
  Defense+1.1282nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0955th
  Defense−0.0486th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0319th
  Defense+0.2326th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.6%43rd
  Defense48.2%47th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.5%16th
  Defense34.2%46th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0357th
  Defense2.9947th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.0%61st
  Defense21.7%73rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.5%27th
  Defense17.0%61st

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, 2016

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
   SC
2. W
   MTSU
3. L
   GT
4. W
   WKU
5. L
   FLA
6. L
   UK
7. W
   UGA
8. W
   TNST
9. L
   AUB
10. L
    MIZ
11. W
    MISS
12. W
    TENN
13. L
    NCSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Vanderbilt.

Players, 2016

1. Kyle ShurmurQB353 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 108th of 218 QBs
   0.70WAR0.14 to 1.25
2. Ralph WebbRB250 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 21st of 347 RBs
   0.69WAR0.44 to 0.95
3. Khari BlasingameRB83 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 144th of 347 RBs
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.33
4. C.J. DuncanWR49 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 112th of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
5. Sam LoyP59 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 39th of 82 punters
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.22
6. Tommy OpenshawPK18 plays · +0.346 pts/play · 45th of 116 kickers
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
7. Trent SherfieldWR53 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 206th of 417 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
8. Caleb ScottWR28 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 210th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61961941st of 128Roster talent: 619, 41st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17917948th of 128Recruiting: 179, 48th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%75th of 128Returning production: 62%, 75th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.2−1.271st of 128SP+ rating: −1.2, 71st 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, 2016

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 11 clear-cut ones account for 0.44 of the 0.51 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 UKQ4 0:07 4th & 13 at UK 13, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−15.6 pts
2. vs SCQ4 3:44 4th & 2 at SC 26, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.4 pts
3. at WKUQ4 5:29 4th & 4 at WKU 4, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
4. at WKUQ3 5:08 4th & 1 at VAN 10, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
5. vs MISSQ3 8:03 4th & 1 at MISS 6, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
6. vs FLAQ4 2:56 4th & 7 at VAN 43, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
7. at UGAQ3 9:46 4th & 1 at VAN 49, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
8. at AUBQ4 8:15 4th & 3 at VAN 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

26th 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

   SC
2. W

   MTSU
3. L

   GT
4. W

   WKU
5. L

   FLA
6. L

   UK
7. W

   UGA
8. W

   TNST
9. L

   AUB
10. L

    MIZ
11. W

    MISS
12. W

    TENN
13. L

    NCSU

What moved it, 2016

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+0.11
• Possession & field position−0.09
• Clock−0.15
• Timeouts+0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.24

Game by game

• SCL 10-13 vs SC38% → 5%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• MTSUW 47-24 vs MTSU58% → 100%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts −1
• GTL 7-38 at GT27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29
• WKUW 31-30 at WKU32% → 59%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +20
• FLAL 6-13 vs FLA27% → 5%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2
• UKL 13-20 at UK41% → 44%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +2, Possession & field position +2
• UGAW 17-16 at UGA13% → 75%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +32, Clock +4
• TNSTW 35-17 vs TNST96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +8
• AUBL 16-23 at AUB5% → 4%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −10, Timeouts −1
• MIZL 17-26 at MIZ44% → 4%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• MISSW 38-17 vs MISS21% → 99%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +56, Clock +2
• TENNW 45-34 vs TENN20% → 97%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +47, Timeouts +2
• NCSUL 17-41 vs NCSU40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −45, 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.