Vanderbilt

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1256th
  Defense+0.1723rd
• 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.
  Offense43.0%50th
  Defense42.3%47th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2880th
  Defense+1.2722nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0611th
  Defense+0.224th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2879th
  Defense+0.1253rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.3%71st
  Defense49.0%31st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.4%12th
  Defense28.6%87th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6417th
  Defense3.1719th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.7%28th
  Defense19.7%49th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.2%24th
  Defense17.2%60th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. W
   MTSU
2. W
   AAMU
3. W
   KSU
4. L
   ALA
5. L
   FLA
6. L
   UGA
7. L
   MISS
8. L
   SC
9. W
   WKU
10. L
    UK
11. L
    MIZ
12. W
    TENN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Vanderbilt.

Players, 2017

1. Kyle ShurmurQB298 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 58th of 226 QBs
   1.21WAR0.69 to 1.79
2. Ralph WebbRB169 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 62nd of 352 RBs
   0.38WAR0.22 to 0.51
3. Trent SherfieldWR53 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 73rd of 426 WRs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.20
4. C.J. DuncanWR50 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 90th of 426 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.19
5. Kalija LipscombWR50 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 254th of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
6. Khari BlasingameRB33 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 258th of 352 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
7. Caleb ScottWR22 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 329th of 426 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.07
8. Tommy OpenshawPK4 plays · +0.366 pts/play · 103rd of 110 kickers
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60860845th of 130Roster talent: 608, 45th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17617652nd of 130Recruiting: 176, 52nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  94%94%4th of 128Returning production: 94%, 4th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.6+0.670th of 128SP+ rating: +0.6, 70th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.06 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 WKUQ3 9:20 4th & 1 at VAN 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
2. vs MIZQ2 13:43 4th & 1 at VAN 31, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
3. vs WKUQ4 3:32 4th & 1 at VAN 29, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. vs UKQ1 2:14 4th & 1 at VAN 25, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs MIZQ4 10:56 4th & 10 at MIZ 10, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at MTSUQ4 11:54 4th & 2 at VAN 43, up 22Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs WKUQ4 9:58 4th & 4 at WKU 21, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at MISSQ3 9:40 4th & 3 at MISS 13, down 23Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

76th of 130 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. W

   MTSU
2. W

   AAMU
3. W

   KSU
4. L

   ALA
5. L

   FLA
6. L

   UGA
7. L

   MISS
8. L

   SC
9. W

   WKU
10. L

    UK
11. L

    MIZ
12. W

    TENN

What moved it, 2017

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−0.60
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.17

Game by game

• MTSUW 28-6 at MTSU60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2
• AAMUW 42-0 vs AAMU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• KSUW 14-7 vs KSU40% → 96%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +2
• ALAL 0-59 vs ALA9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −13
• FLAL 24-38 at FLA26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• UGAL 14-45 vs UGA11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16, Clock −1
• MISSL 35-57 at MISS45% → 0%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −42
• SCL 27-34 at SC30% → 3%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• WKUW 31-17 vs WKU84% → 97%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +21
• UKL 21-44 vs UK59% → 0%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• MIZL 17-45 vs MIZ28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −34
• TENNW 42-24 at TENN48% → 98%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +53, 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.