Vanderbilt

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0113th
  Defense+0.229th
• 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.
  Offense37.7%9th
  Defense48.6%5th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1946th
  Defense+1.2149th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1681st
  Defense+0.199th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.105th
  Defense+0.2819th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.0%37th
  Defense54.1%3rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense21.8%1st
  Defense35.9%23rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.518th
  Defense3.259th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.4%13th
  Defense17.7%29th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense22.7%20th
  Defense18.5%33rd

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, 2019

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
   UGA
2. L
   PUR
3. L
   LSU
4. W
   NIU
5. L
   MISS
6. L
   UNLV
7. W
   MIZ
8. L
   SC
9. L
   FLA
10. L
    UK
11. W
    ETSU
12. L
    TENN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Vanderbilt.

Players, 2019

1. Ke'Shawn VaughnRB178 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 17th of 349 RBs
   0.75WAR0.58 to 0.90
2. Riley NealQB212 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 130th of 228 QBs
   0.48WAR0.12 to 0.87
3. Kalija LipscombWR47 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 222nd of 439 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
4. Harrison SmithP55 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 21st of 100 punters
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15
5. Ryley GuayPK9 plays · +0.430 pts/play · 93rd of 114 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
6. Deuce WallaceQB40 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 212th of 228 QBs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.13
7. Cam JohnsonWR27 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 360th of 439 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07
8. CJ BolarWR12 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 388th of 439 WRs
   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

What it had and what it did, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60560552nd of 130Roster talent: 605, 52nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18118154th of 130Recruiting: 181, 54th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  59%59%67th of 130Returning production: 59%, 67th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.4−10.4106th of 130SP+ rating: −10.4, 106th of 130 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, 2019

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.08 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 MIZQ4 0:04 4th & 5 at MIZ 15, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
2. vs MIZQ3 5:54 4th & 2 at VAN 28, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs UKQ2 8:07 4th & 1 at VAN 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at MISSQ2 4:27 4th & 3 at MISS 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs UNLVQ3 10:49 4th & 13 at UNLV 35, down 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs NIUQ1 6:56 4th & 1 at VAN 34, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at MISSQ2 11:04 4th & 4 at MISS 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at MISSQ3 12:11 4th & 7 at MISS 41, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

92nd 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. L

   UGA
2. L

   PUR
3. L

   LSU
4. W

   NIU
5. L

   MISS
6. L

   UNLV
7. W

   MIZ
8. L

   SC
9. L

   FLA
10. L

    UK
11. W

    ETSU
12. L

    TENN

What moved it, 2019

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−1.31
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.61

Game by game

• UGAL 6-30 vs UGA6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −11, Clock −1
• PURL 24-42 at PUR29% → 1%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −30, Clock −1
• LSUL 38-66 vs LSU5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• NIUW 24-18 vs NIU68% → 95%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• MISSL 6-31 at MISS31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• UNLVL 10-34 vs UNLV84% → 0%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −68, Clock −2
• MIZW 21-14 vs MIZ9% → 97%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +88: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +3
• SCL 7-24 at SC13% → 2%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18
• FLAL 0-56 at FLA4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• UKL 14-38 vs UK25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• ETSUW 38-0 vs ETSU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• TENNL 10-28 at TENN5% → 1%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −10

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.