Wake Forest

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−0.101st
  Defense+0.0782nd
• 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.
  Offense32.0%1st
  Defense39.1%83rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0912th
  Defense+1.1955th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.221st
  Defense+0.0469th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.012nd
  Defense+0.1472nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense37.5%1st
  Defense44.7%72nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.9%2nd
  Defense28.7%86th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense1.331st
  Defense2.6575th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense36.4%1st
  Defense21.5%71st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.4%25th
  Defense1.8%38th

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 Wake Forest 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
   ULM
2. W
   GWEB
3. L
   USU
4. W
   ARMY
5. L
   LOU
6. L
   FSU
7. L
   SYR
8. L
   BC
9. L
   CLEM
10. L
    NCSU
11. W
    VT
12. L
    DUKE

Bars above the line: better than expected for Wake Forest.

Players, 2014

1. John WolfordQB352 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 95th of 199 QBs
   1.08WAR0.56 to 1.70
2. Alexander KinalP64 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 2nd of 94 punters
   0.29WAR0.18 to 0.40
3. E.J. ScottWR52 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 110th of 469 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23
4. Isaiah RobinsonRB85 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 194th of 350 RBs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.18
5. Matt JamesWR54 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 184th of 469 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
6. Dezmond WorthamDB61 plays · +0.094 pts/play
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15
7. Mike WeaverPK11 plays · +0.355 pts/play · 90th of 114 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
8. Orville ReynoldsRB9 plays · +0.027 pts/play · 300th of 350 RBs
   0.00WAR−0.01 to 0.02

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 Wake Forest'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 Wake Forest's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.19 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 ARMYQ4 0:07 4th & 5 at ARMY 21, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−7.9 pts
2. vs ARMYQ4 14:13 4th & 2 at ARMY 2, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
3. vs VTQ3 7:23 4th & 1 at WAKE 29, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
4. vs CLEMQ3 0:54 4th & 1 at WAKE 26, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
5. vs VTQ2 7:00 4th & 1 at VT 24, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. vs CLEMQ2 7:56 4th & 10 at WAKE 37, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at ULMQ3 11:51 4th & 2 at WAKE 37, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at DUKEQ3 2:21 4th & 10 at DUKE 31, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

82nd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   ULM
2. W

   GWEB
3. L

   USU
4. W

   ARMY
5. L

   LOU
6. L

   FSU
7. L

   SYR
8. L

   BC
9. L

   CLEM
10. L

    NCSU
11. W

    VT
12. L

    DUKE

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Wake Forest'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−1.35
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts−0.24
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.90

Game by game

• ULML 10-17 at ULM64% → 3%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −3
• GWEBW 23-7 vs GWEB91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• USUL 24-36 at USU20% → 2%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −1
• ARMYW 24-21 vs ARMY58% → 88%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +2
• LOUL 10-20 at LOU8% → 3%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −1
• FSUL 3-43 at FSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• SYRL 7-30 vs SYR33% → 1%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −40, Clock −1
• BCL 17-23 vs BC21% → 5%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• CLEML 20-34 vs CLEM8% → 2%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• NCSUL 13-42 at NCSU19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −22
• VTW 6-3 vs VT14% → 79%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts −23
• DUKEL 21-41 at DUKE10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15

Points of win probability, from Wake Forest's side.

Closest call

LOU 34-37 WAKE (2021) - Wake Forest dropped to a 6.8% win probability before pulling it out.