Wake Forest

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−0.068th
  Defense+0.1139th
• 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.
  Offense35.5%4th
  Defense40.7%64th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2467th
  Defense+1.2047th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0220th
  Defense0.0073rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.089th
  Defense+0.2817th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense38.7%2nd
  Defense44.6%66th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.1%26th
  Defense32.8%53rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.4810th
  Defense2.7362nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.9%20th
  Defense18.8%32nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%65th
  Defense2.5%79th

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 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. W
   ELON
2. L
   SYR
3. W
   ARMY
4. L
   IU
5. L
   FSU
6. W
   BC
7. L
   UNC
8. L
   NCSU
9. L
   LOU
10. L
    ND
11. L
    CLEM
12. L
    DUKE

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

Players, 2015

1. John WolfordQB207 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 128th of 205 QBs
   0.58WAR0.28 to 0.94
2. Alexander KinalP56 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 1st of 92 punters
   0.25WAR0.16 to 0.35
3. Tyler BellRB104 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 152nd of 333 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
4. K.J. BrentWR55 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 125th of 411 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
5. Cortez LewisWR65 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 136th of 411 WRs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.23
6. Mike WeaverPK14 plays · +0.355 pts/play · 79th of 115 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
7. Kendall HintonWR56 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 298th of 411 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.02 to 0.14
8. Isaiah RobinsonRB28 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 248th of 333 RBs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  49749769th of 128Roster talent: 497, 69th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16916961st of 128Recruiting: 169, 61st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  20%20%123rd of 127Returning production: 20%, 123rd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.5−4.588th of 128SP+ rating: −4.5, 88th 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 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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.15 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 IUQ3 5:47 4th & 18 at WAKE 44, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.2 pts
2. vs DUKEQ3 4:23 4th & 1 at WAKE 37, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at SYRQ2 8:11 4th & 1 at WAKE 46, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs IUQ2 2:27 4th & 3 at IU 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at BCQ3 15:00 4th & 2 at WAKE 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at BCQ2 6:54 4th & 2 at BC 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs LOUQ4 1:17 4th & 13 at WAKE 15, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs FSUQ4 3:34 4th & 6 at FSU 11, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

87th 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. W

   ELON
2. L

   SYR
3. W

   ARMY
4. L

   IU
5. L

   FSU
6. W

   BC
7. L

   UNC
8. L

   NCSU
9. L

   LOU
10. L

    ND
11. L

    CLEM
12. L

    DUKE

What moved it, 2015

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−1.51
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.71

Game by game

• ELONW 41-3 vs ELON76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26
• SYRL 17-30 at SYR34% → 1%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• ARMYW 17-14 at ARMY65% → 95%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2
• IUL 24-31 vs IU44% → 3%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• FSUL 16-24 vs FSU11% → 4%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• BCW 3-0 at BC29% → 57%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +25, Possession & field position −6
• UNCL 14-50 at UNC14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −16
• NCSUL 17-35 vs NCSU23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1
• LOUL 19-20 vs LOU24% → 5%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• NDL 7-28 at ND4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −7
• CLEML 13-33 at CLEM3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −6
• DUKEL 21-27 vs DUKE39% → 6%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3

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.