Wake Forest

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1146th
  Defense+0.1434th
• 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.
  Offense43.5%48th
  Defense41.5%60th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1217th
  Defense+1.2920th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1060th
  Defense+0.0938th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1544th
  Defense+0.1937th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.2%50th
  Defense46.2%60th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.7%60th
  Defense32.9%45th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1481st
  Defense2.7077th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.5%89th
  Defense21.6%71st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.9%66th
  Defense15.4%34th

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, 2018

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
   TULN
2. W
   TOW
3. L
   BC
4. L
   ND
5. W
   RICE
6. L
   CLEM
7. L
   FSU
8. W
   LOU
9. L
   SYR
10. W
    NCSU
11. L
    PITT
12. W
    DUKE
13. W
    MEM

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

Players, 2018

1. Sam HartmanQB304 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 95th of 225 QBs
   0.87WAR0.40 to 1.35
2. Jamie NewmanQB178 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 107th of 225 QBs
   0.72WAR0.41 to 1.03
3. Cade CarneyRB145 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 43rd of 351 RBs
   0.57WAR0.46 to 0.68
4. Matt ColburnRB132 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 95th of 351 RBs
   0.39WAR0.29 to 0.49
5. Greg DortchWR94 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 36th of 434 WRs
   0.21WAR0.07 to 0.34
6. Alex BachmanWR48 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 113th of 434 WRs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.21
7. Nick ScibaPK18 plays · +0.385 pts/play · 34th of 112 kickers
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
8. Dom MaggioPK58 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 70th of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.17

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52552570th of 130Roster talent: 525, 70th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17117161st of 130Recruiting: 171, 61st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  36%36%107th of 129Returning production: 36%, 107th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.6+3.657th of 130SP+ rating: +3.6, 57th 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, 2018

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 0.12 of the 0.18 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 MEMQ4 14:52 4th & 1 at WAKE 47, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
2. vs PITTQ4 12:30 4th & 2 at PITT 2, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. at DUKEQ2 6:07 4th & 1 at WAKE 44, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs BCQ3 12:11 4th & 2 at BC 9, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs BCQ4 2:15 4th & 2 at BC 18, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
6. vs BCQ4 1:33 4th & 2 at BC 5, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
7. at FSUQ2 5:40 4th & 1 at WAKE 45, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs BCQ4 3:11 4th & 12 at BC 39, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

14th of 130 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

   TULN
2. W

   TOW
3. L

   BC
4. L

   ND
5. W

   RICE
6. L

   CLEM
7. L

   FSU
8. W

   LOU
9. L

   SYR
10. W

    NCSU
11. L

    PITT
12. W

    DUKE
13. W

    MEM

What moved it, 2018

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+0.46
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.14
• Timeouts+0.16
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.82

Game by game

• TULNW 23-17 at TULN65% → 90%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +16
• TOWW 51-20 vs TOW98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• BCL 34-41 vs BC30% → 4%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• NDL 27-56 vs ND28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −34, Clock −1
• RICEW 56-24 vs RICE96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• CLEML 3-63 vs CLEM7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• FSUL 17-38 at FSU19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −23
• LOUW 56-35 at LOU43% → 100%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +57, Clock +2
• SYRL 24-41 vs SYR31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• NCSUW 27-23 at NCSU9% → 85%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• PITTL 13-34 vs PITT35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −41, Clock −1
• DUKEW 59-7 at DUKE22% → 100%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +72, Possession & field position −1
• MEMW 37-34 vs MEM44% → 81%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position +2

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.