Wake Forest

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+0.1348th
  Defense+0.1246th
• 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.
  Offense43.6%50th
  Defense42.3%55th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1629th
  Defense+1.1862nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0333rd
  Defense−0.0171st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2873rd
  Defense+0.2525th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.3%33rd
  Defense46.5%62nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.7%81st
  Defense33.5%47th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9251st
  Defense2.7073rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.0%66th
  Defense23.2%86th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.3%63rd
  Defense19.6%46th

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 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
   USU
2. W
   RICE
3. W
   UNC
4. W
   ELON
5. W
   BC
6. L
   LOU
7. W
   FSU
8. W
   NCSU
9. L
   VT
10. L
    CLEM
11. W
    DUKE
12. L
    SYR
13. L
    MSU

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

Players, 2019

1. Jamie NewmanQB439 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 20th of 228 QBs
   1.86WAR1.19 to 2.70
2. Cade CarneyRB145 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 71st of 349 RBs
   0.47WAR0.35 to 0.58
3. Sam HartmanQB113 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 155th of 228 QBs
   0.34WAR0.18 to 0.53
4. Kendall HintonWR90 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 22nd of 439 WRs
   0.29WAR0.20 to 0.39
5. Kenneth Walker IIIRB68 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 176th of 349 RBs
   0.23WAR0.18 to 0.28
6. Sage SurrattWR82 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 64th of 439 WRs
   0.21WAR0.09 to 0.32
7. Nick ScibaPK22 plays · +0.493 pts/play · 10th of 114 kickers
   0.20WAR0.15 to 0.26
8. Christian Beal-SmithRB58 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 194th of 349 RBs
   0.20WAR0.16 to 0.23

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56356366th of 130Roster talent: 563, 66th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17217265th of 130Recruiting: 172, 65th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%50th of 130Returning production: 68%, 50th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.0+2.055th of 130SP+ rating: +2.0, 55th 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 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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.21 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 FSUQ4 0:40 4th & 1 at WAKE 42, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. vs USUQ4 10:22 4th & 4 at WAKE 40, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at VTQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at WAKE 45, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. vs FSUQ3 8:16 4th & 2 at WAKE 20, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs DUKEQ4 9:47 4th & 4 at DUKE 7, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. vs UNCQ2 2:24 4th & 1 at WAKE 33, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. vs NCSUQ1 0:00 4th & 1 at NCSU 46, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. at BCQ3 4:47 4th & 4 at BC 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

68th 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

   USU
2. W

   RICE
3. W

   UNC
4. W

   ELON
5. W

   BC
6. L

   LOU
7. W

   FSU
8. W

   NCSU
9. L

   VT
10. L

    CLEM
11. W

    DUKE
12. L

    SYR
13. L

    MSU

What moved it, 2019

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+0.20
• Possession & field position+0.08
• Clock−0.15
• Timeouts+0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.42

Game by game

• USUW 38-35 vs USU65% → 93%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +31, Possession & field position −1
• RICEW 41-21 at RICE91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +16, Clock +1
• UNCW 24-18 vs UNC59% → 100%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +1
• ELONW 49-7 vs ELON97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +4
• BCW 27-24 at BC63% → 87%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +36, Clock +3
• LOUL 59-62 vs LOU69% → 12%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• FSUW 22-20 vs FSU43% → 86%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position +3
• NCSUW 44-10 vs NCSU74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28
• VTL 17-36 at VT56% → 1%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −48, Possession & field position +1
• CLEML 3-52 at CLEM2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• DUKEW 39-27 vs DUKE71% → 97%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +30, Possession & field position +1
• SYRL 30-39 at SYR70% → 6%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts +16
• MSUL 21-27 vs MSU38% → 4%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −41, Clock −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.