Wake Forest

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1459th
  Defense+0.1831st
• 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.
  Offense41.5%41st
  Defense46.7%22nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3582nd
  Defense+1.2644th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0338th
  Defense+0.1620th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2564th
  Defense+0.1945th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.4%54th
  Defense52.6%14th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.2%39th
  Defense32.6%48th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7636th
  Defense2.6574th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.3%46th
  Defense23.3%79th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.3%48th
  Defense17.7%65th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   CLEM
2. L
   NCSU
3. W
   CAM
4. W
   UVA
5. W
   VT
6. W
   SYR
7. L
   UNC
8. L
   LOU
9. L
   WIS

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

Players, 2020

1. Sam HartmanQB265 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 41st of 212 QBs
   0.77WAR0.28 to 1.22
2. Kenneth Walker IIIRB92 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 73rd of 338 RBs
   0.35WAR0.27 to 0.43
3. Christian Beal-SmithRB98 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 92nd of 338 RBs
   0.32WAR0.24 to 0.40
4. Jaquarii RobersonWR64 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 10th of 409 WRs
   0.23WAR0.15 to 0.32
5. Donavon GreeneWR40 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 109th of 409 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
6. Taylor MorinWR30 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 216th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
7. Nick ScibaPK10 plays · +0.256 pts/play · 35th of 97 kickers
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.06
8. Brandon ChapmanTE8 plays · +0.022 pts/play · 137th of 191 TEs
   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

What it had and what it did, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57757766th of 127Roster talent: 577, 66th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17417466th of 127Recruiting: 174, 66th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  36%36%108th of 127Returning production: 36%, 108th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.8+0.866th of 127SP+ rating: +0.8, 66th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.12 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 VTQ3 8:16 4th & 1 at WAKE 46, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. at SYRQ2 0:03 4th & 27 at SYR 43, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.8 pts
3. vs VTQ3 12:23 4th & 3 at VT 28, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at NCSUQ4 1:14 4th & 21 at WAKE 23, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.0 pts
5. vs VTQ4 0:51 4th & 8 at VT 32, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at WISQ4 6:15 4th & 10 at WIS 12, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs UVAQ4 5:36 4th & 2 at UVA 26, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs UVAQ4 10:01 4th & 3 at WAKE 40, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

49th of 127 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

   CLEM
2. L

   NCSU
3. W

   CAM
4. W

   UVA
5. W

   VT
6. W

   SYR
7. L

   UNC
8. L

   LOU
9. L

   WIS

What moved it, 2020

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−0.03
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.28

Game by game

• CLEML 13-37 vs CLEM2% → 1%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −5
• NCSUL 42-45 at NCSU51% → 7%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• CAMW 66-14 vs CAM98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• UVAW 40-23 vs UVA57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +2
• VTW 23-16 vs VT24% → 97%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +3
• SYRW 38-14 at SYR81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• UNCL 53-59 at UNC14% → 4%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• LOUL 21-45 at LOU35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −34, Clock −1
• WISL 28-42 at WIS21% → 1%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −25

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.