Washington

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+0.1964th
  Defense+0.0784th
• 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.
  Offense42.6%47th
  Defense43.8%35th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2878th
  Defense+1.0985th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1672nd
  Defense−0.0596th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2357th
  Defense+0.1761st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.8%54th
  Defense47.8%43rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.9%32nd
  Defense35.2%31st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8745th
  Defense2.5780th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.9%32nd
  Defense18.2%31st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%62nd
  Defense1.9%47th

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 Washington 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
   HAW
2. W
   EWU
3. W
   ILL
4. W
   GAST
5. L
   STAN
6. W
   CAL
7. L
   ORE
8. L
   ASU
9. W
   COLO
10. L
    UCLA
11. L
    ARIZ
12. W
    ORST
13. W
    WSU
14. L
    OKST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Washington.

Players, 2014

1. Cyler MilesQB316 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 80th of 199 QBs
   1.33WAR0.84 to 1.82
2. Dwayne Washington?105 plays · +0.095 pts/play
   0.19WAR0.09 to 0.29
3. Cameron Van WinklePK16 plays · +0.451 pts/play · 30th of 114 kickers
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
4. Jaydon MickensWR61 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 166th of 469 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.21
5. Lavon Coleman?65 plays · +0.099 pts/play
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
6. Deontae Cooper?45 plays · +0.109 pts/play
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
7. Korey DurkeeP44 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 64th of 94 punters
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.11
8. Dante PettisWR17 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 383rd of 469 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 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 Washington'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 Washington's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 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. at ARIZQ4 14:05 4th & 1 at WASH 30, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.0 pts
2. vs STANQ4 7:37 4th & 9 at WASH 47, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−2.1 pts
3. at OKSTQ2 13:43 4th & 1 at WASH 29, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at COLOQ4 10:41 4th & 1 at WASH 43, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs GASTQ3 10:04 4th & 6 at GAST 36, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at WSUQ3 3:07 4th & 1 at WSU 1, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at CALQ4 14:53 4th & 1 at CAL 45, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs ILLQ3 5:34 4th & 1 at WASH 49, up 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

49th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Washington's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 13 of 14 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   HAW
2. W

   EWU
3. W

   ILL
4. W

   GAST
5. L

   STAN
6. W

   CAL
7. L

   ORE
8. L

   ASU
9. W

   COLO
10. L

    UCLA
11. L

    ARIZ
12. W

    ORST
13. W

    WSU
14. L

    OKST

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Washington'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+0.35
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.05

Game by game

• EWUW 59-52 vs EWU87% → 95%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• ILLW 44-19 vs ILL84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• GASTW 45-14 vs GAST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• STANL 13-20 vs STAN27% → 4%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2
• CALW 31-7 at CAL43% → 100%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• OREL 20-45 at ORE9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts +1
• ASUL 10-24 vs ASU35% → 2%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −42, Clock −1
• COLOW 38-23 at COLO59% → 98%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• UCLAL 30-44 vs UCLA29% → 1%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• ARIZL 26-27 at ARIZ25% → 8%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −26, Possession & field position +1
• ORSTW 37-13 vs ORST59% → 100%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts −1
• WSUW 31-13 at WSU53% → 98%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +47, Clock +4
• OKSTL 22-30 at OKST60% → 3%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −3

Points of win probability, from Washington's side.

Closest call

WASH 37-34 ORE (2022) - Washington dropped to a 6.2% win probability before pulling it out.