Western Kentucky

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+0.0316th
  Defense+0.0664th
• 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.
  Offense41.0%27th
  Defense45.7%25th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0910th
  Defense+1.0889th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0333rd
  Defense+0.0844th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0419th
  Defense+0.0772nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.9%35th
  Defense52.2%16th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.4%22nd
  Defense31.3%65th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9248th
  Defense3.0032nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.2%53rd
  Defense18.4%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%27th
  Defense16.0%47th

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 Western Kentucky 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
   WIS
2. L
   ME
3. L
   LOU
4. W
   BALL
5. L
   MRSH
6. L
   CLT
7. L
   ODU
8. L
   FIU
9. L
   MTSU
10. L
    FAU
11. W
    UTEP
12. W
    LT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Western Kentucky.

Players, 2018

1. Steven DuncanQB195 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 114th of 225 QBs
   0.68WAR0.35 to 1.04
2. Davis ShanleyQB159 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 138th of 225 QBs
   0.52WAR0.30 to 0.78
3. Josh SamuelRB101 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 109th of 351 RBs
   0.37WAR0.29 to 0.43
4. D'Andre FerbyRB47 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 245th of 351 RBs
   0.15WAR0.12 to 0.18
5. Mik'Quan DeaneTE49 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 10th of 204 TEs
   0.10WAR0.01 to 0.20
6. Quin JernighanWR45 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 185th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
7. Lucky JacksonWR50 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 216th of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.15
8. Jacquez SloanWR36 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 234th of 434 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13

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 Western Kentucky'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.
  353353112th of 130Roster talent: 353, 112th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13313390th of 130Recruiting: 133, 90th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  22%22%123rd of 129Returning production: 22%, 123rd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.1−16.1112th of 130SP+ rating: −16.1, 112th 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 Western Kentucky's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 12 clear-cut ones account for 0.23 of the 0.28 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 MRSHQ3 10:25 4th & 1 at WKU 29, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. vs ODUQ4 11:39 4th & 1 at ODU 48, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. at LTQ4 13:27 4th & 13 at LT 29, up 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.5 pts
4. vs MRSHQ3 3:16 4th & 2 at MRSH 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
5. at LTQ2 9:16 4th & 1 at WKU 10, up 23Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
6. at BALLQ4 15:00 4th & 8 at WKU 30, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.1 pts
7. at LOUQ2 6:10 4th & 2 at LOU 44, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
8. at LTQ3 6:29 4th & 1 at WKU 21, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

117th of 130 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Western Kentucky's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   WIS
2. L

   ME
3. L

   LOU
4. W

   BALL
5. L

   MRSH
6. L

   CLT
7. L

   ODU
8. L

   FIU
9. L

   MTSU
10. L

    FAU
11. W

    UTEP
12. W

    LT

What moved it, 2018

Every game starts at Western Kentucky'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−1.50
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.50

Game by game

• WISL 3-34 at WIS1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• MEL 28-31 vs ME75% → 6%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• LOUL 17-20 at LOU7% → 20%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +13: Scoreboard −10, Possession & field position +2
• BALLW 28-20 at BALL34% → 93%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• MRSHL 17-20 vs MRSH39% → 7%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• CLTL 14-40 at CLT67% → 0%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −57, Timeouts −1
• ODUL 34-37 vs ODU60% → 5%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −51, Clock −2
• FIUL 17-38 vs FIU41% → 0%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2
• MTSUL 10-29 at MTSU17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• FAUL 15-34 at FAU12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −16
• UTEPW 40-16 vs UTEP69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• LTW 30-15 at LT21% → 98%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +63, Clock +3

Points of win probability, from Western Kentucky's side.

Closest call

WKU 38-35 ODU (2023) - Western Kentucky dropped to a 2.4% win probability before pulling it out.