Western Kentucky

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−0.0210th
  Defense+0.1056th
• 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.
  Offense40.5%32nd
  Defense39.6%75th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+0.951st
  Defense+1.2838th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0321st
  Defense+0.1234th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0214th
  Defense+0.0879th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.0%36th
  Defense44.1%76th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.4%35th
  Defense30.8%64th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7431st
  Defense2.9347th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.1%21st
  Defense17.3%25th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.0%40th
  Defense18.4%78th

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 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
   LOU
2. L
   LIB
3. W
   MTSU
4. L
   MRSH
5. L
   UAB
6. W
   UTC
7. L
   BYU
8. L
   FAU
9. W
   USM
10. W
    FIU
11. W
    CLT
12. L
    GAST

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

Players, 2020

1. Tyrrell PigromeQB312 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 68th of 212 QBs
   0.54WAR0.01 to 1.07
2. Gaej WalkerRB107 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 101st of 338 RBs
   0.30WAR0.23 to 0.38
3. Xavier LaneWR39 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 147th of 409 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
4. Mitchell TinsleyWR43 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 170th of 409 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
5. John HaggertyP41 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 12th of 77 punters
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11
6. Craig Burt Jr.WR35 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 278th of 409 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.09
7. Brayden NarvesonPK10 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 45th of 97 kickers
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
8. Jahcour PearsonWR10 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 340th of 409 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44844884th of 127Roster talent: 448, 84th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15115181st of 127Recruiting: 151, 81st of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  32%32%111th of 127Returning production: 32%, 111th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.2−3.283rd of 127SP+ rating: −3.2, 83rd 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 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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.09 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 FAUQ4 8:09 4th & 4 at FAU 31, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. vs LIBQ3 5:30 4th & 1 at WKU 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at FAUQ2 1:59 4th & 3 at WKU 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at CLTQ2 4:17 4th & 3 at WKU 47, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at UABQ3 12:06 4th & 3 at WKU 37, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs UTCQ4 15:00 4th & 9 at UTC 34, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs FIUQ1 4:46 4th & 1 at WKU 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs LIBQ2 14:56 4th & 3 at LIB 25, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

79th of 127 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

   LOU
2. L

   LIB
3. W

   MTSU
4. L

   MRSH
5. L

   UAB
6. W

   UTC
7. L

   BYU
8. L

   FAU
9. W

   USM
10. W

    FIU
11. W

    CLT
12. L

    GAST

What moved it, 2020

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−0.39
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.27

Game by game

• LOUL 21-35 at LOU14% → 3%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• LIBL 24-30 vs LIB83% → 5%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• MTSUW 20-17 at MTSU61% → 86%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +38, Clock +3
• MRSHL 14-38 vs MRSH30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2
• UABL 14-37 at UAB17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22
• UTCW 13-10 vs UTC82% → 95%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• BYUL 10-41 at BYU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −4
• FAUL 6-10 at FAU31% → 4%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Possession & field position −1
• USMW 10-7 vs USM66% → 84%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +2
• FIUW 38-21 vs FIU71% → 99%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• CLTW 37-19 at CLT38% → 99%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +58, Clock +2
• GASTL 21-39 at GAST40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts +1

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.