Arizona State

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+0.1549th
  Defense+0.0783rd
• 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.
  Offense42.7%49th
  Defense39.6%77th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2879th
  Defense+1.2913th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0735th
  Defense+0.0176th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2562nd
  Defense+0.1279th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.7%39th
  Defense43.9%81st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.6%59th
  Defense31.6%59th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6929th
  Defense2.5085th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.9%13th
  Defense22.8%83rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%62nd
  Defense3.1%95th

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 Arizona State 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
   WEB
2. W
   UNM
3. W
   COLO
4. L
   UCLA
5. W
   USC
6. W
   STAN
7. W
   WASH
8. W
   UTAH
9. W
   ND
10. L
    ORST
11. W
    WSU
12. L
    ARIZ
13. W
    DUKE

Bars above the line: better than expected for Arizona State.

Players, 2014

1. Taylor KellyQB316 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 75th of 199 QBs
   1.35WAR0.89 to 1.84
2. Mike BercoviciQB113 plays · +0.307 pts/play · 132nd of 199 QBs
   0.65WAR0.47 to 0.83
3. Jaelen StrongWR97 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 34th of 469 WRs
   0.29WAR0.14 to 0.44
4. Demario RichardRB80 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 155th of 350 RBs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
5. Zane GonzalezPK19 plays · +0.420 pts/play · 22nd of 114 kickers
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
6. D.J. FosterWR210 plays · +0.035 pts/play · 135th of 469 WRs
   0.14WAR−0.07 to 0.33
7. Matt HaackP41 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 26th of 94 punters
   0.13WAR0.02 to 0.23
8. Cameron SmithWR40 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 175th of 469 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18

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 Arizona State'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 Arizona State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 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 DUKEQ2 0:00 4th & 16 at ASU 34, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.3 pts
2. at WASHQ4 12:56 4th & 10 at WASH 10, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.5 pts
3. at USCQ3 8:23 4th & 2 at USC 2, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. at ORSTQ4 8:52 4th & 5 at ORST 40, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
5. vs UTAHQ3 4:04 4th & 3 at midfield, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
6. at USCQ3 1:21 4th & 4 at midfield, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. vs NDQ4 7:18 4th & 1 at ASU 34, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at COLOQ2 4:06 4th & 1 at ASU 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

11th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Arizona State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   WEB
2. W

   UNM
3. W

   COLO
4. L

   UCLA
5. W

   USC
6. W

   STAN
7. W

   WASH
8. W

   UTAH
9. W

   ND
10. L

    ORST
11. W

    WSU
12. L

    ARIZ
13. W

    DUKE

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Arizona State'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+2.31
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.18
• Timeouts−0.29
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.42

Game by game

• WEBW 45-14 vs WEB99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• UNMW 58-23 at UNM96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• COLOW 38-24 at COLO84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• USCW 38-34 at USC22% → 95%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• STANW 26-10 vs STAN35% → 99%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts +1
• WASHW 24-10 at WASH65% → 98%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +42, Clock +1
• UTAHW 19-16 vs UTAH62% → 79%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts −23
• NDW 55-31 vs ND53% → 99%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +43, Clock +1
• ORSTL 27-35 at ORST70% → 3%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −3
• WSUW 52-31 vs WSU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +18
• ARIZL 35-42 at ARIZ46% → 4%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −3
• DUKEW 36-31 at DUKE74% → 93%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2

Points of win probability, from Arizona State's side.

Closest call

ASU 38-34 USC (2014) - Arizona State dropped to a 5.2% win probability before pulling it out.