Arizona State

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1257th
  Defense+0.1424th
• 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.
  Offense42.2%38th
  Defense40.0%69th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1946th
  Defense+1.441st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0544th
  Defense+0.0839th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2367th
  Defense+0.2232nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.5%38th
  Defense42.7%87th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.0%47th
  Defense35.4%31st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9260th
  Defense2.5484th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%65th
  Defense24.0%82nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.3%95th
  Defense1.6%25th

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, 2015

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. L
   TA&M
2. W
   CP
3. W
   UNM
4. L
   USC
5. W
   UCLA
6. W
   COLO
7. L
   UTAH
8. L
   ORE
9. L
   WSU
10. W
    WASH
11. W
    ARIZ
12. L
    CAL
13. L
    WVU

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

Players, 2015

1. Mike BercoviciQB516 plays · +0.269 pts/play · 15th of 205 QBs
   2.60WAR1.76 to 3.44
2. Demario RichardRB206 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 41st of 333 RBs
   0.39WAR0.24 to 0.54
3. Devin LucienWR82 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 36th of 411 WRs
   0.27WAR0.13 to 0.38
4. Zane GonzalezPK31 plays · +0.420 pts/play · 2nd of 115 kickers
   0.24WAR0.16 to 0.33
5. Matt HaackP63 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 8th of 92 punters
   0.20WAR0.04 to 0.35
6. Kalen BallageRB128 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 146th of 333 RBs
   0.17WAR0.06 to 0.27
7. D.J. FosterWR117 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 146th of 411 WRs
   0.13WAR0.02 to 0.26
8. Tim WhiteWR67 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 153rd of 411 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.22

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68168127th of 128Roster talent: 681, 27th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22822822nd of 128Recruiting: 228, 22nd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  55%55%72nd of 127Returning production: 55%, 72nd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.2+10.238th of 128SP+ rating: +10.2, 38th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 0.18 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. at TA&MQ4 4:16 4th & 5 at TA&M 5, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. vs WVUQ2 2:53 4th & 1 at WVU 1, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
3. at WSUQ4 4:13 4th & 1 at WSU 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. at UTAHQ3 1:30 4th & 2 at UTAH 26, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
5. at TA&MQ2 10:46 4th & 1 at ASU 46, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
6. at TA&MQ2 10:46 4th & 1 at ASU 46, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
7. at TA&MQ2 2:19 4th & 2 at ASU 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. vs WVUQ2 6:41 4th & 2 at WVU 45, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

105th 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.

1. L

   TA&M
2. W

   CP
3. W

   UNM
4. L

   USC
5. W

   UCLA
6. W

   COLO
7. L

   UTAH
8. L

   ORE
9. L

   WSU
10. W

    WASH
11. W

    ARIZ
12. L

    CAL
13. L

    WVU

What moved it, 2015

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−0.94
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.15
• Timeouts−0.25
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.05

Game by game

• TA&ML 17-38 at TA&M39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −1
• CPW 35-21 vs CP99% → 99%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +4
• UNMW 34-10 vs UNM94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• USCL 14-42 vs USC30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −35, Clock −1
• UCLAW 38-23 at UCLA18% → 99%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +81: Scoreboard +65, Clock +2
• COLOW 48-23 vs COLO80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts −1
• UTAHL 18-34 at UTAH34% → 1%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• OREL 55-61 vs ORE58% → 31%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −21
• WSUL 24-38 at WSU55% → 1%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• WASHW 27-17 vs WASH63% → 97%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• ARIZW 52-37 vs ARIZ68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• CALL 46-48 at CAL38% → 5%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −1
• WVUL 42-43 vs WVU57% → 5%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3

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.