Arizona State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1568th
  Defense+0.1625th
• 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.
  Offense43.6%60th
  Defense45.0%30th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2154th
  Defense+1.2436th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1070th
  Defense+0.1912th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2263rd
  Defense+0.1646th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.4%50th
  Defense50.7%18th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.3%67th
  Defense33.3%47th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9357th
  Defense2.9341st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.0%81st
  Defense18.7%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.0%82nd
  Defense14.5%25th

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, 2017

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
   NMSU
2. L
   SDSU
3. L
   TTU
4. W
   ORE
5. L
   STAN
6. W
   WASH
7. W
   UTAH
8. L
   USC
9. W
   COLO
10. L
    UCLA
11. W
    ORST
12. W
    ARIZ
13. L
    NCSU

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

Players, 2017

1. Manny WilkinsQB507 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 14th of 226 QBs
   2.08WAR1.30 to 2.96
2. Demario RichardRB196 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 21st of 352 RBs
   0.56WAR0.39 to 0.70
3. Kalen BallageRB179 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 90th of 352 RBs
   0.31WAR0.19 to 0.45
4. N'Keal HarryWR118 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 7th of 426 WRs
   0.29WAR0.17 to 0.40
5. Brandon RuizPK25 plays · +0.453 pts/play · 5th of 110 kickers
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.30
6. Kyle WilliamsWR88 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 34th of 426 WRs
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.29
7. Jalen HarveyS46 plays · +0.155 pts/play
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18
8. Michael Sleep-DaltonP55 plays · +0.035 pts/play · 55th of 95 punters
   0.04WAR−0.07 to 0.15

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72072021st of 130Roster talent: 720, 21st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22022024th of 130Recruiting: 220, 24th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%36th of 128Returning production: 73%, 36th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.0+1.068th of 128SP+ rating: +1.0, 68th of 128 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, 2017

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 0.16 of the 0.24 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 TTUQ4 6:40 4th & 3 at ASU 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
2. vs OREQ4 11:36 4th & 1 at ASU 32, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
3. vs SDSUQ3 1:52 4th & 25 at ASU 10, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.4 pts
4. vs OREQ4 1:03 4th & 5 at ORE 45, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
5. at UCLAQ3 7:22 4th & 3 at UCLA 4, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. at STANQ3 11:03 4th & 1 at ASU 35, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs NMSUQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at NMSU 38, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. at UCLAQ4 1:20 4th & 4 at UCLA 5, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

21st of 130 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. W

   NMSU
2. L

   SDSU
3. L

   TTU
4. W

   ORE
5. L

   STAN
6. W

   WASH
7. W

   UTAH
8. L

   USC
9. W

   COLO
10. L

    UCLA
11. W

    ORST
12. W

    ARIZ
13. L

    NCSU

What moved it, 2017

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+0.38
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.74

Game by game

• NMSUW 37-31 vs NMSU94% → 81%Before kickoff +44 · On the field −13: Scoreboard +10, Possession & field position −1
• SDSUL 20-30 vs SDSU60% → 3%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• TTUL 45-52 at TTU34% → 3%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• OREW 37-35 vs ORE17% → 95%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +39, Possession & field position +2
• STANL 24-34 at STAN14% → 3%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• WASHW 13-7 vs WASH11% → 96%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +85: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +3
• UTAHW 30-10 at UTAH27% → 99%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +63, Clock +3
• USCL 17-48 vs USC35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −41
• COLOW 41-30 vs COLO68% → 97%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• UCLAL 37-44 at UCLA41% → 4%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• ORSTW 40-24 at ORST72% → 98%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• ARIZW 42-30 vs ARIZ47% → 98%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +2
• NCSUL 31-52 vs NCSU38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −43, 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.