Arizona State

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1040th
  Defense+0.0860th
• 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%35th
  Defense43.3%46th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1631st
  Defense+1.1475th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0313th
  Defense−0.0483rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2567th
  Defense+0.1943rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.7%26th
  Defense49.7%33rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.4%62nd
  Defense28.4%86th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7935th
  Defense2.7961st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.9%36th
  Defense17.9%32nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.7%70th
  Defense21.4%67th

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, 2019

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
   KENT
2. W
   SAC
3. W
   MSU
4. L
   COLO
5. W
   CAL
6. W
   WSU
7. L
   UTAH
8. L
   UCLA
9. L
   USC
10. L
    ORST
11. W
    ORE
12. W
    ARIZ
13. W
    FSU

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

Players, 2019

1. Jayden DanielsQB408 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 27th of 228 QBs
   1.63WAR0.99 to 2.28
2. Eno BenjaminRB275 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 7th of 349 RBs
   0.88WAR0.65 to 1.08
3. Brandon AiyukWR90 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 16th of 439 WRs
   0.31WAR0.17 to 0.46
4. Christian ZendejasPK20 plays · +0.460 pts/play · 20th of 114 kickers
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.22
5. Frank DarbyWR49 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 112th of 439 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
6. Kyle WilliamsWR69 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 177th of 439 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17
7. Michael TurkP60 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 14th of 100 punters
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.16
8. Curtis HodgesTE8 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 132nd of 207 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68668632nd of 130Roster talent: 686, 32nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21321331st of 130Recruiting: 213, 31st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  40%40%104th of 130Returning production: 40%, 104th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.3+6.343rd of 130SP+ rating: +6.3, 43rd 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, 2019

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 0.22 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 MSUQ4 1:23 4th & 13 at MSU 28, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.9 pts
2. vs OREQ3 1:02 4th & 8 at ORE 33, up 6Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.1 pts
3. vs OREQ2 0:00 4th & 18 at ORE 38, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.0 pts
4. vs COLOQ3 3:42 4th & 3 at COLO 5, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs FSUQ3 7:03 4th & 2 at FSU 48, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at CALQ2 4:26 4th & 3 at CAL 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. vs FSUQ4 2:45 4th & 5 at FSU 38, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs FSUQ4 4:34 4th & 3 at ASU 45, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

30th 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

   KENT
2. W

   SAC
3. W

   MSU
4. L

   COLO
5. W

   CAL
6. W

   WSU
7. L

   UTAH
8. L

   UCLA
9. L

   USC
10. L

    ORST
11. W

    ORE
12. W

    ARIZ
13. W

    FSU

What moved it, 2019

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+0.57
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Timeouts+0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.53

Game by game

• KENTW 30-7 vs KENT93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• SACW 19-7 vs SAC98% → 97%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +6
• MSUW 10-7 at MSU13% → 78%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• COLOL 31-34 vs COLO68% → 5%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• CALW 24-17 at CAL40% → 96%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• WSUW 38-34 vs WSU47% → 87%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• UTAHL 3-21 at UTAH13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18
• UCLAL 32-42 at UCLA57% → 3%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −1
• USCL 26-31 vs USC35% → 5%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3
• ORSTL 34-35 at ORST51% → 17%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −2
• OREW 31-28 vs ORE14% → 96%Before kickoff −36 · On the field +82: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +3
• ARIZW 24-14 vs ARIZ81% → 96%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• FSUW 20-14 vs FSU56% → 96%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +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.