Arizona State

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+0.2486th
  Defense+0.0477th
• 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.
  Offense46.7%79th
  Defense44.8%37th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3789th
  Defense+1.1097th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3599th
  Defense−0.0690th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0832nd
  Defense+0.1656th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.7%87th
  Defense50.5%29th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.3%48th
  Defense32.6%46th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5197th
  Defense2.9345th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.2%95th
  Defense22.9%77th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.5%75th
  Defense18.0%68th

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 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
   USC
2. L
   UCLA
3. W
   ARIZ
4. W
   ORST

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

Players, 2020

1. Jayden DanielsQB112 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 85th of 212 QBs
   0.38WAR0.20 to 0.57
2. Chip TrayanumRB43 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 199th of 338 RBs
   0.16WAR0.13 to 0.19
3. Frank DarbyWR11 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 344th of 409 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
4. Rachaad WhiteRB8 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 292nd of 338 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
5. Michael TurkP12 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 53rd of 77 punters
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.03
6. Christian ZendejasPK4 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 83rd of 97 kickers
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02
7. Curtis HodgesTE3 plays · +0.043 pts/play · 137th of 191 TEs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74374322nd of 127Roster talent: 743, 22nd of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21621626th of 127Recruiting: 216, 26th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  60%60%75th of 127Returning production: 60%, 75th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.4+11.425th of 127SP+ rating: +11.4, 25th 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 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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.03 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. vs UCLAQ2 13:11 4th & 1 at ASU 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. at USCQ4 11:23 4th & 4 at USC 23, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at ORSTQ3 1:40 4th & 8 at ORST 42, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
4. at USCQ2 0:08 4th & 1 at ASU 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
5. at ARIZQ1 9:39 4th & 4 at ARIZ 22, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. at ARIZQ4 4:09 4th & 10 at ARIZ 28, up 63Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)<0.1 pts
7. at USCQ1 12:11 4th & 4 at USC 20, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
8. vs UCLAQ2 3:07 4th & 6 at ASU 43, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

74th of 127 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

   USC
2. L

   UCLA
3. W

   ARIZ
4. W

   ORST

What moved it, 2020

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+0.03
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.05

Game by game

• USCL 27-28 at USC22% → 20%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts +1
• UCLAL 18-25 vs UCLA54% → 5%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• ARIZW 70-7 at ARIZ74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +32, Clock +1
• ORSTW 46-33 at ORST73% → 96%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +37, Clock +1

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.