Arizona State

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1874th
  Defense+0.235th
• 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.
  Offense45.3%73rd
  Defense47.3%11th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2548th
  Defense+1.2358th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1675th
  Defense+0.321st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2871st
  Defense+0.2145th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.2%72nd
  Defense53.4%7th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.2%75th
  Defense30.6%48th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2473rd
  Defense3.523rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.6%28th
  Defense13.9%18th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.2%42nd
  Defense14.5%25th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   NAU
2. L
   OKST
3. L
   EMU
4. L
   UTAH
5. L
   USC
6. W
   WASH
7. L
   STAN
8. W
   COLO
9. L
   UCLA
10. L
    WSU
11. L
    ORST
12. L
    ARIZ

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

Players, 2022

1. Trenton BourguetQB196 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 98th of 234 QBs
   0.77WAR0.30 to 1.23
2. Xazavian ValladayRB188 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 28th of 384 RBs
   0.54WAR0.39 to 0.69
3. Emory JonesQB159 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 133rd of 234 QBs
   0.40WAR0.14 to 0.66
4. Elijhah BadgerWR58 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 89th of 455 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.26
5. Giovanni SandersWR31 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 165th of 455 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.17
6. Daniyel NgataRB37 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 253rd of 384 RBs
   0.10WAR0.08 to 0.13
7. Jalin ConyersTE34 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 37th of 214 TEs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
8. Bryan ThompsonWR23 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 331st of 455 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.10

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67067040th of 129Roster talent: 670, 40th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18918950th of 129Recruiting: 189, 50th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  14%14%125th of 128Returning production: 14%, 125th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.1−4.181st of 129SP+ rating: −4.1, 81st of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.25 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 STANQ4 0:03 4th & 19 at STAN 43, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−15.6 pts
2. at STANQ4 11:33 4th & 6 at STAN 40, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. vs WASHQ3 13:41 4th & 1 at ASU 32, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at STANQ4 3:54 4th & 16 at STAN 43, down 1Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
5. at OKSTQ2 12:17 4th & 1 at ASU 41, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs WASHQ4 2:47 4th & 5 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at WSUQ3 12:58 4th & 1 at ASU 32, down 28Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs UTAHQ3 10:12 4th & 8 at UTAH 29, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

108th of 131 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

   NAU
2. L

   OKST
3. L

   EMU
4. L

   UTAH
5. L

   USC
6. W

   WASH
7. L

   STAN
8. W

   COLO
9. L

   UCLA
10. L

    WSU
11. L

    ORST
12. L

    ARIZ

What moved it, 2022

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−1.57
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.56

Game by game

• NAUW 40-3 vs NAU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• OKSTL 17-34 at OKST15% → 2%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20
• EMUL 21-30 vs EMU90% → 6%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −84: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• UTAHL 13-34 vs UTAH9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• USCL 25-42 at USC6% → 1%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −10
• WASHW 45-38 vs WASH13% → 93%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +80: Scoreboard +34, Possession & field position +2
• STANL 14-15 at STAN28% → 5%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• COLOW 42-34 at COLO72% → 97%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• UCLAL 36-50 vs UCLA17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −27, Clock −1
• WSUL 18-28 at WSU24% → 3%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• ORSTL 7-31 vs ORST24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• ARIZL 35-38 at ARIZ27% → 4%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −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.