Arizona State

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0215th
  Defense+0.2111th
• 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.
  Offense37.8%15th
  Defense46.3%8th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2542nd
  Defense+1.2267th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1569th
  Defense+0.1426th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.038th
  Defense+0.2925th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.3%18th
  Defense52.2%6th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.3%16th
  Defense32.5%22nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1455th
  Defense3.523rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.4%89th
  Defense11.0%2nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.0%24th
  Defense16.4%52nd

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   SUU
2. L
   OKST
3. L
   FRES
4. L
   USC
5. L
   CAL
6. L
   COLO
7. L
   WASH
8. W
   WSU
9. L
   UTAH
10. W
    UCLA
11. L
    ORE
12. L
    ARIZ

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

Players, 2023

1. Trenton BourguetQB230 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 114th of 250 QBs
   0.69WAR0.21 to 1.22
2. Cam SkatteboRB129 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 37th of 383 RBs
   0.40WAR0.28 to 0.51
3. Drew PyneQB41 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 210th of 250 QBs
   0.12WAR0.01 to 0.23
4. Elijhah BadgerWR76 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 186th of 457 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.06 to 0.29
5. Jaden RashadaQB43 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 218th of 250 QBs
   0.10WAR0.00 to 0.21
6. Jalin ConyersTE39 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 69th of 212 TEs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.16
7. DeCarlos BrooksRB36 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 256th of 383 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
8. Giovanni SandersWR20 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 243rd of 457 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.12

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68168144th of 130Roster talent: 681, 44th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18418459th of 130Recruiting: 184, 59th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  61%61%50th of 128Returning production: 61%, 50th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.3−11.3105th of 130SP+ rating: −11.3, 105th 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, 2023

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 0.07 of the 0.09 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 UCLAQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at ASU 29, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs COLOQ2 3:03 4th & 1 at ASU 28, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at WASHQ3 3:37 4th & 3 at WASH 25, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at WASHQ3 13:18 4th & 6 at WASH 36, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs WSUQ3 3:52 4th & 2 at ASU 35, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs USCQ4 1:40 4th & 17 at USC 44, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at WASHQ2 10:02 4th & 2 at ASU 30, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs USCQ4 7:07 4th & 6 at ASU 24, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

88th of 133 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

   SUU
2. L

   OKST
3. L

   FRES
4. L

   USC
5. L

   CAL
6. L

   COLO
7. L

   WASH
8. W

   WSU
9. L

   UTAH
10. W

    UCLA
11. L

    ORE
12. L

    ARIZ

What moved it, 2023

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−1.26
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.81

Game by game

• SUUW 24-21 vs SUU97% → 96%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +8, Timeouts +1
• OKSTL 15-27 vs OKST47% → 2%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• FRESL 0-29 vs FRES46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −50
• USCL 28-42 vs USC2% → 1%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −7
• CALL 21-24 at CAL22% → 4%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −2
• COLOL 24-27 vs COLO46% → 12%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −40, Clock −4
• WASHL 7-15 at WASH4% → 3%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −9
• WSUW 38-27 vs WSU37% → 97%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• UTAHL 3-55 at UTAH22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −24
• UCLAW 17-7 at UCLA19% → 97%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• OREL 13-49 vs ORE6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• ARIZL 23-59 vs ARIZ17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23, 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.