Baylor

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.3093rd
  Defense+0.1356th
• 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.
  Offense49.2%90th
  Defense39.9%70th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2261st
  Defense+1.2820th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2388th
  Defense+0.0472nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3987th
  Defense+0.2438th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.4%92nd
  Defense44.9%68th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.4%72nd
  Defense30.2%74th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2183rd
  Defense2.5682nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.3%88th
  Defense23.2%86th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.4%90th
  Defense1.9%47th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Baylor 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
   SMU
2. W
   NWST
3. W
   BUF
4. W
   ISU
5. W
   TEX
6. W
   TCU
7. L
   WVU
8. W
   KU
9. W
   OU
10. W
    OKST
11. W
    TTU
12. W
    KSU
13. L
    MSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Baylor.

Players, 2014

1. Bryce PettyQB373 plays · +0.275 pts/play · 31st of 199 QBs
   1.92WAR1.34 to 2.50
2. Corey ColemanWR81 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 28th of 469 WRs
   0.30WAR0.18 to 0.41
3. Shock LinwoodRB153 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 98th of 350 RBs
   0.23WAR0.08 to 0.38
4. Antwan GoodleyWR82 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 109th of 469 WRs
   0.16WAR0.06 to 0.29
5. KD CannonWR59 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 159th of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.03 to 0.22
6. Devin ChafinRB39 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 196th of 350 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
7. Jay LeeWR26 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 188th of 469 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15
8. Johnny JeffersonRB34 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 205th of 350 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14

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 Baylor'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Baylor's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.10 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 TEXQ3 2:26 4th & 1 at BAY 43, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. vs TCUQ3 5:23 4th & 3 at TCU 4, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs KSUQ2 1:58 4th & 1 at BAY 20, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at TEXQ3 8:05 4th & 5 at BAY 33, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
5. at WVUQ4 2:36 4th & 18 at WVU 18, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
6. at WVUQ4 5:28 4th & 8 at BAY 45, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at OUQ4 12:38 4th & 2 at OU 7, up 24Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at WVUQ3 7:35 4th & 7 at WVU 43, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

55th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Baylor's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   SMU
2. W

   NWST
3. W

   BUF
4. W

   ISU
5. W

   TEX
6. W

   TCU
7. L

   WVU
8. W

   KU
9. W

   OU
10. W

    OKST
11. W

    TTU
12. W

    KSU
13. L

    MSU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Baylor'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+0.84
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.77

Game by game

• SMUW 45-0 vs SMU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• NWSTW 70-6 vs NWST100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• BUFW 63-21 at BUF97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• ISUW 49-28 at ISU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12, Clock +1
• TEXW 28-7 at TEX82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• TCUW 61-58 vs TCU80% → 96%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position +1
• WVUL 27-41 at WVU76% → 1%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −51, Timeouts −2
• KUW 60-14 vs KU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• OUW 48-14 at OU43% → 100%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +56, Clock +2
• OKSTW 49-28 vs OKST95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• TTUW 48-46 at TTU93% → 93%Before kickoff +43 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• KSUW 38-27 vs KSU76% → 97%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• MSUL 41-42 vs MSU53% → 6%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Baylor's side.

Closest call

BAY 36-35 UCF (2023) - Baylor dropped to a 0.7% win probability before pulling it out.