Baylor

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.2084th
  Defense+0.1147th
• 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.
  Offense47.7%87th
  Defense42.9%57th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1843rd
  Defense+1.1665th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1987th
  Defense+0.1329th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2369th
  Defense+0.1261st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.9%85th
  Defense47.6%54th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.0%82nd
  Defense32.6%60th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3493rd
  Defense3.0439th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.3%97th
  Defense17.0%25th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.9%66th
  Defense17.0%61st

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, 2016

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Baylor.

Players, 2016

1. Seth RussellQB269 plays · +0.304 pts/play · 44th of 218 QBs
   1.53WAR1.03 to 1.96
2. Zach SmithQB147 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 116th of 218 QBs
   0.60WAR0.34 to 0.82
3. Terence WilliamsRB131 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 45th of 347 RBs
   0.53WAR0.37 to 0.67
4. Shock LinwoodRB108 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 123rd of 347 RBs
   0.31WAR0.19 to 0.44
5. Ishmael ZamoraWR79 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 76th of 417 WRs
   0.19WAR0.08 to 0.31
6. KD CannonWR99 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 87th of 417 WRs
   0.19WAR0.06 to 0.34
7. JaMycal HastyRB66 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 203rd of 347 RBs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.25
8. Drew GalitzP33 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 52nd of 82 punters
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.16

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

What it had and what it did, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  61961940th of 128Roster talent: 619, 40th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20220233rd of 128Recruiting: 202, 33rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  58%58%83rd of 128Returning production: 58%, 83rd 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+11.332nd of 128SP+ rating: +11.3, 32nd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2016

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.17 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 ISUQ4 0:00 4th & 2 at ISU 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.4 pts
2. at TEXQ4 3:10 4th & 18 at TEX 37, up 2Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.4 pts
3. at TTUQ2 2:02 4th & 1 at BAY 27, down 27Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs KSUQ4 8:31 4th & 8 at KSU 25, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
5. vs KSUQ2 11:17 4th & 1 at BAY 13, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at TTUQ4 6:32 4th & 17 at TTU 32, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs OKSTQ2 0:24 4th & 8 at OKST 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at TEXQ2 8:57 4th & 12 at TEX 35, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

108th 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

   NWST
2. W

   SMU
3. W

   RICE
4. W

   OKST
5. W

   ISU
6. W

   KU
7. L

   TEX
8. L

   TCU
9. L

   OU
10. L

    KSU
11. L

    TTU
12. L

    WVU
13. W

    BOIS

What moved it, 2016

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−0.98
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.23

Game by game

• NWSTW 55-7 vs NWST100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• SMUW 40-13 vs SMU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• RICEW 38-10 at RICE97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +7
• OKSTW 35-24 vs OKST76% → 96%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position −2
• ISUW 45-42 at ISU87% → 94%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +24, Clock +2
• KUW 49-7 vs KU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• TEXL 34-35 at TEX53% → 21%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −15, Possession & field position −1
• TCUL 22-62 vs TCU75% → 0%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −68, Clock −1
• OUL 24-45 at OU13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −18
• KSUL 21-42 vs KSU48% → 0%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• TTUL 35-54 at TTU56% → 0%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −50
• WVUL 21-24 at WVU17% → 4%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −2
• BOISW 31-12 vs BOIS25% → 99%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +53, Timeouts +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.