Baylor

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0429th
  Defense+0.1821st
• 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.
  Offense37.7%7th
  Defense44.7%33rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3996th
  Defense+1.2147th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.105th
  Defense+0.0935th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1754th
  Defense+0.2914th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.6%2nd
  Defense48.3%37th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.8%42nd
  Defense37.8%13th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.392nd
  Defense2.7761st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.3%2nd
  Defense24.1%88th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.8%9th
  Defense16.3%51st

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. L
   LIB
2. L
   UTSA
3. L
   DUKE
4. L
   OU
5. L
   KSU
6. L
   OKST
7. L
   WVU
8. L
   TEX
9. W
   KU
10. L
    TTU
11. L
    ISU
12. L
    TCU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Baylor.

Players, 2017

1. Charlie BrewerQB211 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 83rd of 226 QBs
   0.93WAR0.53 to 1.30
2. Zach SmithQB162 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 121st of 226 QBs
   0.50WAR0.21 to 0.84
3. Denzel MimsWR87 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 29th of 426 WRs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.32
4. John LovettRB87 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 151st of 352 RBs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.29
5. JaMycal HastyRB83 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 188th of 352 RBs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.23
6. Connor MartinPK19 plays · +0.468 pts/play · 14th of 110 kickers
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
7. Terence WilliamsRB60 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 208th of 352 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
8. Anu SolomonQB59 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 194th of 226 QBs
   0.12WAR0.01 to 0.25

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65765735th of 130Roster talent: 657, 35th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20020033rd of 130Recruiting: 200, 33rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  43%43%97th of 128Returning production: 43%, 97th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.4−1.475th of 128SP+ rating: −1.4, 75th of 128 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, 2017

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 0.08 of the 0.13 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 WVUQ4 6:07 4th & 6 at WVU 6, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. at DUKEQ3 10:15 4th & 1 at BAY 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. at TCUQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at TCU 30, down 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs ISUQ4 12:22 4th & 7 at ISU 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs UTSAQ4 2:40 4th & 1 at UTSA 3, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs WVUQ2 2:34 4th & 4 at BAY 46, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs ISUQ2 0:58 4th & 6 at ISU 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at KSUQ4 7:59 4th & 10 at BAY 28, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

130th of 130 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. L

   LIB
2. L

   UTSA
3. L

   DUKE
4. L

   OU
5. L

   KSU
6. L

   OKST
7. L

   WVU
8. L

   TEX
9. W

   KU
10. L

    TTU
11. L

    ISU
12. L

    TCU

What moved it, 2017

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−2.51
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.13
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.14

Game by game

• LIBL 45-48 vs LIB98% → 15%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −29, Clock −3
• UTSAL 10-17 vs UTSA78% → 5%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• DUKEL 20-34 at DUKE19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −23
• OUL 41-49 vs OU3% → 3%Before kickoff −47 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −11, Clock −1
• KSUL 20-33 at KSU15% → 2%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• OKSTL 16-59 at OKST5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• WVUL 36-38 vs WVU25% → 7%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• TEXL 7-38 vs TEX23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• KUW 38-9 at KU70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +35
• TTUL 24-38 vs TTU27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• ISUL 13-23 vs ISU27% → 4%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −36, Possession & field position −1
• TCUL 22-45 at TCU4% → 1%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8

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.