Baylor

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.2184th
  Defense+0.2212th
• 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.
  Offense47.3%83rd
  Defense43.6%39th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2149th
  Defense+1.369th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2188th
  Defense+0.274th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2157th
  Defense+0.1940th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.4%85th
  Defense48.1%44th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.3%81st
  Defense35.0%30th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0264th
  Defense3.1118th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.1%39th
  Defense16.0%13th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%42nd
  Defense13.0%7th

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, 2018

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Baylor.

Players, 2018

1. Charlie BrewerQB421 plays · +0.285 pts/play · 11th of 225 QBs
   2.25WAR1.65 to 2.89
2. John LovettRB97 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 136th of 351 RBs
   0.31WAR0.22 to 0.41
3. Jalan McClendonQB67 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 175th of 225 QBs
   0.24WAR0.13 to 0.35
4. Trestan EbnerRB82 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 186th of 351 RBs
   0.24WAR0.18 to 0.29
5. JaMycal HastyRB75 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 207th of 351 RBs
   0.21WAR0.16 to 0.26
6. Denzel MimsWR64 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 39th of 434 WRs
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.32
7. Jalen HurdRB79 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 251st of 351 RBs
   0.14WAR0.01 to 0.27
8. Connor MartinPK20 plays · +0.330 pts/play · 36th of 112 kickers
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66866833rd of 130Roster talent: 668, 33rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19919936th of 130Recruiting: 199, 36th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  83%83%19th of 129Returning production: 83%, 19th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.0+2.066th of 130SP+ rating: +2.0, 66th 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, 2018

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 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 TTUQ2 0:01 4th & 19 at midfield, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.7 pts
2. at VANQ3 5:55 4th & 13 at VAN 30, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.7 pts
3. at ISUQ4 9:29 4th & 10 at ISU 12, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
4. at ISUQ4 2:18 4th & 10 at ISU 15, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs TCUQ2 6:05 4th & 2 at BAY 45, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at UTSAQ4 9:29 4th & 4 at UTSA 21, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs TCUQ1 0:44 4th & 11 at TCU 32, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs TCUQ4 0:31 4th & 20 at BAY 38, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

37th 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. W

   ACU
2. W

   UTSA
3. L

   DUKE
4. W

   KU
5. L

   OU
6. W

   KSU
7. L

   TEX
8. L

   WVU
9. W

   OKST
10. L

    ISU
11. L

    TCU
12. W

    TTU
13. W

    VAN

What moved it, 2018

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+0.40
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.29

Game by game

• ACUW 55-27 vs ACU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UTSAW 37-20 at UTSA91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +16, Clock +2
• DUKEL 27-40 vs DUKE61% → 2%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• KUW 26-7 vs KU70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• OUL 33-66 at OU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• KSUW 37-34 vs KSU66% → 78%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• TEXL 17-23 at TEX16% → 21%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +5: Scoreboard −14, Possession & field position +3
• WVUL 14-58 at WVU18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −22
• OKSTW 35-31 vs OKST39% → 95%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +41, Clock +1
• ISUL 14-28 at ISU15% → 1%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• TCUL 9-16 vs TCU54% → 4%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• TTUW 35-24 at TTU42% → 97%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• VANW 45-38 at VAN42% → 98%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3

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.