Baylor

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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.
  Offense0.0013th
  Defense+0.0670th
• 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.
  Offense34.2%6th
  Defense40.0%71st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2861st
  Defense+1.2646th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0418th
  Defense+0.0847th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0222nd
  Defense+0.0583rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.0%6th
  Defense45.3%67th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.5%10th
  Defense29.1%79th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.151st
  Defense2.7864th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense28.3%1st
  Defense21.8%70th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.4%7th
  Defense17.1%56th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   KU
2. L
   WVU
3. L
   TEX
4. L
   TCU
5. L
   ISU
6. L
   TTU
7. W
   KSU
8. L
   OU
9. L
   OKST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Baylor.

Players, 2020

1. Charlie BrewerQB365 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 24th of 212 QBs
   0.93WAR0.32 to 1.55
2. Trestan EbnerRB72 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 168th of 338 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.26
3. R.J. Sneed IIWR56 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 40th of 409 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.24
4. John LovettRB48 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 213th of 338 RBs
   0.15WAR0.12 to 0.18
5. Tyquan ThorntonWR28 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 156th of 409 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
6. Gavin HolmesWR34 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 221st of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
7. Joshua FleeksWR28 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 278th of 409 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
8. John MayersPK14 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 32nd of 97 kickers
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64264241st of 127Roster talent: 642, 41st of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19819839th of 127Recruiting: 198, 39th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  79%79%30th of 127Returning production: 79%, 30th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.3+1.362nd of 127SP+ rating: +1.3, 62nd of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.08 of the 0.14 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 TTUQ4 2:30 4th & 5 at TTU 44, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
2. at ISUQ3 7:31 4th & 1 at BAY 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. vs KSUQ3 11:59 4th & 2 at KSU 11, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at TEXQ2 4:25 4th & 1 at BAY 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at WVUQ4 7:37 4th & 2 at BAY 22, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs KSUQ2 3:01 4th & 14 at KSU 30, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at OUQ4 1:13 4th & 5 at OU 11, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at TEXQ2 10:09 4th & 12 at TEX 30, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

120th of 127 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

   KU
2. L

   WVU
3. L

   TEX
4. L

   TCU
5. L

   ISU
6. L

   TTU
7. W

   KSU
8. L

   OU
9. L

   OKST

What moved it, 2020

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−1.72
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.10
• Timeouts+0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.18

Game by game

• KUW 47-14 vs KU88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +14
• WVUL 21-27 at WVU49% → 16%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts +24
• TEXL 16-27 at TEX19% → 2%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• TCUL 23-33 vs TCU43% → 3%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• ISUL 31-38 at ISU17% → 4%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• TTUL 23-24 at TTU49% → 5%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• KSUW 32-31 vs KSU65% → 94%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• OUL 14-27 at OU7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts −1
• OKSTL 3-42 vs OKST33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −38, Clock −1

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.