Baylor

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1251st
  Defense+0.1048th
• 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.
  Offense45.3%72nd
  Defense44.7%23rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2239th
  Defense+1.1775th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1468th
  Defense+0.0652nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2042nd
  Defense+0.1856th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.8%75th
  Defense47.9%42nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.4%64th
  Defense36.9%7th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2269th
  Defense3.0648th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.8%73rd
  Defense16.2%41st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.1%77th
  Defense17.3%65th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   UALB
2. L
   BYU
3. W
   TXST
4. W
   ISU
5. L
   OKST
6. L
   WVU
7. W
   KU
8. W
   TTU
9. W
   OU
10. L
    KSU
11. L
    TCU
12. L
    TEX
13. L
    AF

Bars above the line: better than expected for Baylor.

Players, 2022

1. Blake ShapenQB343 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 66th of 234 QBs
   1.18WAR0.46 to 1.87
2. Richard ReeseRB181 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 25th of 384 RBs
   0.56WAR0.40 to 0.69
3. Qualan JonesRB99 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 126th of 384 RBs
   0.24WAR0.17 to 0.32
4. Craig WilliamsRB83 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 138th of 384 RBs
   0.22WAR0.17 to 0.28
5. Monaray BaldwinWR41 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 116th of 455 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.21
6. Gavin HolmesWR31 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 191st of 455 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Ben SimsTE30 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 32nd of 214 TEs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
8. Hal PresleyWR38 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 255th of 455 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66666641st of 129Roster talent: 666, 41st of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19619641st of 129Recruiting: 196, 41st of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  21%21%120th of 128Returning production: 21%, 120th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.7+11.730th of 129SP+ rating: +11.7, 30th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.12 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 TCUQ3 6:35 4th & 1 at BAY 19, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. at BYUQ4 2:08 4th & 6 at BYU 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. vs TCUQ4 1:34 4th & 2 at BAY 26, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs KSUQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at KSU 19, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at ISUQ4 2:34 4th & 3 at BAY 43, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs TCUQ4 6:48 4th & 3 at BAY 40, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at TEXQ3 0:46 4th & 3 at BAY 32, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs OKSTQ3 2:14 4th & 5 at BAY 30, down 16Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

105th of 131 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

   UALB
2. L

   BYU
3. W

   TXST
4. W

   ISU
5. L

   OKST
6. L

   WVU
7. W

   KU
8. W

   TTU
9. W

   OU
10. L

    KSU
11. L

    TCU
12. L

    TEX
13. L

    AF

What moved it, 2022

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−0.60
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.16
• Timeouts+0.08
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.09

Game by game

• UALBW 69-10 vs UALB99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• BYUL 20-26 at BYU41% → 11%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +17
• TXSTW 42-7 vs TXST97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• ISUW 31-24 at ISU42% → 95%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• OKSTL 25-36 vs OKST50% → 5%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −51, Clock −2
• WVUL 40-43 at WVU58% → 20%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −13, Possession & field position −3
• KUW 35-23 vs KU76% → 99%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +28
• TTUW 45-17 at TTU41% → 100%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +59, Clock +1
• OUW 38-35 at OU40% → 88%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts −3
• KSUL 3-31 vs KSU55% → 0%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −55, Clock −2
• TCUL 28-29 vs TCU39% → 8%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• TEXL 27-38 at TEX19% → 3%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• AFL 15-30 at AF56% → 1%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −45, 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.