Baylor

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0624th
  Defense+0.256th
• 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.
  Offense39.6%23rd
  Defense45.6%12th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2962nd
  Defense+1.3714th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0224th
  Defense+0.1620th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1020th
  Defense+0.432nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.4%38th
  Defense48.9%33rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.6%22nd
  Defense38.1%3rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0034th
  Defense3.2326th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.7%44th
  Defense19.7%75th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.8%27th
  Defense16.6%56th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   TXST
2. L
   UTAH
3. W
   LIU
4. L
   TEX
5. W
   UCF
6. L
   TTU
7. W
   CIN
8. L
   ISU
9. L
   HOU
10. L
    KSU
11. L
    TCU
12. L
    WVU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Baylor.

Players, 2023

1. Blake ShapenQB265 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 91st of 250 QBs
   0.98WAR0.46 to 1.51
2. Sawyer RobertsonQB100 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 149th of 250 QBs
   0.35WAR0.14 to 0.60
3. Dominic RichardsonRB117 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 134th of 383 RBs
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.29
4. Drake DabneyTE33 plays · +0.293 pts/play · 18th of 212 TEs
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.26
5. Monaray BaldwinWR40 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 102nd of 457 WRs
   0.17WAR0.06 to 0.30
6. Ketron Jackson Jr.WR36 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 149th of 457 WRs
   0.12WAR0.02 to 0.22
7. Isaiah HankinsPK22 plays · +0.286 pts/play · 19th of 113 kickers
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
8. Richard ReeseRB52 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 209th of 383 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67867846th of 130Roster talent: 678, 46th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19819839th of 130Recruiting: 198, 39th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%39th of 128Returning production: 65%, 39th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −8.3−8.395th of 130SP+ rating: −8.3, 95th 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, 2023

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.07 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 TXSTQ4 6:25 4th & 13 at BAY 28, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
2. at CINQ3 5:00 4th & 4 at CIN 29, up 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. at KSUQ2 13:11 4th & 13 at BAY 21, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs ISUQ3 5:49 4th & 4 at BAY 31, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs TTUQ3 7:02 4th & 6 at TTU 15, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs WVUQ4 12:58 4th & 3 at WVU 22, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at TCUQ4 14:09 4th & 11 at midfield, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs TXSTQ3 2:56 4th & 11 at TXST 36, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

127th of 133 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

   TXST
2. L

   UTAH
3. W

   LIU
4. L

   TEX
5. W

   UCF
6. L

   TTU
7. W

   CIN
8. L

   ISU
9. L

   HOU
10. L

    KSU
11. L

    TCU
12. L

    WVU

What moved it, 2023

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−1.98
• Possession & field position+0.08
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.41

Game by game

• TXSTL 31-42 vs TXST96% → 3%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −93: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• UTAHL 13-20 vs UTAH32% → 17%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −38, Possession & field position +3
• LIUW 30-7 vs LIU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• TEXL 6-38 vs TEX13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −19
• UCFW 36-35 at UCF24% → 79%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +37, Clock +4
• TTUL 14-39 vs TTU44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts +1
• CINW 32-29 at CIN50% → 95%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• ISUL 18-30 vs ISU44% → 2%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• HOUL 24-25 vs HOU63% → 51%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −11, Clock −3
• KSUL 25-59 at KSU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• TCUL 17-42 at TCU23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• WVUL 31-34 vs WVU30% → 26%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −28, Clock −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.