Fresno State

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.0923rd
  Defense+0.2317th
• 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.
  Offense38.0%11th
  Defense41.4%57th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3085th
  Defense+1.347th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1360th
  Defense+0.0955th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0514th
  Defense+0.442nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.2%13th
  Defense44.5%75th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.4%23rd
  Defense34.6%36th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8241st
  Defense2.9144th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.0%57th
  Defense17.4%21st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.6%75th
  Defense2.3%69th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Fresno State 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
   USC
2. L
   UTAH
3. L
   NEB
4. W
   SUU
5. W
   UNM
6. W
   SDSU
7. L
   UNLV
8. L
   BOIS
9. L
   WYO
10. W
    SJSU
11. W
    NEV
12. W
    HAW
13. L
    BOIS
14. L
    RICE

Bars above the line: better than expected for Fresno State.

Players, 2014

1. Brian BurrellQB397 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 66th of 199 QBs
   1.45WAR0.85 to 2.04
2. Marteze WallerRB210 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 33rd of 350 RBs
   0.43WAR0.23 to 0.63
3. Josh HarperWR99 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 13th of 469 WRs
   0.37WAR0.23 to 0.52
4. Josh QuezadaRB117 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 107th of 350 RBs
   0.22WAR0.15 to 0.29
5. Garrett SwansonPK61 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 36th of 114 kickers
   0.13WAR−0.04 to 0.28
6. Kody KroeningPK13 plays · +0.357 pts/play · 76th of 114 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
7. Zack GreenleeQB27 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 184th of 199 QBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.12
8. Greg WatsonWR37 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 275th of 469 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11

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 Fresno State'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Fresno State'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 0.03 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 UNLVQ2 11:50 4th & 10 at UNLV 26, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
2. at BOISQ2 2:34 4th & 1 at FRES 28, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
3. at BOISQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at FRES 35, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs SJSUQ3 7:41 4th & 9 at SJSU 34, up 14Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at NEVQ3 9:56 4th & 2 at FRES 35, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at NEVQ4 14:51 4th & 17 at NEV 35, up 18Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at BOISQ2 3:21 4th & 1 at FRES 34, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs SUUQ3 15:00 4th & 3 at SUU 46, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

73rd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Fresno State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   USC
2. L

   UTAH
3. L

   NEB
4. W

   SUU
5. W

   UNM
6. W

   SDSU
7. L

   UNLV
8. L

   BOIS
9. L

   WYO
10. W

    SJSU
11. W

    NEV
12. W

    HAW
13. L

    BOIS
14. L

    RICE

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Fresno State'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−0.18
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.27
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.16

Game by game

• USCL 13-52 at USC8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• UTAHL 27-59 at UTAH22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Possession & field position +1
• NEBL 19-55 vs NEB18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• SUUW 56-16 vs SUU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• UNMW 35-24 at UNM54% → 96%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2
• SDSUW 24-13 vs SDSU40% → 97%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +43, Clock +1
• UNLVL 27-30 at UNLV72% → 21%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts +25
• BOISL 27-37 at BOIS12% → 4%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• WYOL 17-45 vs WYO78% → 0%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −69, Clock −2
• SJSUW 38-24 vs SJSU59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• NEVW 40-20 at NEV30% → 99%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +62, Clock +3
• HAWW 28-21 vs HAW79% → 97%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• BOISL 14-28 at BOIS11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• RICEL 6-30 at RICE54% → 0%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts +1

Points of win probability, from Fresno State's side.

Closest call

FRES 39-35 PUR (2023) - Fresno State dropped to a 1.5% win probability before pulling it out.