Fresno State

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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−0.049th
  Defense+0.1913th
• 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.
  Offense35.8%6th
  Defense46.6%20th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2780th
  Defense+1.2044th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0542nd
  Defense+0.215th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.118th
  Defense+0.1746th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense39.6%3rd
  Defense49.1%32nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.6%24th
  Defense40.4%6th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.405th
  Defense3.306th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense27.3%1st
  Defense15.3%11th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense3.6%2nd
  Defense1.9%47th

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, 2015

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. W
   ACU
2. L
   MISS
3. L
   UTAH
4. L
   SJSU
5. L
   SDSU
6. L
   USU
7. W
   UNLV
8. L
   AF
9. L
   NEV
10. W
    HAW
11. L
    BYU
12. L
    CSU

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

Players, 2015

1. Kilton AndersonQB169 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 116th of 205 QBs
   0.67WAR0.42 to 0.94
2. Marteze WallerRB176 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 45th of 333 RBs
   0.38WAR0.21 to 0.55
3. Zack GreenleeQB96 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 159th of 205 QBs
   0.31WAR0.18 to 0.48
4. Garrett SwansonPK51 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 67th of 115 kickers
   0.11WAR−0.03 to 0.24
5. Jamire JordanWR67 plays · +0.062 pts/play · 262nd of 411 WRs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14
6. KeeSean JohnsonWR34 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 335th of 411 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.08
7. Kody KroeningPK6 plays · +0.357 pts/play · 110th of 115 kickers
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
8. Delvon HardawayWR14 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 366th of 411 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  40340388th of 128Roster talent: 403, 88th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14014077th of 128Recruiting: 140, 77th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  38%38%108th of 127Returning production: 38%, 108th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.6−12.6107th of 128SP+ rating: −12.6, 107th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.17 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 NEVQ4 4:37 4th & 22 at NEV 22, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.5 pts
2. vs NEVQ2 10:30 4th & 1 at NEV 8, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. vs NEVQ4 13:36 4th & 1 at FRES 21, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at HAWQ2 4:36 4th & 2 at FRES 44, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs UTAHQ2 12:28 4th & 1 at FRES 41, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at SJSUQ2 15:00 4th & 4 at SJSU 42, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at SDSUQ2 5:19 4th & 3 at FRES 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs UNLVQ4 5:54 4th & 5 at FRES 37, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

76th 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. W

   ACU
2. L

   MISS
3. L

   UTAH
4. L

   SJSU
5. L

   SDSU
6. L

   USU
7. W

   UNLV
8. L

   AF
9. L

   NEV
10. W

    HAW
11. L

    BYU
12. L

    CSU

What moved it, 2015

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−0.98
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.75

Game by game

• ACUW 34-13 vs ACU68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +33, Clock +1
• MISSL 21-73 at MISS6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• UTAHL 24-45 vs UTAH13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• SJSUL 23-49 at SJSU33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −33
• SDSUL 7-21 at SDSU24% → 2%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• USUL 14-56 vs USU26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −32
• UNLVW 31-28 vs UNLV36% → 92%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +3
• AFL 14-42 at AF13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −17
• NEVL 16-30 vs NEV42% → 2%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −46, Clock −2
• HAWW 42-14 at HAW38% → 100%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +59, Clock +2
• BYUL 10-52 at BYU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• CSUL 31-34 vs CSU30% → 8%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −36, Clock −3

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.