Fresno State

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1458th
  Defense+0.1052nd
• 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.
  Offense45.7%70th
  Defense45.4%29th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1843rd
  Defense+1.1378th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1271st
  Defense+0.0650th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1843rd
  Defense+0.1651st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.3%73rd
  Defense50.2%26th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.1%59th
  Defense35.2%29th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0771st
  Defense2.9543rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.6%61st
  Defense18.4%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.8%69th
  Defense21.1%63rd

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2019

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
   MINN
3. W
   SAC
4. W
   NMSU
5. L
   AF
6. W
   UNLV
7. L
   CSU
8. W
   HAW
9. L
   USU
10. L
    SDSU
11. L
    NEV
12. L
    SJSU

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

Players, 2019

1. Jorge ReynaQB433 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 39th of 228 QBs
   1.48WAR0.72 to 2.22
2. Ronnie RiversRB219 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 25th of 349 RBs
   0.67WAR0.48 to 0.87
3. Josh HokitRB81 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 215th of 349 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.23
4. Zane PopeWR59 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 174th of 439 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.19
5. Cesar SilvaPK19 plays · +0.289 pts/play · 72nd of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.16
6. Blake CusickP47 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 19th of 100 punters
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
7. Jalen Moreno-CropperWR22 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 247th of 439 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.11
8. Emoryie EdwardsWR34 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 294th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  48348383rd of 130Roster talent: 483, 83rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14314384th of 130Recruiting: 143, 84th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%117th of 130Returning production: 31%, 117th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.0−4.080th of 130SP+ rating: −4.0, 80th 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, 2019

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.19 of the 0.25 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 USUQ4 5:19 4th & 1 at FRES 14, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.7 pts
2. at SJSUQ4 10:48 4th & 1 at SJSU 48, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
3. at SJSUQ2 5:27 4th & 3 at SJSU 43, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. at USCQ3 8:25 4th & 2 at USC 29, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs UNLVQ3 3:58 4th & 3 at UNLV 3, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at NMSUQ4 4:29 4th & 3 at NMSU 38, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at SJSUQ4 5:09 4th & 4 at FRES 47, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs SACQ3 5:06 4th & 3 at midfield, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

129th of 130 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

   MINN
3. W

   SAC
4. W

   NMSU
5. L

   AF
6. W

   UNLV
7. L

   CSU
8. W

   HAW
9. L

   USU
10. L

    SDSU
11. L

    NEV
12. L

    SJSU

What moved it, 2019

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−1.97
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts−0.24
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.29

Game by game

• USCL 23-31 at USC13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −19
• MINNL 35-38 vs MINN34% → 41%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +7: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −20
• SACW 34-20 vs SAC95% → 98%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +11
• NMSUW 30-17 at NMSU90% → 96%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +20, Clock +1
• AFL 24-43 at AF40% → 1%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts +1
• UNLVW 56-27 vs UNLV83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +20
• CSUL 31-41 vs CSU82% → 3%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• HAWW 41-38 at HAW41% → 96%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• USUL 35-37 vs USU63% → 5%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• SDSUL 7-17 at SDSU41% → 3%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• NEVL 28-35 vs NEV79% → 4%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• SJSUL 16-17 at SJSU42% → 18%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −2

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.