Michigan State

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0835th
  Defense+0.1244th
• 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.
  Offense42.1%33rd
  Defense43.1%56th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1631st
  Defense+1.1856th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.049th
  Defense+0.0655th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2265th
  Defense+0.2230th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.6%43rd
  Defense45.9%68th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.3%36th
  Defense37.1%13th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7829th
  Defense2.5087th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.0%26th
  Defense22.5%79th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%53rd
  Defense13.2%14th

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, 2016

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 Michigan 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
   FUR
2. W
   ND
3. L
   WIS
4. L
   IU
5. L
   BYU
6. L
   NU
7. L
   MD
8. L
   MICH
9. L
   ILL
10. W
    RUTG
11. L
    OSU
12. L
    PSU

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

Players, 2016

1. Tyler O'ConnorQB242 plays · +0.272 pts/play · 62nd of 218 QBs
   1.23WAR0.79 to 1.61
2. LJ ScottRB156 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 66th of 347 RBs
   0.44WAR0.25 to 0.58
3. Gerald HolmesRB95 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 125th of 347 RBs
   0.30WAR0.23 to 0.38
4. Brian LewerkeQB60 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 158th of 218 QBs
   0.24WAR0.16 to 0.31
5. Damion TerryQB56 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 161st of 218 QBs
   0.20WAR0.09 to 0.30
6. R.J. SheltonWR90 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 76th of 417 WRs
   0.19WAR0.08 to 0.32
7. Jake HartbargerP44 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 49th of 82 punters
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
8. Michael GeigerPK15 plays · +0.441 pts/play · 43rd of 116 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18

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 Michigan 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72072022nd of 128Roster talent: 720, 22nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22622623rd of 128Recruiting: 226, 23rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  23%23%124th of 128Returning production: 23%, 124th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.4+7.450th of 128SP+ rating: +7.4, 50th 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, 2016

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 Michigan 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 0.06 of the 0.13 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 ILLQ4 2:52 4th & 4 at ILL 13, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.3 pts
2. vs WISQ3 3:58 4th & 10 at MSU 21, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.0 pts
3. vs BYUQ2 4:14 4th & 1 at MSU 14, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs BYUQ2 10:12 4th & 2 at MSU 30, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at NDQ2 8:11 4th & 5 at ND 39, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at PSUQ2 0:10 4th & 3 at PSU 3, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs MICHQ4 1:46 4th & 5 at MICH 13, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs WISQ2 12:42 4th & 2 at MSU 43, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

126th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   FUR
2. W

   ND
3. L

   WIS
4. L

   IU
5. L

   BYU
6. L

   NU
7. L

   MD
8. L

   MICH
9. L

   ILL
10. W

    RUTG
11. L

    OSU
12. L

    PSU

What moved it, 2016

Every game starts at Michigan 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−2.78
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.14
• Timeouts+0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.26

Game by game

• FURW 28-13 vs FUR99% → 99%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +3
• NDW 36-28 at ND28% → 98%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +58, Clock +4
• WISL 6-30 vs WIS65% → 0%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −63, Clock −2
• IUL 21-24 at IU70% → 18%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts +25
• BYUL 14-31 vs BYU62% → 1%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• NUL 40-54 vs NU66% → 1%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3
• MDL 17-28 at MD53% → 3%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −3
• MICHL 23-32 vs MICH7% → 3%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• ILLL 27-31 at ILL67% → 5%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −41, Possession & field position +1
• RUTGW 49-0 vs RUTG84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +18
• OSUL 16-17 vs OSU7% → 6%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• PSUL 12-45 at PSU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −19

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

Closest call

MSU 42-41 BAY (2014) - Michigan State dropped to a 2.4% win probability before pulling it out.