Michigan State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0944th
  Defense−0.0284th
• 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.
  Offense43.1%53rd
  Defense37.9%87th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1533rd
  Defense+1.1469th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0513th
  Defense−0.1298th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2778th
  Defense+0.0769th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.8%26th
  Defense42.4%85th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.1%89th
  Defense29.5%81st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7733rd
  Defense2.4588th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.9%37th
  Defense22.1%72nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.9%70th
  Defense17.5%64th

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, 2017

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
   BGSU
2. W
   WMU
3. L
   ND
4. W
   IOWA
5. W
   MICH
6. W
   MINN
7. W
   IU
8. L
   NU
9. W
   PSU
10. L
    OSU
11. W
    MD
12. W
    RUTG
13. W
    WSU

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

Players, 2017

1. Brian LewerkeQB445 plays · +0.283 pts/play · 7th of 226 QBs
   2.36WAR1.58 to 3.18
2. LJ ScottRB200 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 46th of 352 RBs
   0.42WAR0.22 to 0.59
3. Felton Davis IIIWR79 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 38th of 426 WRs
   0.20WAR0.13 to 0.27
4. Darrell Stewart Jr.WR84 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 67th of 426 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
5. Gerald HolmesRB65 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 219th of 352 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
6. Madre LondonRB61 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 223rd of 352 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
7. Matt CoghlinPK16 plays · +0.376 pts/play · 50th of 110 kickers
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
8. Cody WhiteWR40 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 203rd of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.13

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68168130th of 130Roster talent: 681, 30th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22122123rd of 130Recruiting: 221, 23rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  19%19%125th of 128Returning production: 19%, 125th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.8+13.823rd of 128SP+ rating: +13.8, 23rd of 128 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, 2017

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.20 of the 0.26 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 MICHQ4 9:41 4th & 1 at MICH 49, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.6 pts
2. at NUQ3 1:41 4th & 1 at MSU 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.8 pts
3. at NUQ4 12:16 4th & 2 at MSU 17, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. at MICHQ3 6:29 4th & 2 at MSU 38, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs PSUQ2 0:32 4th & 10 at PSU 36, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
6. at NUQ2 9:31 4th & 1 at NU 28, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. vs IUQ2 2:18 4th & 1 at MSU 18, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
8. vs MDQ2 1:59 4th & 1 at MSU 40, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

2nd of 130 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

   BGSU
2. W

   WMU
3. L

   ND
4. W

   IOWA
5. W

   MICH
6. W

   MINN
7. W

   IU
8. L

   NU
9. W

   PSU
10. L

    OSU
11. W

    MD
12. W

    RUTG
13. W

    WSU

What moved it, 2017

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+2.26
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.24
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.22

Game by game

• BGSUW 35-10 vs BGSU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• WMUW 28-14 vs WMU74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• NDL 18-38 vs ND38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −44, Clock −1
• IOWAW 17-10 vs IOWA62% → 94%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position +3
• MICHW 14-10 at MICH16% → 82%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +38, Clock +4
• MINNW 30-27 at MINN61% → 91%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2
• IUW 17-9 vs IU66% → 97%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• NUL 31-39 at NU52% → 11%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts +19
• PSUW 27-24 vs PSU19% → 97%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +3
• OSUL 3-48 at OSU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• MDW 17-7 vs MD81% → 98%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +24
• RUTGW 40-7 at RUTG81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• WSUW 42-17 vs WSU50% → 100%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +45, Clock +2

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.