Michigan State

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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−0.036th
  Defense−0.0696th
• 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.
  Offense37.7%9th
  Defense36.6%95th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1012th
  Defense+1.1087th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0311th
  Defense−0.2199th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0112th
  Defense+0.0577th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.8%7th
  Defense41.8%91st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.8%18th
  Defense27.2%93rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5111th
  Defense2.0399th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.3%27th
  Defense28.7%99th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%42nd
  Defense20.3%95th

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, 2018

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
   USU
2. L
   ASU
3. W
   IU
4. W
   CMU
5. L
   NU
6. W
   PSU
7. L
   MICH
8. W
   PUR
9. W
   MD
10. L
    OSU
11. L
    NEB
12. W
    RUTG
13. L
    ORE

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

Players, 2018

1. Brian LewerkeQB392 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 31st of 225 QBs
   1.80WAR1.26 to 2.35
2. Rocky LombardiQB182 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 128th of 225 QBs
   0.61WAR0.33 to 0.89
3. Connor HeywardRB134 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 115th of 351 RBs
   0.35WAR0.27 to 0.44
4. LJ ScottRB89 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 178th of 351 RBs
   0.25WAR0.18 to 0.32
5. La'Darius JeffersonRB73 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 223rd of 351 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.23
6. Cody WhiteWR68 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 68th of 434 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.26
7. Matt CoghlinPK21 plays · +0.405 pts/play · 12th of 112 kickers
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.21
8. Felton Davis IIIWR49 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 112th of 434 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.21

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65965934th of 130Roster talent: 659, 34th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21921926th of 130Recruiting: 219, 26th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  95%95%6th of 129Returning production: 95%, 6th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.5+11.530th of 130SP+ rating: +11.5, 30th 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, 2018

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 10 clear-cut ones account for 0.26 of the 0.34 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 OREQ4 1:34 4th & 9 at ORE 32, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−10.9 pts
2. at PSUQ4 5:19 4th & 6 at PSU 22, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.8 pts
3. at NEBQ4 3:52 4th & 4 at NEB 29, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
4. at OREQ2 0:21 4th & 10 at ORE 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
5. at NEBQ4 5:13 4th & 10 at NEB 41, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
6. at PSUQ4 1:46 4th & 10 at MSU 35, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. vs NUQ3 15:00 4th & 3 at NU 42, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
8. at MDQ2 0:14 4th & 11 at MD 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

99th 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

   USU
2. L

   ASU
3. W

   IU
4. W

   CMU
5. L

   NU
6. W

   PSU
7. L

   MICH
8. W

   PUR
9. W

   MD
10. L

    OSU
11. L

    NEB
12. W

    RUTG
13. L

    ORE

What moved it, 2018

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−0.22
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.49

Game by game

• USUW 38-31 vs USU95% → 97%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +1
• ASUL 13-16 at ASU63% → 5%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −3
• IUW 35-21 at IU73% → 98%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• CMUW 31-20 vs CMU97% → 98%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +7
• NUL 19-29 vs NU80% → 5%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −56, Clock −4
• PSUW 21-17 at PSU19% → 84%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +41, Clock +3
• MICHL 7-21 vs MICH32% → 2%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• PURW 23-13 vs PUR46% → 96%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +3
• MDW 24-3 at MD62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• OSUL 6-26 vs OSU39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −43, Clock −1
• NEBL 6-9 at NEB52% → 12%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• RUTGW 14-10 vs RUTG95% → 92%Before kickoff +45 · On the field −3: Scoreboard +12
• OREL 6-7 at ORE44% → 35%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −2, Timeouts −1

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.