Michigan State

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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−0.132nd
  Defense+0.0958th
• 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.
  Offense33.2%3rd
  Defense39.6%76th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3273rd
  Defense+1.3031st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.261st
  Defense−0.0278th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0221st
  Defense+0.2044th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense39.0%4th
  Defense41.3%94th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense22.8%6th
  Defense36.1%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.172nd
  Defense2.4294th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.3%4th
  Defense25.7%89th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.5%6th
  Defense15.5%37th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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. L
   RUTG
2. W
   MICH
3. L
   IOWA
4. L
   IU
5. W
   NU
6. L
   OSU
7. L
   PSU

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

Players, 2020

1. Rocky LombardiQB149 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 88th of 212 QBs
   0.37WAR0.12 to 0.64
2. Connor HeywardRB72 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 174th of 338 RBs
   0.19WAR0.15 to 0.23
3. Jordon SimmonsRB57 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 181st of 338 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.21
4. Elijah CollinsRB31 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 258th of 338 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
5. Payton ThorneQB48 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 171st of 212 QBs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15
6. Jalen NailorWR43 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 191st of 409 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
7. Jayden ReedWR30 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 226th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.10
8. Matt CoghlinPK11 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 63rd of 97 kickers
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.05

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67367333rd of 127Roster talent: 673, 33rd of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20620635th of 127Recruiting: 206, 35th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  15%15%126th of 127Returning production: 15%, 126th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.4−2.480th of 127SP+ rating: −2.4, 80th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 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 NUQ4 3:35 4th & 3 at NU 31, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
2. at MICHQ3 4:23 4th & 2 at MICH 34, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. at MICHQ4 13:21 4th & 2 at MICH 23, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
4. vs NUQ3 6:59 4th & 6 at NU 39, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs RUTGQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at RUTG 31, down 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. vs NUQ3 2:28 4th & 2 at MSU 14, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at IOWAQ1 3:00 4th & 1 at MSU 32, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at MICHQ4 0:23 4th & 2 at MICH 36, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

41st of 127 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. L

   RUTG
2. W

   MICH
3. L

   IOWA
4. L

   IU
5. W

   NU
6. L

   OSU
7. L

   PSU

What moved it, 2020

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−0.76
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.92

Game by game

• RUTGL 27-38 vs RUTG69% → 2%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3
• MICHW 27-24 at MICH7% → 94%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +87: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• IOWAL 7-49 at IOWA31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32
• IUL 0-24 vs IU29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• NUW 29-20 vs NU15% → 90%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position +3
• OSUL 12-52 vs OSU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• PSUL 24-39 at PSU11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −17, 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.