Michigan State

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0215th
  Defense+0.1818th
• 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.
  Offense39.9%28th
  Defense46.0%14th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2863rd
  Defense+1.1775th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.068th
  Defense−0.0182nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1630th
  Defense+0.435th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.9%15th
  Defense50.4%19th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.2%48th
  Defense35.5%11th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.675th
  Defense3.0452nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.9%5th
  Defense18.4%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.3%40th
  Defense14.8%30th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   WMU
2. W
   AKR
3. L
   WASH
4. L
   MINN
5. L
   MD
6. L
   OSU
7. W
   WIS
8. L
   MICH
9. W
   ILL
10. W
    RUTG
11. L
    IU
12. L
    PSU

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

Players, 2022

1. Payton ThorneQB330 plays · +0.285 pts/play · 35th of 234 QBs
   1.76WAR1.24 to 2.41
2. Jalen BergerRB133 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 114th of 384 RBs
   0.26WAR0.16 to 0.36
3. Keon ColemanWR54 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 43rd of 455 WRs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.30
4. Bryce BaringerP39 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 12th of 102 punters
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.20
5. Elijah CollinsRB66 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 223rd of 384 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
6. Tre MosleyWR29 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 206th of 455 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
7. Jayden ReedWR49 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 210th of 455 WRs
   0.10WAR0.01 to 0.20
8. Jarek BroussardRB44 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 258th of 384 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69469434th of 129Roster talent: 694, 34th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20520533rd of 129Recruiting: 205, 33rd of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%34th of 128Returning production: 71%, 34th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.2+1.266th of 129SP+ rating: +1.2, 66th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.13 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 WISQ4 0:00 4th & 3 at WIS 29, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−11.9 pts
2. at MDQ4 4:24 4th & 10 at MD 19, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
3. at WASHQ3 8:00 4th & 7 at MSU 36, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs RUTGQ3 0:26 4th & 4 at MSU 30, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at WASHQ4 14:17 4th & 6 at MSU 24, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at WASHQ4 14:55 4th & 6 at MSU 24, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs RUTGQ3 4:53 4th & 9 at RUTG 31, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at ILLQ1 1:36 4th & 3 at ILL 3, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

72nd of 131 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

   WMU
2. W

   AKR
3. L

   WASH
4. L

   MINN
5. L

   MD
6. L

   OSU
7. W

   WIS
8. L

   MICH
9. W

   ILL
10. W

    RUTG
11. L

    IU
12. L

    PSU

What moved it, 2022

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−0.48
• Clock+0.25
• Timeouts−0.52
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.35

Game by game

• WMUW 35-13 vs WMU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11
• AKRW 52-0 vs AKR99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• WASHL 28-39 at WASH42% → 2%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• MINNL 7-34 vs MINN40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −2
• MDL 13-27 at MD30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −1
• OSUL 20-49 vs OSU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• WISW 34-28 vs WIS32% → 84%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts −26
• MICHL 7-29 at MICH7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −11
• ILLW 23-15 at ILL15% → 94%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +79: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• RUTGW 27-21 vs RUTG75% → 94%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts −3
• IUL 31-39 vs IU81% → 10%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts −18
• PSUL 16-35 at PSU10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −15

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.