Michigan State

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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−0.054th
  Defense+0.1725th
• 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.
  Offense37.5%13th
  Defense43.8%30th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1514th
  Defense+1.2170th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.141st
  Defense+0.1524th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1632nd
  Defense+0.2729th
• 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%16th
  Defense48.9%33rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.6%17th
  Defense31.6%31st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8519th
  Defense3.2720th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%26th
  Defense14.0%17th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.3%15th
  Defense16.1%48th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   CMU
2. W
   RICH
3. L
   WASH
4. L
   MD
5. L
   IOWA
6. L
   RUTG
7. L
   MICH
8. L
   MINN
9. W
   NEB
10. L
    OSU
11. W
    IU
12. L
    PSU

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

Players, 2023

1. Katin HouserQB159 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 118th of 250 QBs
   0.57WAR0.26 to 0.97
2. Nathan CarterRB136 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 116th of 383 RBs
   0.23WAR0.12 to 0.34
3. Noah KimQB128 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 198th of 250 QBs
   0.16WAR−0.12 to 0.41
4. Montorie Foster Jr.WR38 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 110th of 457 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.23
5. Maliq CarrTE25 plays · +0.266 pts/play · 39th of 212 TEs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.19
6. Jonathan KimPK15 plays · +0.302 pts/play · 56th of 113 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
7. Tre MosleyWR21 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 229th of 457 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
8. Jalen BergerRB28 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 290th of 383 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74774727th of 130Roster talent: 747, 27th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20820832nd of 130Recruiting: 208, 32nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  21%21%118th of 128Returning production: 21%, 118th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.8−6.885th of 130SP+ rating: −6.8, 85th 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, 2023

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 0.05 of the 0.10 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 RUTGQ4 13:09 4th & 21 at MSU 22, up 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.2 pts
2. at IUQ3 8:59 4th & 1 at MSU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at RUTGQ2 0:02 4th & 2 at RUTG 14, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs NEBQ4 4:31 4th & 1 at MSU 34, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at MINNQ3 7:48 4th & 6 at MINN 36, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at MINNQ2 3:14 4th & 9 at MINN 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at MINNQ3 13:04 4th & 3 at MSU 27, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at OSUQ2 5:38 4th & 3 at OSU 36, down 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

65th of 133 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

   CMU
2. W

   RICH
3. L

   WASH
4. L

   MD
5. L

   IOWA
6. L

   RUTG
7. L

   MICH
8. L

   MINN
9. W

   NEB
10. L

    OSU
11. W

    IU
12. L

    PSU

What moved it, 2023

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−0.65
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.39

Game by game

• CMUW 31-7 vs CMU85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• RICHW 45-14 vs RICH96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• WASHL 7-41 vs WASH14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• MDL 9-31 vs MD26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• IOWAL 16-26 at IOWA22% → 3%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −2
• RUTGL 24-27 at RUTG37% → 5%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• MICHL 0-49 vs MICH5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• MINNL 12-27 at MINN33% → 1%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• NEBW 20-17 vs NEB42% → 84%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +3
• OSUL 3-38 at OSU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• IUW 24-21 at IU41% → 94%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• PSUL 0-42 vs PSU7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −11

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.