Mississippi 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+0.1456th
  Defense−0.0999th
• 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.
  Offense46.1%75th
  Defense36.9%92nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1733rd
  Defense+1.0790th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2797th
  Defense−0.1197th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.038th
  Defense−0.0896th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.2%77th
  Defense42.4%88th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.0%53rd
  Defense27.4%91st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5197th
  Defense2.5088th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.6%88th
  Defense26.3%97th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.6%78th
  Defense19.9%90th

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 Mississippi 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
   SFA
2. W
   KSU
3. W
   UL
4. L
   UK
5. L
   FLA
6. W
   AUB
7. L
   LSU
8. W
   TA&M
9. W
   LT
10. L
    ALA
11. W
    ARK
12. W
    MISS
13. L
    IOWA

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

Players, 2018

1. Nick FitzgeraldQB366 plays · +0.299 pts/play · 21st of 225 QBs
   2.05WAR1.56 to 2.64
2. Kylin HillRB104 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 98th of 351 RBs
   0.38WAR0.32 to 0.45
3. Aeris WilliamsRB66 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 189th of 351 RBs
   0.23WAR0.19 to 0.28
4. Jace ChristmannPK12 plays · +0.409 pts/play · 68th of 112 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
5. Justin JohnsonTE19 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 79th of 204 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.05
6. Deddrick ThomasWR19 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 378th of 434 WRs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04
7. Farrod GreenTE12 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 117th of 204 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.04
8. Jesse JacksonWR7 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 403rd of 434 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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 Mississippi 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.
  73073023rd of 130Roster talent: 730, 23rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22222224th of 130Recruiting: 222, 24th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  88%88%10th of 129Returning production: 88%, 10th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +23.2+23.28th of 130SP+ rating: +23.2, 8th 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 Mississippi State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.24 of the 0.29 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 IOWAQ4 4:06 4th & 1 at MSST 34, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.9 pts
2. at UKQ3 2:16 4th & 1 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.7 pts
3. at IOWAQ4 12:04 4th & 3 at IOWA 3, down 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
4. vs AUBQ4 7:38 4th & 3 at AUB 42, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
5. vs TA&MQ3 3:29 4th & 1 at MSST 20, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
6. at LSUQ2 5:29 4th & 1 at MSST 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. vs TA&MQ1 0:09 4th & 1 at TA&M 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
8. at LSUQ3 0:55 4th & 2 at MSST 45, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

108th of 130 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Mississippi State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   SFA
2. W

   KSU
3. W

   UL
4. L

   UK
5. L

   FLA
6. W

   AUB
7. L

   LSU
8. W

   TA&M
9. W

   LT
10. L

    ALA
11. W

    ARK
12. W

    MISS
13. L

    IOWA

What moved it, 2018

Every game starts at Mississippi 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−0.44
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.56

Game by game

• SFAW 63-6 vs SFA100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• KSUW 31-10 at KSU75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• ULW 56-10 vs UL98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• UKL 7-28 at UK80% → 0%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −61, Clock +1
• FLAL 6-13 vs FLA69% → 5%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• AUBW 23-9 vs AUB43% → 99%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +2
• LSUL 3-19 at LSU43% → 1%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −1
• TA&MW 28-13 vs TA&M55% → 99%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +2
• LTW 45-3 vs LT94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• ALAL 0-24 at ALA7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −11
• ARKW 52-6 vs ARK94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• MISSW 35-3 at MISS82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• IOWAL 22-27 at IOWA70% → 5%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −3

Points of win probability, from Mississippi State's side.

Closest call

MSST 38-35 ARK (2025) - Mississippi State dropped to a 6.1% win probability before pulling it out.