Mississippi State

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1977th
  Defense+0.1726th
• 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%76th
  Defense46.2%24th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2153rd
  Defense+1.2819th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2193rd
  Defense+0.0651st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1640th
  Defense+0.3114th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.7%77th
  Defense49.9%30th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.9%70th
  Defense38.1%12th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4697th
  Defense2.9347th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.2%90th
  Defense20.1%56th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.4%39th
  Defense23.2%84th

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, 2019

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
   UL
2. W
   USM
3. L
   KSU
4. W
   UK
5. L
   AUB
6. L
   TENN
7. L
   LSU
8. L
   TA&M
9. W
   ARK
10. L
    ALA
11. W
    ACU
12. W
    MISS
13. L
    LOU

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

Players, 2019

1. Kylin HillRB191 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 15th of 349 RBs
   0.80WAR0.65 to 0.97
2. Garrett ShraderQB169 plays · +0.244 pts/play · 97th of 228 QBs
   0.77WAR0.38 to 1.14
3. Tommy StevensQB167 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 120th of 228 QBs
   0.54WAR0.23 to 0.88
4. Nick GibsonRB33 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 251st of 349 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
5. Osirus MitchellWR36 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 182nd of 439 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
6. Stephen GuidryWR34 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 231st of 439 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
7. Deddrick ThomasWR26 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 311th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
8. Jace ChristmannPK5 plays · +0.493 pts/play · 104th of 114 kickers
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.06

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  73373323rd of 130Roster talent: 733, 23rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22222225th of 130Recruiting: 222, 25th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  55%55%79th of 130Returning production: 55%, 79th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.5+3.550th of 130SP+ rating: +3.5, 50th 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, 2019

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.09 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 MISSQ4 7:30 4th & 1 at MSST 22, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs KSUQ4 8:55 4th & 2 at MSST 16, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs MISSQ2 3:34 4th & 11 at MSST 45, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
4. vs MISSQ3 11:54 4th & 4 at MISS 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs USMQ2 10:39 4th & 2 at midfield, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at ARKQ2 14:04 4th & 3 at ARK 8, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs UKQ3 5:30 4th & 3 at UK 49, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs USMQ4 6:31 4th & 1 at MSST 34, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

104th 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

   UL
2. W

   USM
3. L

   KSU
4. W

   UK
5. L

   AUB
6. L

   TENN
7. L

   LSU
8. L

   TA&M
9. W

   ARK
10. L

    ALA
11. W

    ACU
12. W

    MISS
13. L

    LOU

What moved it, 2019

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−0.92
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.71

Game by game

• ULW 38-28 at UL89% → 39%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −1, Timeouts +1
• USMW 38-15 vs USM85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +19
• KSUL 24-31 vs KSU70% → 9%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −48, Clock −4
• UKW 28-13 vs UK68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• AUBL 23-56 at AUB30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −1
• TENNL 10-20 at TENN58% → 3%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −2
• LSUL 13-36 vs LSU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• TA&ML 30-49 at TA&M20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• ARKW 54-24 at ARK69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• ALAL 7-38 vs ALA9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14
• ACUW 45-7 vs ACU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• MISSW 21-20 vs MISS50% → 95%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +2
• LOUL 28-38 at LOU62% → 3%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −2

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.