Missouri

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1857th
  Defense+0.0489th
• 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.
  Offense42.0%43rd
  Defense39.7%73rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2672nd
  Defense+1.1858th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1775th
  Defense−0.0493rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1942nd
  Defense+0.1471st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.7%31st
  Defense46.2%57th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.9%62nd
  Defense28.0%90th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0058th
  Defense2.3893rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.1%23rd
  Defense23.1%85th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.8%62nd
  Defense2.3%69th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Missouri 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
   SDST
2. W
   TOL
3. W
   UCF
4. L
   IU
5. W
   SC
6. L
   UGA
7. W
   FLA
8. W
   VAN
9. W
   UK
10. W
    TA&M
11. W
    TENN
12. W
    ARK
13. L
    ALA
14. W
    MINN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Missouri.

Players, 2014

1. Maty MaukQB462 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 46th of 199 QBs
   1.75WAR1.11 to 2.47
2. Russell Hansbrough?189 plays · +0.117 pts/play
   0.41WAR0.24 to 0.58
3. Bud SasserWR101 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 15th of 469 WRs
   0.34WAR0.21 to 0.50
4. Marcus Murphy?189 plays · +0.090 pts/play
   0.32WAR0.18 to 0.43
5. Jimmie HuntWR55 plays · +0.249 pts/play · 43rd of 469 WRs
   0.26WAR0.16 to 0.36
6. Andrew BaggettPK20 plays · +0.425 pts/play · 17th of 114 kickers
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
7. Christian BrinserP62 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 30th of 94 punters
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.20
8. Darius WhiteWR42 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 215th of 469 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 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 Missouri'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Missouri'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 0.06 of the 0.15 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 IUQ4 8:39 4th & 3 at IU 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. at TA&MQ4 5:30 4th & 4 at TA&M 31, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at MINNQ2 6:39 4th & 3 at MINN 3, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs UKQ2 1:14 4th & 3 at UK 39, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at MINNQ2 11:56 4th & 4 at MINN 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs UKQ3 3:42 4th & 2 at UK 23, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at FLAQ2 1:09 4th & 3 at FLA 45, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs UKQ4 7:23 4th & 3 at UK 3, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

3rd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   SDST
2. W

   TOL
3. W

   UCF
4. L

   IU
5. W

   SC
6. L

   UGA
7. W

   FLA
8. W

   VAN
9. W

   UK
10. W

    TA&M
11. W

    TENN
12. W

    ARK
13. L

    ALA
14. W

    MINN

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Missouri'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+3.08
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.20

Game by game

• SDSTW 38-18 vs SDST87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +16
• TOLW 49-24 at TOL64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +41, Clock +1
• UCFW 38-10 vs UCF76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +26
• IUL 27-31 vs IU84% → 18%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −39, Clock −3
• SCW 21-20 at SC32% → 84%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +42, Clock +4
• UGAL 0-34 vs UGA40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −44, Clock −1
• FLAW 42-13 at FLA37% → 100%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +61, Clock +2
• VANW 24-14 vs VAN94% → 97%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• UKW 20-10 vs UK64% → 97%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• TA&MW 34-27 at TA&M29% → 94%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +57, Clock +4
• TENNW 29-21 at TENN33% → 97%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• ARKW 21-14 vs ARK42% → 96%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +2
• ALAL 13-42 vs ALA33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −38, Clock −1
• MINNW 33-17 at MINN66% → 98%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2

Points of win probability, from Missouri's side.

Closest call

MIZ 21-20 SC (2014) - Missouri dropped to a 4.5% win probability before pulling it out.