Missouri

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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−0.094th
  Defense−0.0389th
• 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.
  Offense33.3%2nd
  Defense39.1%78th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0912th
  Defense+1.0692nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0414th
  Defense−0.0687th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.127th
  Defense+0.0183rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense36.6%2nd
  Defense43.7%74th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.2%16th
  Defense30.6%72nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5111th
  Defense2.5780th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.8%6th
  Defense26.0%92nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense3.2%8th
  Defense2.4%72nd

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, 2015

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
   SEMO
2. W
   ARST
3. W
   CONN
4. L
   UK
5. W
   SC
6. L
   FLA
7. L
   UGA
8. L
   VAN
9. L
   MSST
10. W
    BYU
11. L
    TENN
12. L
    ARK

Bars above the line: better than expected for Missouri.

Players, 2015

1. Drew LockQB269 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 115th of 205 QBs
   0.67WAR0.19 to 1.10
2. Maty MaukQB116 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 139th of 205 QBs
   0.45WAR0.28 to 0.63
3. Ish WitterRB126 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 88th of 333 RBs
   0.28WAR0.19 to 0.38
4. Russell Hansbrough?124 plays · +0.111 pts/play
   0.26WAR0.15 to 0.36
5. Andrew BaggettPK17 plays · +0.425 pts/play · 39th of 115 kickers
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.18
6. Corey FatonyP72 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 39th of 92 punters
   0.11WAR0.02 to 0.18
7. Nate BrownWR45 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 249th of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13
8. J'Mon MooreWR50 plays · +0.054 pts/play · 320th of 411 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.01 to 0.10

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64364334th of 128Roster talent: 643, 34th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20820830th of 128Recruiting: 208, 30th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  47%47%91st of 127Returning production: 47%, 91st of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.4+3.465th of 128SP+ rating: +3.4, 65th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.25 of the 0.32 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 VANQ4 0:05 4th & 10 at VAN 13, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−11.0 pts
2. at UKQ4 3:00 4th & 6 at UK 6, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at UGAQ3 13:24 4th & 1 at MIZ 26, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs TENNQ3 5:08 4th & 1 at MIZ 20, down 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. vs MSSTQ3 1:14 4th & 1 at MIZ 18, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. at UKQ3 9:33 4th & 2 at UK 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. vs CONNQ4 10:34 4th & 12 at CONN 35, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
8. vs BYUQ4 7:13 4th & 3 at MIZ 29, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

94th 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

   SEMO
2. W

   ARST
3. W

   CONN
4. L

   UK
5. W

   SC
6. L

   FLA
7. L

   UGA
8. L

   VAN
9. L

   MSST
10. W

    BYU
11. L

    TENN
12. L

    ARK

What moved it, 2015

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−0.99
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.20

Game by game

• SEMOW 34-3 vs SEMO77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +25
• ARSTW 27-20 at ARST82% → 96%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +28, Clock +2
• CONNW 9-6 vs CONN95% → 96%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts +1
• UKL 13-21 at UK43% → 3%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −3
• SCW 24-10 vs SC65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• FLAL 3-21 vs FLA42% → 2%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −48, Clock −1
• UGAL 6-9 at UGA14% → 5%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position −1
• VANL 3-10 at VAN53% → 4%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −3
• MSSTL 13-31 vs MSST29% → 1%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• BYUW 20-16 vs BYU44% → 93%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +3
• TENNL 8-19 vs TENN23% → 5%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −34, Clock −1
• ARKL 3-28 at ARK16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −19

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.