Missouri

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1151st
  Defense+0.1434th
• 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.
  Offense44.4%59th
  Defense45.3%31st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2361st
  Defense+1.1949th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0643rd
  Defense+0.1717th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1851st
  Defense+0.1359th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.0%76th
  Defense49.5%35th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.5%25th
  Defense35.6%28th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9750th
  Defense3.2110th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.0%49th
  Defense17.6%31st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.2%95th
  Defense15.3%33rd

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, 2016

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. L
   WVU
2. W
   EMU
3. L
   UGA
4. W
   DSU
5. L
   LSU
6. L
   FLA
7. L
   MTSU
8. L
   UK
9. L
   SC
10. W
    VAN
11. L
    TENN
12. W
    ARK

Bars above the line: better than expected for Missouri.

Players, 2016

1. Damarea CrockettRB120 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 49th of 347 RBs
   0.52WAR0.37 to 0.64
2. Drew LockQB335 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 129th of 218 QBs
   0.50WAR−0.07 to 1.09
3. Ish WitterRB129 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 91st of 347 RBs
   0.36WAR0.24 to 0.49
4. Corey FatonyP55 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 37th of 82 punters
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.21
5. J'Mon MooreWR77 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 220th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.00 to 0.21
6. Dimetrios MasonWR40 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 288th of 417 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12
7. Sean CulkinTE27 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 12th of 195 TEs
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.09
8. Kendall BlantonTE22 plays · +0.035 pts/play · 60th of 195 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.02 to 0.04

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63463438th of 128Roster talent: 634, 38th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20220234th of 128Recruiting: 202, 34th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  66%66%66th of 128Returning production: 66%, 66th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.0−1.070th of 128SP+ rating: −1.0, 70th 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, 2016

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.14 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 MTSUQ3 9:44 4th & 2 at midfield, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. vs MTSUQ4 14:14 4th & 4 at MTSU 4, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs MTSUQ2 3:00 4th & 12 at MIZ 29, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
4. vs ARKQ3 3:54 4th & 7 at MIZ 7, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
5. vs VANQ3 7:58 4th & 4 at VAN 4, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at WVUQ2 3:52 4th & 6 at WVU 37, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs UKQ2 14:53 4th & 3 at UK 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs MTSUQ4 6:08 4th & 6 at MIZ 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

109th 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. L

   WVU
2. W

   EMU
3. L

   UGA
4. W

   DSU
5. L

   LSU
6. L

   FLA
7. L

   MTSU
8. L

   UK
9. L

   SC
10. W

    VAN
11. L

    TENN
12. W

    ARK

What moved it, 2016

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−1.77
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.08
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.53

Game by game

• WVUL 11-26 at WVU22% → 2%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −26
• EMUW 61-21 vs EMU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• UGAL 27-28 vs UGA30% → 7%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• DSUW 79-0 vs DSU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• LSUL 7-42 at LSU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• FLAL 14-40 at FLA20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• MTSUL 45-51 vs MTSU61% → 4%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• UKL 21-35 vs UK61% → 1%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −57, Clock −2
• SCL 21-31 at SC37% → 4%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• VANW 26-17 vs VAN56% → 96%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• TENNL 37-63 at TENN14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• ARKW 28-24 vs ARK34% → 95%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +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.