Missouri

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.2694th
  Defense+0.1626th
• 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.
  Offense46.9%87th
  Defense42.0%50th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3191st
  Defense+1.3312th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1684th
  Defense+0.0939th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3997th
  Defense+0.2618th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.8%82nd
  Defense46.0%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.
  Offense37.6%84th
  Defense34.4%36th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4797th
  Defense2.5682nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.0%98th
  Defense25.0%95th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.8%97th
  Defense16.4%53rd

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, 2017

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
   MOST
2. L
   SC
3. L
   PUR
4. L
   AUB
5. L
   UK
6. L
   UGA
7. W
   IDHO
8. W
   CONN
9. W
   FLA
10. W
    TENN
11. W
    VAN
12. W
    ARK
13. L
    TEX

Bars above the line: better than expected for Missouri.

Players, 2017

1. Drew LockQB301 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 100th of 226 QBs
   0.79WAR0.19 to 1.40
2. Ish WitterRB147 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 44th of 352 RBs
   0.43WAR0.31 to 0.54
3. Larry Rountree IIIRB79 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 125th of 352 RBs
   0.26WAR0.20 to 0.32
4. Damarea CrockettRB57 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 177th of 352 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.23
5. Emanuel HallWR35 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 133rd of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.16
6. J'Mon MooreWR56 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 201st of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.16
7. Corey FatonyP36 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 34th of 95 punters
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.13
8. Johnathon JohnsonWR42 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 302nd of 426 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.11

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62362342nd of 130Roster talent: 623, 42nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19819835th of 130Recruiting: 198, 35th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  82%82%18th of 128Returning production: 82%, 18th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.1+11.128th of 128SP+ rating: +11.1, 28th of 128 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, 2017

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 0.10 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. at ARKQ4 0:05 4th & 2 at ARK 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.6 pts
2. at UKQ3 0:24 4th & 3 at UK 8, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs TEXQ3 2:44 4th & 3 at TEX 11, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs SCQ3 6:31 4th & 4 at SC 4, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs TEXQ2 14:53 4th & 2 at MIZ 47, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs TEXQ4 10:45 4th & 5 at midfield, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs AUBQ2 0:29 4th & 8 at AUB 42, down 24Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs AUBQ3 12:38 4th & 7 at MIZ 19, down 24Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

90th of 130 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

   MOST
2. L

   SC
3. L

   PUR
4. L

   AUB
5. L

   UK
6. L

   UGA
7. W

   IDHO
8. W

   CONN
9. W

   FLA
10. W

    TENN
11. W

    VAN
12. W

    ARK
13. L

    TEX

What moved it, 2017

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−0.61
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.29

Game by game

• MOSTW 72-43 vs MOST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• SCL 13-31 vs SC61% → 1%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• PURL 3-35 vs PUR70% → 0%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −67
• AUBL 14-51 vs AUB12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18
• UKL 34-40 at UK30% → 13%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position +1
• UGAL 28-53 at UGA3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• IDHOW 68-21 vs IDHO86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• CONNW 52-12 at CONN85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21
• FLAW 45-16 vs FLA53% → 100%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +44
• TENNW 50-17 vs TENN84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19
• VANW 45-17 at VAN72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +34
• ARKW 48-45 at ARK76% → 87%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +31, Clock +3
• TEXL 16-33 vs TEX60% → 1%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3

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.