Missouri

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.2084th
  Defense+0.0664th
• 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.
  Offense50.0%93rd
  Defense41.2%63rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.075th
  Defense+1.2437th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1163rd
  Defense−0.0995th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3689th
  Defense+0.2034th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.5%90th
  Defense44.8%70th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.1%95th
  Defense34.1%36th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0871st
  Defense2.6381st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.0%94th
  Defense22.0%74th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.5%95th
  Defense15.1%29th

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, 2018

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
   UTM
2. W
   WYO
3. W
   PUR
4. L
   UGA
5. L
   SC
6. L
   ALA
7. W
   MEM
8. L
   UK
9. W
   FLA
10. W
    VAN
11. W
    TENN
12. W
    ARK
13. L
    OKST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Missouri.

Players, 2018

1. Drew LockQB376 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 49th of 225 QBs
   1.54WAR0.86 to 2.22
2. Larry Rountree IIIRB171 plays · +0.228 pts/play · 19th of 351 RBs
   0.73WAR0.59 to 0.88
3. Damarea CrockettRB121 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 103rd of 351 RBs
   0.37WAR0.28 to 0.45
4. Tyler BadieRB66 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 196th of 351 RBs
   0.22WAR0.18 to 0.26
5. Johnathon JohnsonWR65 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 76th of 434 WRs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.26
6. Emanuel HallWR40 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 77th of 434 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
7. Tucker McCannPK22 plays · +0.320 pts/play · 32nd of 112 kickers
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.19
8. Corey FatonyP34 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 53rd of 91 punters
   0.06WAR0.01 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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59559546th of 130Roster talent: 595, 46th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19819837th of 130Recruiting: 198, 37th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  76%76%38th of 129Returning production: 76%, 38th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +20.8+20.812th of 130SP+ rating: +20.8, 12th 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, 2018

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 0.09 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 UKQ4 5:18 4th & 1 at MIZ 34, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. at PURQ3 2:30 4th & 1 at PUR 13, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. vs UKQ3 2:06 4th & 1 at MIZ 29, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs VANQ4 1:48 4th & 2 at VAN 13, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs VANQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at MIZ 26, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at SCQ2 14:53 4th & 2 at SC 4, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs UKQ4 1:41 4th & 2 at MIZ 26, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at SCQ2 0:23 4th & 3 at SC 3, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

68th 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

   UTM
2. W

   WYO
3. W

   PUR
4. L

   UGA
5. L

   SC
6. L

   ALA
7. W

   MEM
8. L

   UK
9. W

   FLA
10. W

    VAN
11. W

    TENN
12. W

    ARK
13. L

    OKST

What moved it, 2018

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+1.44
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.11
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.77

Game by game

• UTMW 51-14 vs UTM98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• WYOW 40-13 vs WYO92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• PURW 40-37 at PUR66% → 96%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• UGAL 29-43 vs UGA14% → 2%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• SCL 35-37 at SC48% → 24%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −13, Possession & field position −1
• ALAL 10-39 at ALA4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −5
• MEMW 65-33 vs MEM78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position +1
• UKL 14-15 vs UK73% → 80%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +19, Possession & field position −4
• FLAW 38-17 at FLA32% → 99%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +62, Clock +2
• VANW 33-28 vs VAN84% → 84%Before kickoff +34 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +17, Possession & field position −2
• TENNW 50-17 at TENN66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +40
• ARKW 38-0 vs ARK94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• OKSTL 33-38 at OKST74% → 14%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts +10

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.