Missouri

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0942nd
  Defense+0.0860th
• 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.
  Offense40.5%36th
  Defense37.5%86th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2868th
  Defense+1.3320th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0434th
  Defense+0.0174th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2352nd
  Defense+0.1953rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.7%25th
  Defense42.5%89th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.5%65th
  Defense27.7%72nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8615th
  Defense2.7588th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.6%28th
  Defense23.4%92nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.2%33rd
  Defense21.5%96th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   LT
2. L
   KSU
3. W
   ACU
4. L
   AUB
5. L
   UGA
6. L
   FLA
7. W
   VAN
8. W
   SC
9. L
   UK
10. L
    TENN
11. W
    NMSU
12. W
    ARK
13. L
    WAKE

Bars above the line: better than expected for Missouri.

Players, 2022

1. Brady CookQB407 plays · +0.224 pts/play · 36th of 234 QBs
   1.71WAR0.97 to 2.61
2. Cody SchraderRB146 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 75th of 384 RBs
   0.35WAR0.25 to 0.45
3. Dominic LovettWR51 plays · +0.251 pts/play · 37th of 455 WRs
   0.24WAR0.16 to 0.32
4. Harrison MevisPK22 plays · +0.457 pts/play · 1st of 110 kickers
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.25
5. Nathaniel PeatRB91 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 170th of 384 RBs
   0.18WAR0.09 to 0.26
6. Barrett BanisterWR32 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 191st of 455 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Luther Burden IIIWR57 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 212th of 455 WRs
   0.10WAR0.03 to 0.17
8. Tauskie DoveWR20 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 269th of 455 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71571531st of 129Roster talent: 715, 31st of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20820830th of 129Recruiting: 208, 30th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  34%34%100th of 128Returning production: 34%, 100th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.1+8.144th of 129SP+ rating: +8.1, 44th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.16 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 WAKEQ4 5:55 4th & 4 at MIZ 37, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. at SCQ2 4:59 4th & 2 at SC 2, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. at AUBQ4 7:50 4th & 3 at MIZ 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at SCQ3 8:15 4th & 3 at SC 3, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs ARKQ4 0:14 4th & 2 at midfield, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs UKQ3 9:48 4th & 4 at MIZ 31, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
7. at KSUQ4 1:22 4th & 4 at MIZ 31, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at TENNQ2 2:35 4th & 1 at MIZ 41, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

74th of 131 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

   LT
2. L

   KSU
3. W

   ACU
4. L

   AUB
5. L

   UGA
6. L

   FLA
7. W

   VAN
8. W

   SC
9. L

   UK
10. L

    TENN
11. W

    NMSU
12. W

    ARK
13. L

    WAKE

What moved it, 2022

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−0.31
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock−0.23
• Timeouts+0.23
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.57

Game by game

• LTW 52-24 vs LT92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• KSUL 12-40 at KSU31% → 36%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +5: Scoreboard −5, Possession & field position +4
• ACUW 34-17 vs ACU97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +8
• AUBL 14-17 at AUB29% → 29%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −1: Timeouts +21, Clock −17
• UGAL 22-26 vs UGA3% → 4%Before kickoff −47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard −11, Clock −1
• FLAL 17-24 at FLA24% → 4%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• VANW 17-14 vs VAN81% → 95%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• SCW 23-10 at SC39% → 98%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +56, Clock +2
• UKL 17-21 vs UK49% → 12%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −41, Clock −4
• TENNL 24-66 at TENN9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• NMSUW 45-14 vs NMSU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• ARKW 29-27 vs ARK38% → 86%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +2
• WAKEL 17-27 vs WAKE43% → 2%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −45, 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.