Oklahoma State

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+0.2183rd
  Defense+0.0950th
• 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.
  Offense44.7%66th
  Defense42.9%49th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3798th
  Defense+1.2140th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0317th
  Defense+0.1319th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4198th
  Defense+0.0865th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.5%50th
  Defense47.9%43rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.6%88th
  Defense31.4%65th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.449th
  Defense3.0820th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.5%25th
  Defense17.7%25th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.1%40th
  Defense1.6%25th

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 Oklahoma State 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
   CMU
2. W
   CARK
3. W
   UTSA
4. W
   TEX
5. W
   KSU
6. W
   WVU
7. W
   KU
8. W
   TTU
9. W
   TCU
10. W
    ISU
11. L
    BAY
12. L
    OU
13. L
    MISS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Oklahoma State.

Players, 2015

1. Mason RudolphQB384 plays · +0.272 pts/play · 28th of 205 QBs
   1.96WAR1.26 to 2.62
2. J.W. WalshQB96 plays · +0.275 pts/play · 134th of 205 QBs
   0.49WAR0.28 to 0.73
3. Marcell AtemanWR58 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 57th of 411 WRs
   0.23WAR0.12 to 0.34
4. David GliddenWR65 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 65th of 411 WRs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.32
5. Chris CarsonRB111 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 119th of 333 RBs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.29
6. James WashingtonWR78 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 89th of 411 WRs
   0.19WAR0.07 to 0.35
7. Ben GroganPK14 plays · +0.442 pts/play · 61st of 115 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
8. Brandon SheperdWR36 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 198th of 411 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15

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 Oklahoma State'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.
  65265233rd of 128Roster talent: 652, 33rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20420435th of 128Recruiting: 204, 35th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  72%72%48th of 127Returning production: 72%, 48th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.9+9.939th of 128SP+ rating: +9.9, 39th 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 Oklahoma State'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 0.06 of the 0.13 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 WVUQ2 3:43 4th & 1 at WVU 4, up 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. at WVUQ4 5:36 4th & 4 at WVU 5, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at TEXQ2 1:24 4th & 18 at TEX 35, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
4. at ISUQ4 1:44 4th & 11 at ISU 38, up 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs BAYQ2 6:44 4th & 2 at OKST 37, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs OUQ3 8:46 4th & 4 at OU 4, down 24Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at MISSQ3 13:23 4th & 1 at OKST 28, down 28Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs OUQ1 0:10 4th & 1 at OKST 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

17th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Oklahoma State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   CMU
2. W

   CARK
3. W

   UTSA
4. W

   TEX
5. W

   KSU
6. W

   WVU
7. W

   KU
8. W

   TTU
9. W

   TCU
10. W

    ISU
11. L

    BAY
12. L

    OU
13. L

    MISS

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Oklahoma State'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+1.61
• Clock−0.11
• Timeouts+0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.30

Game by game

• CMUW 24-13 at CMU91% → 97%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• CARKW 32-8 vs CARK99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• UTSAW 69-14 vs UTSA95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• TEXW 30-27 at TEX63% → 93%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• KSUW 36-34 vs KSU67% → 96%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• WVUW 33-26 at WVU36% → 82%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +19
• KUW 58-10 vs KU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• TTUW 70-53 at TTU51% → 98%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +52, Clock +1
• TCUW 49-29 vs TCU34% → 100%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +54, Clock +1
• ISUW 35-31 at ISU82% → 96%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• BAYL 35-45 vs BAY42% → 4%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• OUL 23-58 vs OU35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −40, Clock −1
• MISSL 20-48 at MISS30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31

Points of win probability, from Oklahoma State's side.

Closest call

OKST 21-20 BOIS (2021) - Oklahoma State dropped to a 2.2% win probability before pulling it out.