Oklahoma State

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+0.2487th
  Defense+0.1243rd
• 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.
  Offense47.9%87th
  Defense44.5%38th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2572nd
  Defense+1.1944th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1469th
  Defense+0.0654th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3689th
  Defense+0.2037th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.8%84th
  Defense50.2%28th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.1%88th
  Defense30.9%76th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0967th
  Defense2.9849th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.1%37th
  Defense22.2%76th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.6%72nd
  Defense17.6%69th

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 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
   SELA
2. L
   CMU
3. W
   PITT
4. L
   BAY
5. W
   TEX
6. W
   ISU
7. W
   KU
8. W
   WVU
9. W
   KSU
10. W
    TTU
11. W
    TCU
12. L
    OU
13. W
    COLO

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

Players, 2016

1. Mason RudolphQB473 plays · +0.259 pts/play · 11th of 218 QBs
   2.30WAR1.43 to 3.17
2. Justice HillRB180 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 62nd of 347 RBs
   0.46WAR0.27 to 0.63
3. James WashingtonWR107 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 12th of 417 WRs
   0.38WAR0.21 to 0.55
4. Chris CarsonRB84 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 134th of 347 RBs
   0.28WAR0.19 to 0.36
5. Zach SinorP49 plays · +0.238 pts/play · 14th of 82 punters
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.30
6. Jalen McCleskeyWR88 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 89th of 417 WRs
   0.18WAR0.07 to 0.30
7. Chris LacyWR39 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 165th of 417 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
8. Jhajuan SealesWR46 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 178th of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.19

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63263239th of 128Roster talent: 632, 39th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19819836th of 128Recruiting: 198, 36th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  66%66%64th of 128Returning production: 66%, 64th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +16.4+16.413th of 128SP+ rating: +16.4, 13th 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 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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.20 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 CMUQ4 0:04 4th & 13 at CMU 41, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.7 pts
2. vs WVUQ3 9:05 4th & 2 at WVU 42, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. vs PITTQ4 5:14 4th & 7 at PITT 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs ISUQ4 0:20 4th & 26 at ISU 36, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
5. at BAYQ3 2:13 4th & 3 at BAY 11, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at KUQ3 0:36 4th & 2 at KU 8, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs TTUQ3 2:04 4th & 3 at TTU 10, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at KSUQ3 13:42 4th & 4 at KSU 49, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

7th 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

   SELA
2. L

   CMU
3. W

   PITT
4. L

   BAY
5. W

   TEX
6. W

   ISU
7. W

   KU
8. W

   WVU
9. W

   KSU
10. W

    TTU
11. W

    TCU
12. L

    OU
13. W

    COLO

What moved it, 2016

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+2.21
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.39

Game by game

• SELAW 61-7 vs SELA100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• CMUL 27-30 vs CMU89% → 5%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• PITTW 45-38 vs PITT65% → 97%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +3
• BAYL 24-35 at BAY24% → 4%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −27, Possession & field position +2
• TEXW 49-31 vs TEX51% → 98%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +42, Possession & field position −1
• ISUW 38-31 vs ISU87% → 93%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +16, Possession & field position +1
• KUW 44-20 at KU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +10
• WVUW 37-20 vs WVU41% → 98%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts −1
• KSUW 43-37 at KSU45% → 85%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +44, Clock +4
• TTUW 45-44 vs TTU76% → 83%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +16, Possession & field position +2
• TCUW 31-6 at TCU41% → 100%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +58, Clock +1
• OUL 20-38 at OU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −20
• COLOW 38-8 at COLO45% → 100%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +56, Clock +2

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.