Oklahoma State

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+0.2898th
  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.
  Offense47.1%89th
  Defense41.0%61st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4399th
  Defense+1.2820th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0864th
  Defense+0.0260th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4898th
  Defense+0.1840th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.8%64th
  Defense45.3%62nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense43.4%98th
  Defense33.5%43rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8039th
  Defense2.1899th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.7%39th
  Defense24.1%85th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.0%67th
  Defense18.0%71st

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

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

Players, 2017

1. Mason RudolphQB384 plays · +0.361 pts/play · 4th of 226 QBs
   2.59WAR1.89 to 3.33
2. Justice HillRB245 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 13th of 352 RBs
   0.70WAR0.51 to 0.90
3. James WashingtonWR81 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 21st of 426 WRs
   0.24WAR0.15 to 0.34
4. Marcell AtemanWR59 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 37th of 426 WRs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.26
5. J.D. KingRB75 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 218th of 352 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.19
6. Matt AmmendolaPK19 plays · +0.345 pts/play · 43rd of 110 kickers
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
7. Dillon StonerWR43 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 194th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
8. Zach SinorP31 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 22nd of 95 punters
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.14

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63463438th of 130Roster talent: 634, 38th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19719737th of 130Recruiting: 197, 37th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  74%74%33rd of 128Returning production: 74%, 33rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.1+19.115th of 128SP+ rating: +19.1, 15th 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 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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.29 of the 0.32 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 TTUQ4 5:30 4th & 2 at TTU 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.1 pts
2. vs OUQ4 1:00 4th & 8 at OU 38, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.1 pts
3. at TEXQ4 4:15 4th & 2 at TEX 12, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.4 pts
4. at TEXQ4 12:31 4th & 2 at TEX 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
5. at TTUQ3 2:55 4th & 1 at TTU 10, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
6. vs OUQ3 13:20 4th & 1 at OKST 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
7. at ISUQ4 2:55 4th & 1 at OKST 41, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
8. at WVUQ3 2:25 4th & 2 at OKST 48, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

80th of 130 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

   TLSA
2. W

   USA
3. W

   PITT
4. L

   TCU
5. W

   TTU
6. W

   BAY
7. W

   TEX
8. W

   WVU
9. L

   OU
10. W

    ISU
11. L

    KSU
12. W

    KU
13. W

    VT

What moved it, 2017

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+0.45
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.18
• Timeouts+0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.27

Game by game

• TLSAW 59-24 vs TLSA92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• USAW 44-7 at USA97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• PITTW 59-21 at PITT81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• TCUL 31-44 vs TCU73% → 2%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3
• TTUW 41-34 at TTU78% → 95%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• BAYW 59-16 vs BAY95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• TEXW 13-10 at TEX69% → 62%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −7: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +19
• WVUW 50-39 at WVU77% → 98%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• OUL 52-62 vs OU52% → 4%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• ISUW 49-42 at ISU68% → 93%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +42, Clock +3
• KSUL 40-45 vs KSU90% → 5%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −86: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• KUW 58-17 vs KU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• VTW 30-21 vs VT71% → 96%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +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.