Oklahoma State

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+0.2388th
  Defense+0.1917th
• 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.
  Offense47.3%82nd
  Defense42.6%47th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2776th
  Defense+1.3216th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1883rd
  Defense+0.1131st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2878th
  Defense+0.2917th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.4%71st
  Defense45.9%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense40.3%92nd
  Defense35.8%24th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0770th
  Defense2.9049th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.5%47th
  Defense20.1%58th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%42nd
  Defense15.4%34th

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

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

Players, 2018

1. Taylor CorneliusQB500 plays · +0.281 pts/play · 5th of 225 QBs
   2.63WAR1.89 to 3.38
2. Justice HillRB146 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 46th of 351 RBs
   0.55WAR0.44 to 0.68
3. Tylan WallaceWR117 plays · +0.214 pts/play · 1st of 434 WRs
   0.47WAR0.28 to 0.64
4. Chuba HubbardRB132 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 66th of 351 RBs
   0.46WAR0.34 to 0.56
5. Dillon StonerWR57 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 79th of 434 WRs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.24
6. Tyron JohnsonWR80 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 107th of 434 WRs
   0.15WAR0.03 to 0.26
7. Matt AmmendolaPK18 plays · +0.310 pts/play · 52nd of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
8. Landon WolfWR42 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 234th of 434 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64564537th of 130Roster talent: 645, 37th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19519541st of 130Recruiting: 195, 41st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  30%30%116th of 129Returning production: 30%, 116th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.8+13.822nd of 130SP+ rating: +13.8, 22nd 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 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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.18 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 TEXQ4 9:23 4th & 1 at OKST 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. vs MIZQ4 10:36 4th & 8 at OKST 27, up 2Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.0 pts
3. vs MIZQ4 5:54 4th & 3 at MIZ 10, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
4. vs WVUQ3 3:03 4th & 3 at WVU 3, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. at BAYQ2 4:42 4th & 2 at BAY 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at KUQ4 12:04 4th & 3 at OKST 48, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
7. vs BOISQ2 2:12 4th & 3 at BOIS 5, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. vs WVUQ4 14:13 4th & 3 at OKST 47, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

93rd 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

   MOST
2. W

   USA
3. W

   BOIS
4. L

   TTU
5. W

   KU
6. L

   ISU
7. L

   KSU
8. W

   TEX
9. L

   BAY
10. L

    OU
11. W

    WVU
12. L

    TCU
13. W

    MIZ

What moved it, 2018

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−0.89
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.17

Game by game

• MOSTW 58-17 vs MOST100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• USAW 55-13 vs USA97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• BOISW 44-21 vs BOIS45% → 99%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +47, Clock +1
• TTUL 17-41 vs TTU85% → 1%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −84: Scoreboard −66, Clock −2
• KUW 48-28 at KU85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• ISUL 42-48 vs ISU74% → 6%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −56, Clock −4
• KSUL 12-31 at KSU72% → 1%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −54, Timeouts +1
• TEXW 38-35 vs TEX35% → 93%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +3
• BAYL 31-35 at BAY61% → 5%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −41, Clock −1
• OUL 47-48 at OU7% → 13%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard −11, Possession & field position −1
• WVUW 45-41 vs WVU32% → 81%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position −5
• TCUL 24-31 at TCU63% → 8%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• MIZW 38-33 vs MIZ26% → 86%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts −10

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.