Oklahoma State

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1560th
  Defense+0.0958th
• 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.
  Offense44.8%60th
  Defense43.1%48th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2359th
  Defense+1.1959th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1375th
  Defense+0.0457th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2050th
  Defense+0.1555th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.0%68th
  Defense47.5%50th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.5%43rd
  Defense33.6%47th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0670th
  Defense2.9248th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%59th
  Defense21.9%72nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.8%36th
  Defense21.4%67th

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, 2019

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
   ORST
2. W
   MCN
3. W
   TLSA
4. L
   TEX
5. W
   KSU
6. L
   TTU
7. L
   BAY
8. W
   ISU
9. W
   TCU
10. W
    KU
11. W
    WVU
12. L
    OU
13. L
    TA&M

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

Players, 2019

1. Chuba HubbardRB311 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 1st of 349 RBs
   1.37WAR1.06 to 1.68
2. Spencer SandersQB310 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 64th of 228 QBs
   1.23WAR0.63 to 1.88
3. Dru BrownQB101 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 158th of 228 QBs
   0.33WAR0.17 to 0.48
4. Tylan WallaceWR65 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 39th of 439 WRs
   0.24WAR0.15 to 0.33
5. Matt AmmendolaPK21 plays · +0.410 pts/play · 26th of 114 kickers
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.23
6. Dillon StonerWR58 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 143rd of 439 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.20
7. Landon WolfWR28 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 355th of 439 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
8. Jordan McCrayWR20 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 360th of 439 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64464439th of 130Roster talent: 644, 39th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19819838th of 130Recruiting: 198, 38th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  44%44%96th of 130Returning production: 44%, 96th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.7+8.736th of 130SP+ rating: +8.7, 36th 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, 2019

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 0.19 of the 0.27 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 WVUQ4 6:18 4th & 1 at WVU 5, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.0 pts
2. at WVUQ3 9:27 4th & 1 at OKST 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. at TA&MQ3 0:36 4th & 1 at OKST 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
4. vs TCUQ3 11:12 4th & 1 at OKST 27, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
5. at TEXQ3 8:02 4th & 2 at TEX 9, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. vs KSUQ3 11:31 4th & 1 at OKST 45, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. at ISUQ3 13:11 4th & 1 at OKST 32, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. vs BAYQ3 11:20 4th & 7 at OKST 43, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

49th 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

   ORST
2. W

   MCN
3. W

   TLSA
4. L

   TEX
5. W

   KSU
6. L

   TTU
7. L

   BAY
8. W

   ISU
9. W

   TCU
10. W

    KU
11. W

    WVU
12. L

    OU
13. L

    TA&M

What moved it, 2019

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+0.63
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.23

Game by game

• ORSTW 52-36 at ORST78% → 99%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• MCNW 56-14 vs MCN99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• TLSAW 40-21 at TLSA82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• TEXL 30-36 at TEX25% → 3%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• KSUW 26-13 vs KSU60% → 98%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +34, Possession & field position +1
• TTUL 35-45 at TTU72% → 3%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −2
• BAYL 27-45 vs BAY62% → 1%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −59, Clock −2
• ISUW 34-27 at ISU22% → 95%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• TCUW 34-27 vs TCU49% → 97%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +3
• KUW 31-13 vs KU87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• WVUW 20-13 at WVU68% → 94%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +40, Clock +3
• OUL 16-34 vs OU15% → 1%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• TA&ML 21-24 at TA&M30% → 5%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, 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.