Oregon 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+0.0325th
  Defense+0.302nd
• 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.
  Offense44.1%62nd
  Defense50.8%2nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0712th
  Defense+1.2532nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0319th
  Defense+0.216th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1243rd
  Defense+0.442nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.9%66th
  Defense52.8%9th
• 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%47th
  Defense45.7%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6928th
  Defense3.278th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.5%55th
  Defense14.5%3rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.4%43rd
  Defense11.5%2nd

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 Oregon 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. L
   CSU
2. W
   PRST
3. L
   MINN
4. L
   WSU
5. L
   WASH
6. L
   USC
7. L
   COLO
8. L
   STAN
9. L
   CAL
10. L
    ARIZ
11. L
    ASU
12. L
    ORE

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

Players, 2017

1. Ryan NallRB142 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 42nd of 352 RBs
   0.44WAR0.30 to 0.57
2. Darell GarretsonQB142 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 149th of 226 QBs
   0.32WAR0.06 to 0.56
3. Jake LutonQB101 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 154th of 226 QBs
   0.31WAR0.13 to 0.47
4. Artavis PierceRB45 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 246th of 352 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
5. Nick PorebskiP30 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 30th of 95 punters
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.14
6. Jordan VillaminWR34 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 311th of 426 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
7. Timmy HernandezWR24 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 346th of 426 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
8. Seth CollinsDB10 plays · +0.097 pts/play
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

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 Oregon 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.
  55755758th of 130Roster talent: 557, 58th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17117158th of 130Recruiting: 171, 58th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  57%57%75th of 128Returning production: 57%, 75th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.6−12.6109th of 128SP+ rating: −12.6, 109th 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 Oregon State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.12 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 PRSTQ4 6:48 4th & 5 at PRST 33, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. vs COLOQ2 5:26 4th & 2 at COLO 2, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs PRSTQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at PRST 48, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs STANQ2 1:37 4th & 1 at ORST 30, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at CSUQ2 4:25 4th & 4 at CSU 34, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at USCQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at ORST 48, down 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs PRSTQ2 0:12 4th & 3 at PRST 42, up 8Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at WSUQ2 0:58 4th & 12 at ORST 40, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

128th of 130 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   CSU
2. W

   PRST
3. L

   MINN
4. L

   WSU
5. L

   WASH
6. L

   USC
7. L

   COLO
8. L

   STAN
9. L

   CAL
10. L

    ARIZ
11. L

    ASU
12. L

    ORE

What moved it, 2017

Every game starts at Oregon 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−2.59
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.52

Game by game

• CSUL 27-58 at CSU39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −38
• PRSTW 35-32 vs PRST96% → 69%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −27: Scoreboard +6, Possession & field position −2
• MINNL 14-48 vs MINN58% → 0%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• WSUL 23-52 at WSU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• WASHL 7-42 vs WASH4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• USCL 10-38 at USC2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• COLOL 33-36 vs COLO24% → 6%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• STANL 14-15 vs STAN11% → 23%Before kickoff −39 · On the field +12: Scoreboard −22, Clock −3
• CALL 23-37 at CAL35% → 2%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• ARIZL 28-49 at ARIZ9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −13
• ASUL 24-40 vs ASU28% → 2%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −36, Clock −2
• OREL 10-69 at ORE6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −7

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

Closest call

ORST 41-34 COLO (2018) - Oregon State dropped to a 0.7% win probability before pulling it out.