Oregon 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+0.1350th
  Defense+0.371st
• 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.
  Offense42.3%38th
  Defense54.2%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2881st
  Defense+1.2626th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0539th
  Defense+0.341st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2160th
  Defense+0.423rd
• 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%59th
  Defense58.1%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.6%25th
  Defense41.8%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6520th
  Defense3.641st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.0%13th
  Defense13.5%2nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.9%22nd
  Defense10.6%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, 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 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
   OSU
2. W
   SUU
3. L
   NEV
4. L
   ARIZ
5. L
   ASU
6. L
   WSU
7. L
   CAL
8. W
   COLO
9. L
   USC
10. L
    STAN
11. L
    WASH
12. L
    ORE

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

Players, 2018

1. Jake LutonQB147 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 127th of 225 QBs
   0.61WAR0.38 to 0.84
2. Jermar JeffersonRB161 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 45th of 351 RBs
   0.56WAR0.45 to 0.66
3. Conor BlountQB124 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 165th of 225 QBs
   0.31WAR0.08 to 0.54
4. Isaiah HodginsWR55 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 53rd of 434 WRs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.25
5. Timmy HernandezWR61 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 118th of 434 WRs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.21
6. Trevon BradfordWR49 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 224th of 434 WRs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.16
7. Artavis PierceRB37 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 274th of 351 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.10
8. Jordan ChoukairPK10 plays · +0.368 pts/play · 89th of 112 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  53553568th of 130Roster talent: 535, 68th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17317360th of 130Recruiting: 173, 60th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  49%49%92nd of 129Returning production: 49%, 92nd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.0−16.0111th of 130SP+ rating: −16.0, 111th 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 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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.04 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 NEVQ4 8:11 4th & 6 at NEV 31, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
2. vs USCQ4 15:00 4th & 5 at USC 19, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at ASUQ2 9:17 4th & 2 at ASU 18, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. vs ARIZQ2 1:07 4th & 7 at ARIZ 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at WASHQ4 6:33 4th & 5 at WASH 19, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at COLOQ2 13:12 4th & 2 at COLO 12, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs USCQ4 4:42 4th & 7 at ORST 28, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at NEVQ2 10:18 4th & 8 at NEV 36, down 23Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

76th 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

   OSU
2. W

   SUU
3. L

   NEV
4. L

   ARIZ
5. L

   ASU
6. L

   WSU
7. L

   CAL
8. W

   COLO
9. L

   USC
10. L

    STAN
11. L

    WASH
12. L

    ORE

What moved it, 2018

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−1.43
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.14
• Timeouts+0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.85

Game by game

• OSUL 31-77 at OSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• SUUW 48-25 vs SUU81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +22
• NEVL 35-37 at NEV35% → 37%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +3: Scoreboard −5, Possession & field position +5
• ARIZL 14-35 vs ARIZ34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• ASUL 24-52 at ASU7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −9
• WSUL 37-56 vs WSU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• CALL 7-49 vs CAL28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −34
• COLOW 41-34 at COLO6% → 41%Before kickoff −44 · On the field +35: Timeouts +15, Clock −9
• USCL 21-38 vs USC15% → 2%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −25
• STANL 17-48 at STAN6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• WASHL 23-42 at WASH2% → 2%Before kickoff −48 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −6
• OREL 15-55 vs ORE10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15

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.