Oregon 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+0.2081st
  Defense+0.2016th
• 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.
  Offense45.4%67th
  Defense45.2%31st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2979th
  Defense+1.3112th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1374th
  Defense+0.1519th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2668th
  Defense+0.2624th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.5%81st
  Defense47.9%45th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.4%39th
  Defense39.5%6th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0465th
  Defense3.0728th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%57th
  Defense18.3%35th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.4%73rd
  Defense18.8%35th

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 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
   OKST
2. L
   HAW
3. W
   CP
4. L
   STAN
5. W
   UCLA
6. L
   UTAH
7. W
   CAL
8. W
   ARIZ
9. L
   WASH
10. W
    ASU
11. L
    WSU
12. L
    ORE

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

Players, 2019

1. Jake LutonQB354 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 63rd of 228 QBs
   1.23WAR0.67 to 1.81
2. Jermar JeffersonRB148 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 57th of 349 RBs
   0.51WAR0.39 to 0.64
3. Artavis PierceRB158 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 90th of 349 RBs
   0.42WAR0.28 to 0.56
4. Isaiah HodginsWR106 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 6th of 439 WRs
   0.39WAR0.25 to 0.52
5. Tristan GebbiaQB42 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 198th of 228 QBs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20
6. Daniel RodriguezP53 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 11th of 100 punters
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.17
7. Champ FlemingsWR37 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 294th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
8. Tyjon LindseyWR35 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 331st of 439 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59659657th of 130Roster talent: 596, 57th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17417463rd of 130Recruiting: 174, 63rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  77%77%26th of 130Returning production: 77%, 26th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.7−0.764th of 130SP+ rating: −0.7, 64th 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 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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.07 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 HAWQ4 6:05 4th & 6 at ORST 34, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−4.0 pts
2. at HAWQ3 3:34 4th & 9 at HAW 35, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs WASHQ3 0:28 4th & 3 at ORST 29, down 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs CPQ3 12:33 4th & 1 at ORST 40, up 31Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
5. vs OKSTQ4 14:35 4th & 7 at OKST 30, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
6. at CALQ4 15:00 4th & 10 at CAL 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs WASHQ2 0:41 4th & 4 at ORST 45, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs WASHQ2 8:36 4th & 3 at ORST 41, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

40th 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

   OKST
2. L

   HAW
3. W

   CP
4. L

   STAN
5. W

   UCLA
6. L

   UTAH
7. W

   CAL
8. W

   ARIZ
9. L

   WASH
10. W

    ASU
11. L

    WSU
12. L

    ORE

What moved it, 2019

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 →

• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.81

Game by game

• OKSTL 36-52 vs OKST22% → 1%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• HAWL 28-31 at HAW33% → 13%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −2
• CPW 45-7 vs CP89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• STANL 28-31 vs STAN41% → 6%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −46, Clock −2
• UCLAW 48-31 at UCLA40% → 99%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +58, Clock +1
• UTAHL 7-52 vs UTAH15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• CALW 21-17 at CAL26% → 84%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +39, Possession & field position +4
• ARIZW 56-38 at ARIZ38% → 99%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +58, Clock +2
• WASHL 7-19 vs WASH24% → 3%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• ASUW 35-34 vs ASU49% → 83%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +2
• WSUL 53-54 at WSU27% → 6%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −26, Possession & field position −1
• OREL 10-24 at ORE7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −12

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.