Stanford

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1963rd
  Defense+0.0293rd
• 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.
  Offense45.5%69th
  Defense36.6%92nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1220th
  Defense+1.1862nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0946th
  Defense+0.0177th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3277th
  Defense+0.0395th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.5%76th
  Defense43.2%87th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.5%58th
  Defense25.2%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9756th
  Defense2.7070th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.4%87th
  Defense20.2%58th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.1%45th
  Defense3.2%97th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Stanford 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
   UCD
2. L
   USC
3. W
   ARMY
4. W
   WASH
5. L
   ND
6. W
   WSU
7. L
   ASU
8. W
   ORST
9. L
   ORE
10. L
    UTAH
11. W
    CAL
12. W
    UCLA
13. W
    MD

Bars above the line: better than expected for Stanford.

Players, 2014

1. Kevin HoganQB350 plays · +0.358 pts/play · 17th of 199 QBs
   2.35WAR1.78 to 2.93
2. Remound WrightRB115 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 77th of 350 RBs
   0.28WAR0.18 to 0.38
3. Devon CajusteWR42 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 153rd of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
4. Christian McCaffreyRB43 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 183rd of 350 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.17
5. Kelsey YoungRB46 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 214th of 350 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
6. Jordan WilliamsonPK14 plays · +0.374 pts/play · 68th of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
7. Michael RectorWR35 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 247th of 469 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
8. Barry SandersRB39 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 239th of 350 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 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 Stanford'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Stanford's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.24 of the 0.29 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 UTAHQ4 1:38 4th & 7 at UTAH 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−7.2 pts
2. vs UCDQ4 2:55 4th & 20 at UCD 35, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−5.6 pts
3. vs USCQ4 7:00 4th & 13 at USC 32, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.9 pts
4. vs USCQ2 14:46 4th & 22 at USC 29, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−3.0 pts
5. vs ORSTQ2 0:02 4th & 1 at ORST 9, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at NDQ2 2:23 4th & 2 at STAN 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at ASUQ3 9:31 4th & 2 at ASU 22, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs WSUQ4 4:37 4th & 3 at WSU 40, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

106th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   UCD
2. L

   USC
3. W

   ARMY
4. W

   WASH
5. L

   ND
6. W

   WSU
7. L

   ASU
8. W

   ORST
9. L

   ORE
10. L

    UTAH
11. W

    CAL
12. W

    UCLA
13. W

    MD

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Stanford'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−0.02
• Clock+0.18
• Timeouts−0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.96

Game by game

• UCDW 45-0 vs UCD100% → 93%Before kickoff +50 · On the field −7: Scoreboard +5
• USCL 10-13 vs USC61% → 6%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• ARMYW 35-0 vs ARMY97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• WASHW 20-13 at WASH73% → 96%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• NDL 14-17 at ND61% → 15%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −2
• WSUW 34-17 vs WSU89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1
• ASUL 10-26 at ASU65% → 1%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts −1
• ORSTW 38-14 vs ORST85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +19
• OREL 16-45 at ORE23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −25
• UTAHL 17-20 vs UTAH76% → 12%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −19
• CALW 38-17 at CAL71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• UCLAW 31-10 at UCLA38% → 100%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• MDW 45-21 vs MD83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21

Points of win probability, from Stanford's side.

Closest call

STAN 46-43 COLO (2023) - Stanford dropped to a 0.9% win probability before pulling it out.