Stanford

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.0819th
  Defense+0.2712th
• 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.
  Offense38.8%16th
  Defense49.0%5th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3373rd
  Defense+1.1884th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0012th
  Defense+0.333rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1836th
  Defense+0.2053rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.0%18th
  Defense55.2%5th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.3%9th
  Defense32.0%38th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.665th
  Defense3.573rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.0%17th
  Defense13.7%21st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.2%7th
  Defense12.5%6th

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, 2021

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. L
   KSU
2. W
   USC
3. W
   VAN
4. L
   UCLA
5. W
   ORE
6. L
   ASU
7. L
   WSU
8. L
   WASH
9. L
   UTAH
10. L
    ORST
11. L
    CAL
12. L
    ND

Bars above the line: better than expected for Stanford.

Players, 2021

1. Tanner McKeeQB306 plays · +0.247 pts/play · 63rd of 219 QBs
   1.41WAR0.73 to 2.06
2. Austin JonesRB119 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 154th of 387 RBs
   0.30WAR0.20 to 0.40
3. Nathaniel PeatRB75 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 185th of 387 RBs
   0.25WAR0.19 to 0.32
4. Ryan SanbornP53 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 24th of 101 punters
   0.16WAR0.06 to 0.28
5. Elijah HigginsWR51 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 143rd of 474 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
6. Joshua KartyPK14 plays · +0.312 pts/play · 50th of 128 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
7. Brycen TremayneWR20 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 291st of 474 WRs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.10
8. John HumphreysWR23 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 327th of 474 WRs
   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

What it had and what it did, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74574524th of 130Roster talent: 745, 24th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21721726th of 130Recruiting: 217, 26th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  40%40%115th of 128Returning production: 40%, 115th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.2−10.2105th of 130SP+ rating: −10.2, 105th 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, 2021

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.08 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 UCLAQ4 9:10 4th & 2 at UCLA 30, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.8 pts
2. vs UCLAQ2 14:13 4th & 1 at STAN 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
3. at ORSTQ2 3:45 4th & 5 at ORST 37, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs WASHQ3 11:05 4th & 3 at STAN 38, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs WASHQ2 3:00 4th & 5 at STAN 45, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at KSUQ2 10:21 4th & 3 at STAN 17, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs CALQ3 2:19 4th & 9 at CAL 41, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at ASUQ2 2:48 4th & 10 at ASU 40, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

86th of 130 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. L

   KSU
2. W

   USC
3. W

   VAN
4. L

   UCLA
5. W

   ORE
6. L

   ASU
7. L

   WSU
8. L

   WASH
9. L

   UTAH
10. L

    ORST
11. L

    CAL
12. L

    ND

What moved it, 2021

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−1.59
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.14
• Timeouts−0.21
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.93

Game by game

• KSUL 7-24 at KSU37% → 1%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −1
• USCW 42-28 at USC9% → 99%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +89: Scoreboard +62, Clock +3
• VANW 41-23 at VAN74% → 98%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• UCLAL 24-35 vs UCLA35% → 3%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• OREW 31-24 vs ORE24% → 91%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts −19
• ASUL 10-28 at ASU15% → 1%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts +1
• WSUL 31-34 at WSU43% → 4%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• WASHL 13-20 vs WASH51% → 5%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• UTAHL 7-52 vs UTAH25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −30
• ORSTL 14-35 at ORST20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −23
• CALL 11-41 vs CAL36% → 3%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −43, Clock −1
• NDL 14-45 vs ND8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −13

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.