Stanford

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0425th
  Defense+0.263rd
• 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.
  Offense42.0%48th
  Defense47.7%7th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1621st
  Defense+1.2640th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.113rd
  Defense+0.381st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2038th
  Defense+0.2243rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.7%51st
  Defense54.6%3rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.6%37th
  Defense31.0%43rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8312th
  Defense3.691st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.4%12th
  Defense12.3%8th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.6%28th
  Defense14.9%32nd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Stanford.

Players, 2022

1. Tanner McKeeQB359 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 86th of 234 QBs
   0.91WAR0.27 to 1.56
2. Casey FilkinsRB107 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 114th of 384 RBs
   0.26WAR0.18 to 0.34
3. Ben YurosekTE43 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 10th of 214 TEs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.23
4. Brycen TremayneWR34 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 124th of 455 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.20
5. Joshua KartyPK17 plays · +0.455 pts/play · 6th of 110 kickers
   0.14WAR0.11 to 0.19
6. Elijah HigginsWR50 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 145th of 455 WRs
   0.13WAR0.03 to 0.22
7. Ryan SanbornP45 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 43rd of 102 punters
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15
8. John HumphreysWR25 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 306th of 455 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.10

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  75875822nd of 129Roster talent: 758, 22nd of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22422421st of 129Recruiting: 224, 21st of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%7th of 128Returning production: 85%, 7th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.2−7.292nd of 129SP+ rating: −7.2, 92nd of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.16 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 NDQ4 2:30 4th & 8 at ND 38, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it4.4 pts
2. at NDQ4 10:20 4th & 1 at ND 24, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it3.1 pts
3. at CALQ4 14:05 4th & 1 at STAN 17, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.7 pts
4. vs ORSTQ4 10:45 4th & 4 at ORST 44, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts
5. vs ORSTQ2 4:30 4th & 1 at STAN 31, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
6. vs BYUQ3 13:02 4th & 2 at STAN 35, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts
7. at CALQ2 6:40 4th & 5 at CAL 46, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts
8. at OREQ1 0:16 4th & 1 at STAN 16, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

116th of 131 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

   COLG
2. L

   USC
3. L

   WASH
4. L

   ORE
5. L

   ORST
6. W

   ND
7. W

   ASU
8. L

   UCLA
9. L

   WSU
10. L

    UTAH
11. L

    CAL
12. L

    BYU

What moved it, 2022

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−2.06
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.08
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.65

Game by game

• COLGW 41-10 vs COLG99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• USCL 28-41 vs USC37% → 2%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• WASHL 22-40 at WASH20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24
• OREL 27-45 at ORE17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22
• ORSTL 27-28 vs ORST42% → 6%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2
• NDW 16-14 at ND15% → 95%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +80: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• ASUW 15-14 vs ASU72% → 95%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• UCLAL 13-38 at UCLA16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• WSUL 14-52 vs WSU54% → 0%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −54, Clock −2
• UTAHL 7-42 at UTAH7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• CALL 20-27 at CAL45% → 9%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• BYUL 26-35 vs BYU38% → 4%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3

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.