Stanford

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0626th
  Defense+0.311st
• 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.
  Offense38.1%16th
  Defense51.4%1st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2858th
  Defense+1.2654th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0636th
  Defense+0.225th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1224th
  Defense+0.424th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.7%7th
  Defense55.6%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.
  Offense29.8%44th
  Defense40.9%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.738th
  Defense3.449th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.7%11th
  Defense14.6%26th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.1%8th
  Defense11.1%1st

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   HAW
2. L
   USC
3. L
   SAC
4. L
   ARIZ
5. L
   ORE
6. W
   COLO
7. L
   UCLA
8. L
   WASH
9. W
   WSU
10. L
    ORST
11. L
    CAL
12. L
    ND

Bars above the line: better than expected for Stanford.

Players, 2023

1. Ashton DanielsQB346 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 52nd of 250 QBs
   1.44WAR0.87 to 2.07
2. Justin LamsonQB114 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 140th of 250 QBs
   0.41WAR0.17 to 0.64
3. Elic AyomanorWR52 plays · +0.275 pts/play · 30th of 457 WRs
   0.27WAR0.17 to 0.37
4. Joshua KartyPK21 plays · +0.496 pts/play · 2nd of 113 kickers
   0.20WAR0.15 to 0.25
5. Tiger BachmeierWR32 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 191st of 457 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
6. Sam RoushTE21 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 52nd of 212 TEs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
7. Ben YurosekTE13 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 131st of 212 TEs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
8. Casey FilkinsRB21 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 303rd of 383 RBs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71071037th of 130Roster talent: 710, 37th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21321328th of 130Recruiting: 213, 28th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  39%39%91st of 128Returning production: 39%, 91st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.9−11.9106th of 130SP+ rating: −11.9, 106th 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, 2023

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.10 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 WSUQ4 5:56 4th & 3 at WSU 13, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs CALQ3 0:46 4th & 4 at CAL 32, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at HAWQ4 9:15 4th & 2 at HAW 28, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs ARIZQ4 11:40 4th & 6 at ARIZ 33, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs SACQ4 0:57 4th & 26 at STAN 29, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs WASHQ2 0:41 4th & 20 at STAN 45, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at WSUQ2 10:16 4th & 3 at WSU 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs CALQ4 6:27 4th & 10 at CAL 35, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

51st of 133 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

   HAW
2. L

   USC
3. L

   SAC
4. L

   ARIZ
5. L

   ORE
6. W

   COLO
7. L

   UCLA
8. L

   WASH
9. W

   WSU
10. L

    ORST
11. L

    CAL
12. L

    ND

What moved it, 2023

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−0.38
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.18
• Timeouts+0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.75

Game by game

• HAWW 37-24 at HAW62% → 98%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2
• USCL 10-56 at USC3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• SACL 23-30 vs SAC77% → 13%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −45, Possession & field position −4
• ARIZL 20-21 vs ARIZ16% → 7%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −28, Clock −2
• OREL 6-42 vs ORE3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• COLOW 46-43 at COLO22% → 88%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +20
• UCLAL 7-42 vs UCLA15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• WASHL 33-42 vs WASH4% → 4%Before kickoff −46 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −13, Clock −1
• WSUW 10-7 at WSU17% → 94%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• ORSTL 17-62 at ORST9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• CALL 15-27 vs CAL37% → 2%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• NDL 23-56 vs ND5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9

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.