Washington State

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1981st
  Defense+0.1150th
• 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.
  Offense47.5%85th
  Defense45.1%33rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2050th
  Defense+1.1662nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1057th
  Defense−0.0587th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2573rd
  Defense+0.2911th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.0%77th
  Defense49.6%34th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.4%90th
  Defense35.9%24th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3594th
  Defense2.6974th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.5%98th
  Defense24.5%87th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.0%96th
  Defense14.8%24th

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, 2016

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 Washington 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
   EWU
2. L
   BOIS
3. W
   IDHO
4. W
   ORE
5. W
   STAN
6. W
   UCLA
7. W
   ASU
8. W
   ORST
9. W
   ARIZ
10. W
    CAL
11. L
    COLO
12. L
    WASH
13. L
    MINN

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

Players, 2016

1. Luke FalkQB514 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 12th of 218 QBs
   2.28WAR1.53 to 3.00
2. Jamal MorrowRB107 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 97th of 347 RBs
   0.35WAR0.26 to 0.45
3. Gabe MarksWR89 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 41st of 417 WRs
   0.26WAR0.12 to 0.40
4. Tavares Martin Jr.WR67 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 73rd of 417 WRs
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.28
5. James WilliamsRB103 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 185th of 347 RBs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.27
6. Gerard WicksRB83 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 192nd of 347 RBs
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.25
7. River CracraftWR53 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 127th of 417 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.22
8. Robert LewisWR29 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 228th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13

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 Washington 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52352365th of 128Roster talent: 523, 65th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17817849th of 128Recruiting: 178, 49th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  86%86%29th of 128Returning production: 86%, 29th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.2+6.254th of 128SP+ rating: +6.2, 54th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2016

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 Washington State'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 0.10 of the 0.12 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 ORSTQ3 14:54 4th & 11 at WSU 23, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.6 pts
2. vs MINNQ4 8:40 4th & 1 at WSU 22, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
3. at ORSTQ4 0:09 4th & 5 at ORST 15, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
4. vs MINNQ2 10:19 4th & 1 at WSU 15, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at BOISQ4 11:34 4th & 6 at BOIS 14, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs UCLAQ4 0:59 4th & 7 at UCLA 40, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs WASHQ2 13:41 4th & 2 at WSU 41, down 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs CALQ3 7:11 4th & 1 at WSU 30, up 28Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

69th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   EWU
2. L

   BOIS
3. W

   IDHO
4. W

   ORE
5. W

   STAN
6. W

   UCLA
7. W

   ASU
8. W

   ORST
9. W

   ARIZ
10. W

    CAL
11. L

    COLO
12. L

    WASH
13. L

    MINN

What moved it, 2016

Every game starts at Washington 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 →

• Scoreboard+0.57
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.55

Game by game

• EWUL 42-45 vs EWU96% → 5%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −91: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• BOISL 28-31 at BOIS19% → 13%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• IDHOW 56-6 vs IDHO96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +5
• OREW 51-33 vs ORE49% → 99%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +44, Clock +1
• STANW 42-16 at STAN22% → 100%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +71, Possession & field position −1
• UCLAW 27-21 vs UCLA55% → 97%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• ASUW 37-32 at ASU70% → 95%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +39, Clock +3
• ORSTW 35-31 at ORST88% → 87%Before kickoff +38 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +23, Clock +2
• ARIZW 69-7 vs ARIZ88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +16
• CALW 56-21 vs CAL89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• COLOL 24-38 at COLO36% → 1%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• WASHL 17-45 vs WASH33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• MINNL 12-17 vs MINN63% → 3%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Washington State's side.

Closest call

BOIS 44-47 WSU (2017) - Washington State dropped to a 1.9% win probability before pulling it out.