Washington State

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+0.0841st
  Defense+0.0954th
• 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.
  Offense42.1%49th
  Defense42.3%47th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2444th
  Defense+1.2836th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0744th
  Defense+0.0465th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1425th
  Defense+0.2338th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.1%45th
  Defense47.5%47th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.7%53rd
  Defense31.6%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9933rd
  Defense3.0154th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.1%15th
  Defense20.2%80th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.1%15th
  Defense17.7%72nd

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 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. W
   IDHO
2. W
   WIS
3. W
   CSU
4. L
   ORE
5. W
   CAL
6. L
   USC
7. L
   ORST
8. L
   UTAH
9. W
   STAN
10. W
    ASU
11. W
    ARIZ
12. L
    WASH
13. L
    FRES

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

Players, 2022

1. Cam WardQB470 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 28th of 234 QBs
   1.89WAR1.00 to 2.74
2. Nakia WatsonRB117 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 97th of 384 RBs
   0.30WAR0.20 to 0.39
3. De'Zhaun StriblingWR37 plays · +0.242 pts/play · 90th of 455 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
4. Robert FerrelWR55 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 148th of 455 WRs
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.22
5. Leyton SmithsonWR29 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 255th of 455 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
6. Nick HabererP37 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 54th of 102 punters
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.11
7. Lincoln VictorWR16 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 341st of 455 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07
8. Dean JanikowskiPK7 plays · +0.340 pts/play · 79th of 110 kickers
   0.04WAR0.03 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 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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57157170th of 129Roster talent: 571, 70th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17517563rd of 129Recruiting: 175, 63rd of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  8%8%126th of 128Returning production: 8%, 126th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.5+9.537th of 129SP+ rating: +9.5, 37th 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 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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.11 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 WISQ4 0:06 4th & 11 at WIS 45, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.6 pts
2. vs WASHQ3 0:58 4th & 2 at WSU 28, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at ORSTQ2 4:59 4th & 3 at ORST 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs IDHOQ3 1:21 4th & 2 at WSU 28, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at ORSTQ4 1:08 4th & 19 at ORST 25, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at ARIZQ4 6:19 4th & 4 at ARIZ 36, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs UTAHQ2 4:43 4th & 11 at UTAH 34, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs WASHQ4 2:38 4th & 20 at WSU 47, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

29th of 131 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. W

   IDHO
2. W

   WIS
3. W

   CSU
4. L

   ORE
5. W

   CAL
6. L

   USC
7. L

   ORST
8. L

   UTAH
9. W

   STAN
10. W

    ASU
11. W

    ARIZ
12. L

    WASH
13. L

    FRES

What moved it, 2022

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+1.31
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.47

Game by game

• IDHOW 24-17 vs IDHO96% → 84%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −12: Scoreboard +10, Possession & field position −2
• WISW 17-14 at WIS9% → 86%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• CSUW 38-7 vs CSU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +18
• OREL 41-44 vs ORE30% → 99%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +52, Timeouts −1
• CALW 28-9 vs CAL59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• USCL 14-30 at USC20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −1
• ORSTL 10-24 at ORST35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −35
• UTAHL 17-21 vs UTAH23% → 4%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• STANW 52-14 at STAN46% → 100%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +54, Clock +2
• ASUW 28-18 vs ASU76% → 97%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• ARIZW 31-20 at ARIZ50% → 97%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• WASHL 33-51 vs WASH36% → 2%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3
• FRESL 6-29 at FRES27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30

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.