Washington State

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+0.1249th
  Defense+0.1147th
• 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.
  Offense44.8%70th
  Defense41.8%52nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2441st
  Defense+1.2363rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.075th
  Defense+0.0655th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2760th
  Defense+0.2058th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.0%74th
  Defense47.9%46th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.6%70th
  Defense28.9%64th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8416th
  Defense3.0555th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.4%33rd
  Defense17.8%58th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.6%31st
  Defense14.4%13th

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 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
   CSU
2. W
   WIS
3. W
   UNCO
4. W
   ORST
5. L
   UCLA
6. L
   ARIZ
7. L
   ORE
8. L
   ASU
9. L
   STAN
10. L
    CAL
11. W
    COLO
12. L
    WASH

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

Players, 2023

1. Cam WardQB510 plays · +0.246 pts/play · 8th of 250 QBs
   2.34WAR1.38 to 3.25
2. Josh KellyWR60 plays · +0.293 pts/play · 14th of 457 WRs
   0.33WAR0.19 to 0.48
3. Nakia WatsonRB93 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 140th of 383 RBs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.28
4. Kyle WilliamsWR66 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 119th of 457 WRs
   0.14WAR−0.03 to 0.31
5. Nick HabererP40 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 26th of 103 punters
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
6. Cooper MathersTE22 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 58th of 212 TEs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
7. Dean JanikowskiPK14 plays · +0.327 pts/play · 56th of 113 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. Billy Riviere IIITE7 plays · +0.242 pts/play · 163rd of 212 TEs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.05

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57357375th of 130Roster talent: 573, 75th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17817863rd of 130Recruiting: 178, 63rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  58%58%54th of 128Returning production: 58%, 54th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.9+4.949th of 130SP+ rating: +4.9, 49th 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 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 0.06 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. at UCLAQ3 1:40 4th & 2 at WSU 28, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. vs ORSTQ3 10:04 4th & 10 at WSU 29, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.7 pts
3. at ASUQ3 0:00 4th & 2 at ASU 14, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at CSUQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at CSU 38, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at WASHQ2 2:32 4th & 7 at WASH 43, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at CALQ3 12:33 4th & 4 at CAL 11, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at UCLAQ4 8:15 4th & 6 at WSU 40, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at OREQ2 0:01 4th & 4 at ORE 16, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

114th of 133 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

   CSU
2. W

   WIS
3. W

   UNCO
4. W

   ORST
5. L

   UCLA
6. L

   ARIZ
7. L

   ORE
8. L

   ASU
9. L

   STAN
10. L

    CAL
11. W

    COLO
12. L

    WASH

What moved it, 2023

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−0.99
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.18

Game by game

• CSUW 50-24 at CSU73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +33
• WISW 31-22 vs WIS39% → 97%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +2
• UNCOW 64-21 vs UNCO100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• ORSTW 38-35 vs ORST44% → 95%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +39, Possession & field position +1
• UCLAL 17-25 at UCLA46% → 3%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• ARIZL 6-44 vs ARIZ67% → 0%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −63, Clock −2
• OREL 24-38 at ORE8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13
• ASUL 27-38 at ASU63% → 3%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• STANL 7-10 vs STAN83% → 6%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• CALL 39-42 at CAL50% → 19%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −4
• COLOW 56-14 vs COLO69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32
• WASHL 21-24 at WASH14% → 4%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1

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.