West Virginia

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1565th
  Defense−0.0184th
• 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.
  Offense46.4%78th
  Defense36.0%93rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1323rd
  Defense+1.2234th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1992nd
  Defense−0.0383rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1342nd
  Defense+0.0382nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.4%77th
  Defense41.1%92nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.8%69th
  Defense27.9%88th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3295th
  Defense2.9043rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.7%75th
  Defense19.4%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.9%56th
  Defense3.3%97th

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, 2015

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 West Virginia 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
   GASO
2. W
   LIB
3. W
   MD
4. L
   OU
5. L
   OKST
6. L
   BAY
7. L
   TCU
8. W
   TTU
9. W
   TEX
10. W
    KU
11. W
    ISU
12. L
    KSU
13. W
    ASU

Bars above the line: better than expected for West Virginia.

Players, 2015

1. Skyler HowardQB361 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 61st of 205 QBs
   1.45WAR0.84 to 2.05
2. Wendell SmallwoodRB171 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 26th of 333 RBs
   0.45WAR0.30 to 0.60
3. Rushel ShellRB118 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 116th of 333 RBs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.31
4. Josh LambertPK19 plays · +0.484 pts/play · 19th of 115 kickers
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.23
5. Shelton GibsonWR47 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 122nd of 411 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.23
6. Daikiel ShortsWR43 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 187th of 411 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
7. Jordan ThompsonWR28 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 207th of 411 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
8. Nick O'TooleP50 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 45th of 92 punters
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.17

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 West Virginia'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62662641st of 128Roster talent: 626, 41st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19619639th of 128Recruiting: 196, 39th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  37%37%109th of 127Returning production: 37%, 109th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.9+12.927th of 128SP+ rating: +12.9, 27th 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, 2015

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 West Virginia's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 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. vs OKSTQ3 11:57 4th & 2 at OKST 46, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. vs OKSTQ4 10:38 4th & 5 at midfield, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. vs TEXQ3 8:33 4th & 1 at WVU 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs TEXQ4 14:57 4th & 2 at TEX 2, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at ASUQ2 11:05 4th & 1 at WVU 18, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs OKSTQ2 2:18 4th & 2 at WVU 20, down 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs TEXQ4 12:38 4th & 2 at WVU 10, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at TCUQ2 5:02 4th & 3 at TCU 34, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

71st of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   GASO
2. W

   LIB
3. W

   MD
4. L

   OU
5. L

   OKST
6. L

   BAY
7. L

   TCU
8. W

   TTU
9. W

   TEX
10. W

    KU
11. W

    ISU
12. L

    KSU
13. W

    ASU

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at West Virginia'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+0.55
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.18
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.41

Game by game

• GASOW 44-0 vs GASO98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• LIBW 41-17 vs LIB99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• MDW 45-6 vs MD88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +15
• OUL 24-44 at OU25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Clock −1
• OKSTL 26-33 vs OKST64% → 18%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −19
• BAYL 38-62 at BAY11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −15
• TCUL 10-40 at TCU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• TTUW 31-26 vs TTU64% → 95%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• TEXW 38-20 vs TEX65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +35
• KUW 49-0 at KU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• ISUW 30-6 vs ISU81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23
• KSUL 23-24 at KSU69% → 21%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −14, Possession & field position −3
• ASUW 43-42 at ASU43% → 95%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3

Points of win probability, from West Virginia's side.

Closest call

WVU 37-34 TTU (2014) - West Virginia dropped to a 5.1% win probability before pulling it out.