West Virginia

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.2794th
  Defense+0.1343rd
• 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.
  Offense48.1%87th
  Defense46.1%23rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3795th
  Defense+1.1864th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0747th
  Defense+0.0557th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4295th
  Defense+0.2327th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.7%82nd
  Defense50.6%22nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense40.2%90th
  Defense36.2%22nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7629th
  Defense2.6182nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.5%46th
  Defense26.7%98th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%63rd
  Defense20.5%97th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2018

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
   TENN
2. W
   YSU
3. W
   KSU
4. W
   TTU
5. W
   KU
6. L
   ISU
7. W
   BAY
8. W
   TEX
9. W
   TCU
10. L
    OKST
11. L
    OU
12. L
    SYR

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

Players, 2018

1. Will GrierQB352 plays · +0.302 pts/play · 24th of 225 QBs
   1.99WAR1.40 to 2.61
2. Kennedy McKoyRB130 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 89th of 351 RBs
   0.40WAR0.29 to 0.51
3. Martell PettawayRB80 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 149th of 351 RBs
   0.29WAR0.23 to 0.35
4. David Sills VWR78 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 53rd of 434 WRs
   0.18WAR0.06 to 0.30
5. Leddie BrownRB53 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 239th of 351 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.21
6. Gary JenningsWR57 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 81st of 434 WRs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.24
7. Evan StaleyPK16 plays · +0.452 pts/play · 26th of 112 kickers
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
8. Marcus SimmsWR49 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 160th of 434 WRs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.18

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64764736th of 130Roster talent: 647, 36th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19419442nd of 130Recruiting: 194, 42nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  66%66%60th of 129Returning production: 66%, 60th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.2+13.224th of 130SP+ rating: +13.2, 24th 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, 2018

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 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 ISUQ3 0:00 4th & 1 at WVU 32, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. at SYRQ2 3:42 4th & 2 at SYR 47, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. at TTUQ4 4:30 4th & 2 at WVU 46, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at ISUQ2 7:00 4th & 1 at WVU 22, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at OKSTQ2 2:58 4th & 8 at OKST 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at TTUQ1 4:58 4th & 6 at TTU 37, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at OKSTQ4 7:37 4th & 6 at OKST 6, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at SYRQ1 0:43 4th & 3 at SYR 46, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

81st of 130 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

   TENN
2. W

   YSU
3. W

   KSU
4. W

   TTU
5. W

   KU
6. L

   ISU
7. W

   BAY
8. W

   TEX
9. W

   TCU
10. L

    OKST
11. L

    OU
12. L

    SYR

What moved it, 2018

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+0.21
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.86

Game by game

• TENNW 40-14 at TENN73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +33
• YSUW 52-17 vs YSU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• KSUW 35-6 vs KSU87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• TTUW 42-34 at TTU66% → 89%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +43, Possession & field position −4
• KUW 38-22 vs KU95% → 97%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +11
• ISUL 14-30 at ISU64% → 1%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −55, Timeouts +3
• BAYW 58-14 vs BAY82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +22
• TEXW 42-41 at TEX47% → 76%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• TCUW 47-10 vs TCU83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +20
• OKSTL 41-45 at OKST68% → 19%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position +5
• OUL 56-59 vs OU41% → 5%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −42, Clock −3
• SYRL 18-34 at SYR48% → 3%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1

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.