Western Michigan

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+0.2390th
  Defense+0.1717th
• 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.
  Offense47.3%84th
  Defense42.9%48th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2782nd
  Defense+1.369th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1688th
  Defense+0.1029th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3385th
  Defense+0.2623rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.2%76th
  Defense46.6%55th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.8%90th
  Defense35.8%28th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2191st
  Defense2.8254th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.9%98th
  Defense24.5%87th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.3%95th
  Defense1.8%40th

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 Western Michigan 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
   MSU
2. L
   GASO
3. W
   MUR
4. L
   OSU
5. W
   CMU
6. W
   OHIO
7. W
   M-OH
8. W
   EMU
9. W
   BALL
10. L
    BGSU
11. L
    NIU
12. W
    TOL
13. W
    MTSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Western Michigan.

Players, 2015

1. Zach TerrellQB326 plays · +0.279 pts/play · 47th of 205 QBs
   1.70WAR1.15 to 2.25
2. Jamauri BoganRB106 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 51st of 333 RBs
   0.37WAR0.27 to 0.45
3. Daniel BravermanWR104 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 29th of 411 WRs
   0.29WAR0.14 to 0.45
4. Corey DavisWR95 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 31st of 411 WRs
   0.28WAR0.11 to 0.45
5. Jarvion FranklinRB96 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 174th of 333 RBs
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.21
6. Andrew HaldemanPK17 plays · +0.380 pts/play · 51st of 115 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
7. J. SchroederP27 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 68th of 92 punters
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.09
8. LeVante BellamyRB6 plays · +0.059 pts/play · 286th of 333 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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 Western Michigan'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.
  44244276th of 128Roster talent: 442, 76th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15115173rd of 128Recruiting: 151, 73rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  100%100%2nd of 127Returning production: 100%, 2nd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.9+4.956th of 128SP+ rating: +4.9, 56th 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 Western Michigan'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 0.06 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. vs MTSUQ3 0:46 4th & 1 at WMU 12, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. vs MTSUQ2 2:39 4th & 1 at WMU 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at NIUQ2 0:12 4th & 11 at NIU 28, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
4. vs BGSUQ3 6:42 4th & 3 at WMU 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs M-OHQ2 2:29 4th & 5 at M-OH 35, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at EMUQ2 9:20 4th & 3 at EMU 3, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at NIUQ2 13:24 4th & 5 at NIU 38, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at GASOQ1 7:40 4th & 1 at GASO 17, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

68th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Western Michigan's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   MSU
2. L

   GASO
3. W

   MUR
4. L

   OSU
5. W

   CMU
6. W

   OHIO
7. W

   M-OH
8. W

   EMU
9. W

   BALL
10. L

    BGSU
11. L

    NIU
12. W

    TOL
13. W

    MTSU

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Western Michigan'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−0.03
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.10

Game by game

• MSUL 24-37 vs MSU8% → 2%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• GASOL 17-43 at GASO68% → 0%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −56, Clock −1
• MURW 52-20 vs MUR98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• OSUL 12-38 at OSU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• CMUW 41-39 vs CMU68% → 88%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +2
• OHIOW 49-14 at OHIO41% → 100%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +57, Clock +2
• M-OHW 35-13 vs M-OH92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12
• EMUW 58-28 at EMU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13
• BALLW 54-7 vs BALL86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• BGSUL 27-41 vs BGSU40% → 1%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −45, Clock −1
• NIUL 19-27 at NIU45% → 3%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −3
• MTSUW 45-31 vs MTSU61% → 99%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +2

Points of win probability, from Western Michigan's side.

Closest call

TOL 38-41 WMU (2020) - Western Michigan dropped to a 4.3% win probability before pulling it out.