Western Michigan

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+0.1564th
  Defense+0.1918th
• 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.
  Offense45.8%72nd
  Defense43.0%43rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1422nd
  Defense+1.402nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1267th
  Defense+0.0843rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1952nd
  Defense+0.359th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.4%78th
  Defense46.0%63rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.4%33rd
  Defense37.0%16th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0466th
  Defense2.5485th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.1%85th
  Defense24.0%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.6%78th
  Defense17.8%72nd

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 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
   SYR
2. L
   MICH
3. W
   DSU
4. W
   GAST
5. W
   M-OH
6. W
   EMU
7. W
   BGSU
8. W
   CMU
9. L
   TOL
10. L
    OHIO
11. L
    BALL
12. W
    NIU
13. L
    BYU

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

Players, 2018

1. Jon WassinkQB210 plays · +0.266 pts/play · 80th of 225 QBs
   1.05WAR0.72 to 1.42
2. LeVante BellamyRB196 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 32nd of 351 RBs
   0.62WAR0.43 to 0.82
3. Kaleb ElebyQB143 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 133rd of 225 QBs
   0.55WAR0.33 to 0.76
4. Jamauri BoganRB129 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 80th of 351 RBs
   0.42WAR0.28 to 0.55
5. Jayden ReedWR64 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 45th of 434 WRs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.29
6. D'Wayne EskridgeWR52 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 197th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.16
7. Giovanni RicciTE40 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 26th of 204 TEs
   0.05WAR−0.02 to 0.12
8. Keishawn WatsonWR27 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 352nd of 434 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44244284th of 130Roster talent: 442, 84th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15115176th of 130Recruiting: 151, 76th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  80%80%26th of 129Returning production: 80%, 26th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.7−10.7104th of 130SP+ rating: −10.7, 104th 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 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 2 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 M-OHQ4 6:26 4th & 10 at M-OH 16, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.1 pts
2. at BALLQ3 3:35 4th & 3 at BALL 3, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs SYRQ4 14:46 4th & 8 at WMU 35, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at CMUQ3 15:00 4th & 2 at CMU 46, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at BYUQ2 7:48 4th & 7 at BYU 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at GASTQ4 15:00 4th & 10 at GAST 34, up 19Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at MICHQ3 9:44 4th & 13 at MICH 19, down 35Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs NIUQ2 2:46 4th & 6 at NIU 48, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

78th of 130 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.

1. L

   SYR
2. L

   MICH
3. W

   DSU
4. W

   GAST
5. W

   M-OH
6. W

   EMU
7. W

   BGSU
8. W

   CMU
9. L

   TOL
10. L

    OHIO
11. L

    BALL
12. W

    NIU
13. L

    BYU

What moved it, 2018

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+0.07
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.18
• Timeouts+0.26
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.62

Game by game

• SYRL 42-55 vs SYR38% → 2%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −44, Clock −1
• MICHL 3-49 at MICH4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• DSUW 68-0 vs DSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• GASTW 34-15 at GAST76% → 99%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +33, Clock +1
• M-OHW 40-39 at M-OH61% → 89%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +38, Clock +3
• EMUW 27-24 vs EMU70% → 95%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2
• BGSUW 42-35 at BGSU85% → 89%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +27, Clock +2
• CMUW 35-10 at CMU71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +35
• TOLL 24-51 vs TOL67% → 0%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −63, Clock −1
• OHIOL 14-59 vs OHIO44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −47, Clock −1
• BALLL 41-42 at BALL71% → 33%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −38: Timeouts +20, Clock −18
• NIUW 28-21 vs NIU37% → 96%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +2
• BYUL 18-49 at BYU25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −27

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.