LSU

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+0.2493rd
  Defense+0.0761st
• 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.
  Offense46.0%76th
  Defense41.5%57th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2987th
  Defense+1.2235th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2898th
  Defense+0.0742nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2163rd
  Defense+0.0866th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.6%85th
  Defense48.1%40th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.9%37th
  Defense28.0%87th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2091st
  Defense2.8254th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.7%73rd
  Defense18.9%33rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.5%83rd
  Defense2.3%67th

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 LSU 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
   MSST
2. W
   AUB
3. W
   SYR
4. W
   EMU
5. W
   SC
6. W
   FLA
7. W
   WKU
8. L
   ALA
9. L
   ARK
10. L
    MISS
11. W
    TA&M
12. W
    TTU

Bars above the line: better than expected for LSU.

Players, 2015

1. Brandon HarrisQB259 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 86th of 205 QBs
   1.10WAR0.62 to 1.52
2. Leonard FournetteRB269 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 5th of 333 RBs
   0.73WAR0.48 to 0.95
3. Malachi DupreWR60 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 64th of 411 WRs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.31
4. Darrel WilliamsRB44 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 211th of 333 RBs
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.12
5. Travin DuralWR50 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 255th of 411 WRs
   0.08WAR0.00 to 0.17
6. Trent DominguePK13 plays · +0.328 pts/play · 90th of 115 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
7. Jamie KeehnP47 plays · +0.043 pts/play · 75th of 92 punters
   0.04WAR−0.04 to 0.10
8. DeSean SmithTE5 plays · −0.011 pts/play · 40th of 189 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.01 to 0.01

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 LSU'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.
  8898895th of 128Roster talent: 889, 5th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2922922nd of 128Recruiting: 292, 2nd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  79%79%33rd of 127Returning production: 79%, 33rd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.7+19.710th of 128SP+ rating: +19.7, 10th 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 LSU's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.17 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 FLAQ4 10:40 4th & 13 at FLA 16, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.5 pts
2. at MSSTQ2 6:19 4th & 1 at LSU 39, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs ARKQ4 7:56 4th & 20 at LSU 33, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
4. vs FLAQ3 1:04 4th & 1 at LSU 24, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at MSSTQ4 5:32 4th & 7 at MSST 43, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. vs ARKQ3 1:15 4th & 4 at LSU 47, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at MISSQ2 14:53 4th & 3 at MISS 37, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at SYRQ3 9:44 4th & 4 at SYR 4, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

32nd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   MSST
2. W

   AUB
3. W

   SYR
4. W

   EMU
5. W

   SC
6. W

   FLA
7. W

   WKU
8. L

   ALA
9. L

   ARK
10. L

    MISS
11. W

    TA&M
12. W

    TTU

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at LSU'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+1.07
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.42

Game by game

• MSSTW 21-19 at MSST61% → 85%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +35, Possession & field position +3
• AUBW 45-21 vs AUB73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• SYRW 34-24 at SYR94% → 96%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• EMUW 44-22 vs EMU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +2
• SCW 45-24 vs SC27% → 99%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +56, Possession & field position +1
• FLAW 35-28 vs FLA73% → 93%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position +2
• WKUW 48-20 vs WKU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• ALAL 16-30 at ALA35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• ARKL 14-31 vs ARK74% → 1%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −63, Clock −3
• MISSL 17-38 at MISS41% → 0%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −39
• TA&MW 19-7 vs TA&M63% → 98%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• TTUW 56-27 at TTU71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +34, Clock +1

Points of win probability, from LSU's side.

Closest call

LSU 37-34 FLA (2020) - LSU dropped to a 6.6% win probability before pulling it out.