LSU

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1876th
  Defense−0.0492nd
• 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.
  Offense44.8%61st
  Defense35.6%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2573rd
  Defense+1.0893rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1780th
  Defense−0.0282nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2265th
  Defense−0.0293rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.7%56th
  Defense40.5%94th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.0%70th
  Defense26.9%94th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2282nd
  Defense2.9453rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.6%57th
  Defense16.6%20th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.4%43rd
  Defense19.4%85th

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, 2016

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. L
   WIS
2. W
   JXST
3. W
   MSST
4. L
   AUB
5. W
   MIZ
6. W
   USM
7. W
   MISS
8. L
   ALA
9. W
   ARK
10. L
    FLA
11. W
    TA&M
12. W
    LOU

Bars above the line: better than expected for LSU.

Players, 2016

1. Danny EtlingQB260 plays · +0.241 pts/play · 71st of 218 QBs
   1.17WAR0.75 to 1.56
2. Derrius GuiceRB143 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 32nd of 347 RBs
   0.60WAR0.42 to 0.77
3. Leonard FournetteRB138 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 58th of 347 RBs
   0.48WAR0.32 to 0.64
4. Malachi DupreWR55 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 104th of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.25
5. Brandon HarrisQB25 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 196th of 218 QBs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
6. Darrel WilliamsRB36 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 247th of 347 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
7. Travin DuralWR45 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 285th of 417 WRs
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.14
8. D.J. CharkWR10 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 386th of 417 WRs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9189183rd of 128Roster talent: 918, 3rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2932932nd of 128Recruiting: 293, 2nd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  93%93%11th of 128Returning production: 93%, 11th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +25.3+25.35th of 128SP+ rating: +25.3, 5th 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, 2016

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.15 of the 0.21 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 AUBQ3 2:32 4th & 1 at AUB 7, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.4 pts
2. vs ALAQ3 9:59 4th & 1 at LSU 15, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. at LOUQ4 10:38 4th & 1 at LOU 8, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. at TA&MQ2 1:20 4th & 1 at TA&M 49, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs ALAQ3 6:17 4th & 3 at LSU 10, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at ARKQ4 7:51 4th & 1 at ARK 1, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. vs MISSQ3 8:27 4th & 2 at MISS 27, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at ARKQ2 3:44 4th & 1 at LSU 34, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

94th 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. L

   WIS
2. W

   JXST
3. W

   MSST
4. L

   AUB
5. W

   MIZ
6. W

   USM
7. W

   MISS
8. L

   ALA
9. W

   ARK
10. L

    FLA
11. W

    TA&M
12. W

    LOU

What moved it, 2016

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+0.39
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.13

Game by game

• WISL 14-16 at WIS81% → 5%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −3
• JXSTW 34-13 vs JXST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +5
• MSSTW 23-20 vs MSST87% → 95%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• AUBL 13-18 at AUB65% → 13%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −1
• MIZW 42-7 vs MIZ86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• USMW 45-10 vs USM94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• MISSW 38-21 vs MISS65% → 98%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +34, Clock +1
• ALAL 0-10 vs ALA39% → 3%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• ARKW 38-10 at ARK77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• FLAL 10-16 vs FLA82% → 15%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• TA&MW 54-39 at TA&M69% → 99%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• LOUW 29-9 at LOU61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2

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.