LSU

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1983rd
  Defense+0.0371st
• 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.
  Offense46.6%84th
  Defense39.0%79th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0710th
  Defense+1.1567th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1480th
  Defense+0.0653rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3088th
  Defense0.0088th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.7%95th
  Defense42.9%81st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.3%31st
  Defense31.7%61st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3795th
  Defense3.0923rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.8%95th
  Defense16.2%17th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.0%90th
  Defense20.0%88th

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, 2017

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
   BYU
2. W
   UTC
3. L
   MSST
4. W
   SYR
5. L
   TROY
6. W
   FLA
7. W
   AUB
8. W
   MISS
9. L
   ALA
10. W
    ARK
11. W
    TENN
12. W
    TA&M
13. L
    ND

Bars above the line: better than expected for LSU.

Players, 2017

1. Danny EtlingQB285 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 66th of 226 QBs
   1.15WAR0.69 to 1.64
2. Derrius GuiceRB209 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 7th of 352 RBs
   0.74WAR0.53 to 0.94
3. Darrel WilliamsRB133 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 92nd of 352 RBs
   0.31WAR0.23 to 0.40
4. D.J. CharkWR66 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 59th of 426 WRs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.23
5. Russell GageWR53 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 190th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
6. Derrick DillonWR12 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 394th of 426 WRs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.03
7. Josh GrowdenP19 plays · +0.043 pts/play · 65th of 95 punters
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.04
8. Foster MoreauTE28 plays · +0.022 pts/play · 58th of 199 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.02 to 0.05

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9079076th of 130Roster talent: 907, 6th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2922923rd of 130Recruiting: 292, 3rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  69%69%46th of 128Returning production: 69%, 46th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +21.1+21.111th of 128SP+ rating: +21.1, 11th of 128 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, 2017

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.19 of the 0.25 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 NDQ4 2:03 4th & 1 at ND 1, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−14.4 pts
2. vs AUBQ4 10:28 4th & 12 at AUB 36, down 2Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.6 pts
3. at FLAQ3 5:44 4th & 1 at LSU 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at MISSQ3 12:02 4th & 2 at MISS 15, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs BYUQ3 3:08 4th & 2 at BYU 3, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs TA&MQ2 11:31 4th & 2 at TA&M 9, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs TROYQ4 4:45 4th & 6 at LSU 12, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs TA&MQ3 13:12 4th & 3 at LSU 39, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

72nd of 130 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

   BYU
2. W

   UTC
3. L

   MSST
4. W

   SYR
5. L

   TROY
6. W

   FLA
7. W

   AUB
8. W

   MISS
9. L

   ALA
10. W

    ARK
11. W

    TENN
12. W

    TA&M
13. L

    ND

What moved it, 2017

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+0.31
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.67

Game by game

• BYUW 27-0 vs BYU88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +14
• UTCW 45-10 vs UTC99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MSSTL 7-37 at MSST70% → 0%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −58, Timeouts −1
• SYRW 35-26 vs SYR93% → 97%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• TROYL 21-24 vs TROY91% → 6%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −86: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• FLAW 17-16 at FLA55% → 95%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• AUBW 27-23 vs AUB36% → 96%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +41, Possession & field position +1
• MISSW 40-24 at MISS73% → 98%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• ALAL 10-24 at ALA8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• ARKW 33-10 vs ARK91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +13
• TENNW 30-10 at TENN90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• TA&MW 45-21 vs TA&M80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23
• NDL 17-21 vs ND60% → 4%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3

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.