LSU

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+0.1460th
  Defense−0.0188th
• 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.
  Offense42.9%43rd
  Defense39.2%78th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1115th
  Defense+1.1374th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0957th
  Defense+0.0558th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2364th
  Defense−0.0592nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.1%39th
  Defense44.3%76th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.6%59th
  Defense30.0%75th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9043rd
  Defense3.0230th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.3%36th
  Defense19.8%53rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.0%52nd
  Defense18.9%83rd

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 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
   MIA
2. W
   SELA
3. W
   AUB
4. W
   LT
5. W
   MISS
6. L
   FLA
7. W
   UGA
8. W
   MSST
9. L
   ALA
10. W
    ARK
11. W
    RICE
12. L
    TA&M
13. W
    UCF

Bars above the line: better than expected for LSU.

Players, 2018

1. Joe BurrowQB383 plays · +0.238 pts/play · 36th of 225 QBs
   1.71WAR1.08 to 2.36
2. Nick BrossetteRB178 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 40th of 351 RBs
   0.59WAR0.46 to 0.72
3. Clyde Edwards-HelaireRB116 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 114th of 351 RBs
   0.35WAR0.29 to 0.42
4. Justin JeffersonWR72 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 40th of 434 WRs
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.31
5. Cole TracyPK22 plays · +0.414 pts/play · 8th of 112 kickers
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
6. Zach Von RosenbergP39 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 5th of 91 punters
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
7. Stephen SullivanTE28 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 23rd of 204 TEs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.10
8. Derrick DillonWR33 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 305th of 434 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.10

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8908906th of 130Roster talent: 890, 6th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2802806th of 130Recruiting: 280, 6th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  17%17%126th of 129Returning production: 17%, 126th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +24.2+24.25th of 130SP+ rating: +24.2, 5th 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 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 0.08 of the 0.19 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 UGAQ3 5:47 4th & 2 at UGA 44, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. at FLAQ2 3:10 4th & 1 at FLA 15, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at AUBQ4 10:53 4th & 2 at LSU 43, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs MIAQ2 4:56 4th & 3 at MIA 3, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at FLAQ3 12:04 4th & 3 at FLA 45, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs MIAQ3 12:52 4th & 1 at LSU 34, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. at AUBQ1 0:29 4th & 2 at AUB 35, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at FLAQ4 6:24 4th & 7 at FLA 45, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

5th 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

   MIA
2. W

   SELA
3. W

   AUB
4. W

   LT
5. W

   MISS
6. L

   FLA
7. W

   UGA
8. W

   MSST
9. L

   ALA
10. W

    ARK
11. W

    RICE
12. L

    TA&M
13. W

    UCF

What moved it, 2018

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+2.51
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.18
• Timeouts+0.12
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.13

Game by game

• MIAW 33-17 vs MIA34% → 99%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts +2
• SELAW 31-0 vs SELA99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• AUBW 22-21 at AUB19% → 92%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +53, Clock +4
• LTW 38-21 vs LT87% → 98%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +18
• MISSW 45-16 vs MISS74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28
• FLAL 19-27 at FLA45% → 3%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• UGAW 36-16 vs UGA23% → 100%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +61, Clock −1
• MSSTW 19-3 vs MSST57% → 99%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +1
• ALAL 0-29 vs ALA13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• ARKW 24-17 at ARK77% → 96%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• RICEW 42-10 vs RICE99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• TA&ML 72-74 at TA&M36% → 2%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −34: Clock −27, Scoreboard −20
• UCFW 40-32 at UCF64% → 96%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +41, 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.