LSU

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.4499th
  Defense+0.0766th
• 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.
  Offense58.3%99th
  Defense38.1%84th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2568th
  Defense+1.345th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2295th
  Defense0.0067th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.6399th
  Defense+0.1459th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense61.1%99th
  Defense44.7%79th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense49.8%99th
  Defense26.3%95th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4195th
  Defense2.8359th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.4%70th
  Defense20.9%65th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.2%83rd
  Defense23.3%86th

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, 2019

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
   GASO
2. W
   TEX
3. W
   NWST
4. W
   VAN
5. W
   USU
6. W
   FLA
7. W
   MSST
8. W
   AUB
9. W
   ALA
10. W
    MISS
11. W
    ARK
12. W
    TA&M
13. W
    UGA
14. W
    OU
15. W
    CLEM

Bars above the line: better than expected for LSU.

Players, 2019

1. Joe BurrowQB427 plays · +0.303 pts/play · 6th of 228 QBs
   2.42WAR1.71 to 3.11
2. Clyde Edwards-HelaireRB183 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 36th of 349 RBs
   0.59WAR0.47 to 0.70
3. Justin JeffersonWR88 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 14th of 439 WRs
   0.33WAR0.22 to 0.44
4. Ja'Marr ChaseWR89 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 17th of 439 WRs
   0.31WAR0.20 to 0.42
5. Terrace Marshall Jr.WR40 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 168th of 439 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
6. Cade YorkPK16 plays · +0.388 pts/play · 61st of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16
7. Thaddeus MossTE42 plays · +0.053 pts/play · 48th of 207 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.02 to 0.11
8. Zach Von RosenbergP24 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 75th of 100 punters
   0.03WAR0.01 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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9069065th of 130Roster talent: 906, 5th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2802804th of 130Recruiting: 280, 4th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  86%86%9th of 130Returning production: 86%, 9th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +33.1+33.12nd of 130SP+ rating: +33.1, 2nd 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, 2019

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.08 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 AUBQ2 0:33 4th & 1 at AUB 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. at TEXQ3 14:08 4th & 1 at LSU 34, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at ALAQ3 3:10 4th & 4 at LSU 49, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs CLEMQ2 12:10 4th & 3 at CLEM 48, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs FLAQ4 12:32 4th & 8 at FLA 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs CLEMQ3 1:40 4th & 4 at CLEM 27, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs UGAQ2 2:22 4th & 2 at UGA 23, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at MISSQ3 3:25 4th & 5 at MISS 34, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

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

   GASO
2. W

   TEX
3. W

   NWST
4. W

   VAN
5. W

   USU
6. W

   FLA
7. W

   MSST
8. W

   AUB
9. W

   ALA
10. W

    MISS
11. W

    ARK
12. W

    TA&M
13. W

    UGA
14. W

    OU
15. W

    CLEM

What moved it, 2019

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+2.85
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.60

Game by game

• GASOW 55-3 vs GASO96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• TEXW 45-38 at TEX71% → 95%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• NWSTW 65-14 vs NWST100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• VANW 66-38 at VAN95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• USUW 42-6 vs USU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• FLAW 42-28 vs FLA83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• MSSTW 36-13 at MSST91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• AUBW 23-20 vs AUB82% → 94%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +22, Possession & field position −1
• ALAW 46-41 at ALA34% → 95%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• MISSW 58-37 at MISS93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +12, Clock +1
• ARKW 56-20 vs ARK99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• TA&MW 50-7 vs TA&M88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +15
• UGAW 37-10 vs UGA70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32
• OUW 63-28 vs OU83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +20
• CLEMW 42-25 vs CLEM63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +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.