LSU

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.2218th
• 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.
  Offense43.4%57th
  Defense46.9%19th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2131st
  Defense+1.444th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0237th
  Defense+0.1522nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2462nd
  Defense+0.2725th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.5%44th
  Defense52.3%17th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.4%78th
  Defense32.5%48th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8344th
  Defense3.0138th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.7%52nd
  Defense20.5%58th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.2%79th
  Defense19.2%88th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   MSST
2. W
   VAN
3. L
   MIZ
4. W
   SC
5. L
   AUB
6. W
   ARK
7. L
   TA&M
8. L
   ALA
9. W
   FLA
10. W
    MISS

Bars above the line: better than expected for LSU.

Players, 2020

1. Max JohnsonQB126 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 84th of 212 QBs
   0.38WAR0.16 to 0.59
2. Myles BrennanQB130 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 97th of 212 QBs
   0.33WAR0.10 to 0.56
3. TJ FinleyQB128 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 112th of 212 QBs
   0.27WAR0.04 to 0.49
4. John Emery Jr.RB79 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 133rd of 338 RBs
   0.25WAR0.20 to 0.29
5. Tyrion Davis-PriceRB85 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 140th of 338 RBs
   0.24WAR0.17 to 0.31
6. Terrace Marshall Jr.WR57 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 23rd of 409 WRs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.27
7. Kayshon BoutteWR52 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 34th of 409 WRs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.23
8. Chris CurryRB43 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 227th of 338 RBs
   0.13WAR0.11 to 0.16

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8738737th of 127Roster talent: 873, 7th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2822824th of 127Recruiting: 282, 4th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  25%25%122nd of 127Returning production: 25%, 122nd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.0+6.041st of 127SP+ rating: +6.0, 41st of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.05 of the 0.12 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 FLAQ4 7:47 4th & 7 at FLA 39, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. vs MIZQ3 12:53 4th & 4 at MIZ 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at FLAQ3 2:23 4th & 1 at LSU 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs MSSTQ4 7:27 4th & 3 at LSU 32, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at ARKQ2 4:53 4th & 2 at LSU 36, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at VANQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at LSU 34, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at AUBQ2 14:54 4th & 4 at AUB 36, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at TA&MQ4 1:21 4th & 1 at TA&M 16, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

33rd of 127 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

   MSST
2. W

   VAN
3. L

   MIZ
4. W

   SC
5. L

   AUB
6. W

   ARK
7. L

   TA&M
8. L

   ALA
9. W

   FLA
10. W

    MISS

What moved it, 2020

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+0.13
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.48

Game by game

• MSSTL 34-44 vs MSST83% → 3%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3
• VANW 41-7 at VAN92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +13
• MIZL 41-45 vs MIZ21% → 6%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• SCW 52-24 vs SC63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts −1
• AUBL 11-48 at AUB42% → 0%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −1
• ARKW 27-24 at ARK53% → 93%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• TA&ML 7-20 at TA&M12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −18
• ALAL 17-55 vs ALA4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −7
• FLAW 37-34 at FLA7% → 73%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +28, Possession & field position −4
• MISSW 53-48 vs MISS44% → 94%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +40, Possession & field position −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.