LSU

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1339th
  Defense+0.1352nd
• 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.
  Offense40.6%30th
  Defense42.9%43rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3165th
  Defense+1.2942nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0111th
  Defense+0.0474th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2558th
  Defense+0.2246th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.5%24th
  Defense47.0%53rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.6%47th
  Defense35.0%16th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8422nd
  Defense2.8670th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.6%40th
  Defense22.8%95th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.2%34th
  Defense17.3%62nd

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, 2021

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
   UCLA
2. W
   MCN
3. W
   CMU
4. W
   MSST
5. L
   AUB
6. L
   UK
7. W
   FLA
8. L
   MISS
9. L
   ALA
10. L
    ARK
11. W
    ULM
12. W
    TA&M
13. L
    KSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for LSU.

Players, 2021

1. Max JohnsonQB339 plays · +0.261 pts/play · 52nd of 219 QBs
   1.66WAR1.12 to 2.23
2. Tyrion Davis-PriceRB182 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 41st of 387 RBs
   0.61WAR0.42 to 0.80
3. Jaray JenkinsWR40 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 104th of 474 WRs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.21
4. Kayshon BoutteWR36 plays · +0.228 pts/play · 126th of 474 WRs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.20
5. Jack BechWR38 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 169th of 474 WRs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.17
6. Corey KinerRB47 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 271st of 387 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
7. Trey PalmerWR34 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 264th of 474 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.13
8. Cade YorkPK14 plays · +0.327 pts/play · 46th of 128 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9049045th of 130Roster talent: 904, 5th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2832835th of 130Recruiting: 283, 5th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  60%60%92nd of 128Returning production: 60%, 92nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.1+4.165th of 130SP+ rating: +4.1, 65th 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, 2021

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.14 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 UCLAQ3 1:07 4th & 2 at UCLA 15, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. at MSSTQ3 4:32 4th & 2 at MSST 44, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at MSSTQ2 0:41 4th & 2 at MSST 41, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at UKQ2 6:57 4th & 1 at LSU 44, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. at MISSQ3 5:08 4th & 1 at LSU 17, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs ARKQ3 8:23 4th & 5 at ARK 37, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs AUBQ2 3:19 4th & 5 at AUB 41, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs ULMQ2 1:39 4th & 1 at LSU 34, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

89th 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. L

   UCLA
2. W

   MCN
3. W

   CMU
4. W

   MSST
5. L

   AUB
6. L

   UK
7. W

   FLA
8. L

   MISS
9. L

   ALA
10. L

    ARK
11. W

    ULM
12. W

    TA&M
13. L

    KSU

What moved it, 2021

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−1.17
• Possession & field position+0.12
• Clock+0.23
• Timeouts−0.23
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.54

Game by game

• UCLAL 27-38 at UCLA57% → 3%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• MCNW 34-7 vs MCN99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• CMUW 49-21 vs CMU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• MSSTW 28-25 at MSST58% → 94%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• AUBL 19-24 vs AUB61% → 7%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• UKL 21-42 at UK52% → 0%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −1
• FLAW 49-42 vs FLA24% → 97%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +3
• MISSL 17-31 at MISS28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29
• ALAL 14-20 at ALA5% → 18%Before kickoff −45 · On the field +13: Scoreboard −10, Possession & field position +2
• ARKL 13-16 vs ARK48% → 28%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −39, Clock +23
• ULMW 27-14 vs ULM97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +7
• TA&MW 27-24 vs TA&M34% → 85%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +21, Possession & field position +4
• KSUL 20-42 at KSU29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, 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.