Minnesota

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0630th
  Defense+0.0854th
• 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.
  Offense41.1%31st
  Defense43.3%44th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1218th
  Defense+1.0691st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.069th
  Defense+0.0839th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1856th
  Defense+0.0962nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.5%18th
  Defense47.3%50th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.5%56th
  Defense34.4%37th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8651st
  Defense3.1017th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.2%89th
  Defense16.3%18th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.6%19th
  Defense2.3%67th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 Minnesota 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
   TCU
2. W
   CSU
3. W
   KENT
4. W
   OHIO
5. L
   NU
6. W
   PUR
7. L
   NEB
8. L
   MICH
9. L
   OSU
10. L
    IOWA
11. W
    ILL
12. L
    WIS
13. W
    CMU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Minnesota.

Players, 2015

1. Mitch LeidnerQB456 plays · +0.260 pts/play · 20th of 205 QBs
   2.22WAR1.52 to 3.03
2. Rodney SmithRB166 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 63rd of 333 RBs
   0.31WAR0.20 to 0.43
3. Shannon BrooksRB134 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 76th of 333 RBs
   0.29WAR0.18 to 0.39
4. KJ MayeWR116 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 96th of 411 WRs
   0.18WAR0.04 to 0.34
5. Ryan SantosoP19 plays · +0.455 pts/play · 15th of 92 punters
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.22
6. Drew WolitarskyWR56 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 119th of 411 WRs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.24
7. Peter MortellP65 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 23rd of 92 punters
   0.13WAR0.02 to 0.25
8. Miles ThomasFB8 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 285th of 333 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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 Minnesota'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  51651664th of 128Roster talent: 516, 64th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17017059th of 128Recruiting: 170, 59th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%77th of 127Returning production: 53%, 77th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.1+8.146th of 128SP+ rating: +8.1, 46th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Minnesota's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.21 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 OHIOQ3 4:05 4th & 1 at OHIO 44, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. at CSUQ4 5:40 4th & 3 at MINN 16, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. vs CMUQ3 1:44 4th & 1 at MINN 42, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. vs MICHQ3 1:41 4th & 2 at MINN 47, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
5. at CSUQ3 9:28 4th & 1 at MINN 14, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
6. vs MICHQ4 1:17 4th & 5 at MICH 39, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
7. vs NEBQ1 1:18 4th & 1 at MINN 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs WISQ4 4:32 4th & 12 at MINN 46, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

66th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Minnesota's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   TCU
2. W

   CSU
3. W

   KENT
4. W

   OHIO
5. L

   NU
6. W

   PUR
7. L

   NEB
8. L

   MICH
9. L

   OSU
10. L

    IOWA
11. W

    ILL
12. L

    WIS
13. W

    CMU

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Minnesota'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−0.35
• Possession & field position+0.08
• Clock−0.19
• Timeouts+0.18
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.39

Game by game

• TCUL 17-23 vs TCU13% → 9%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −23, Clock −2
• CSUW 23-20 at CSU62% → 88%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +17
• KENTW 10-7 vs KENT92% → 95%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• OHIOW 27-24 vs OHIO79% → 86%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• NUL 0-27 at NU33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −33, Possession & field position −1
• PURW 41-13 at PUR57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +46, Clock +2
• NEBL 25-48 vs NEB44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• MICHL 26-29 vs MICH24% → 37%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +13: Scoreboard −26, Possession & field position +6
• OSUL 14-28 at OSU5% → 1%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −9
• IOWAL 35-40 at IOWA25% → 4%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −1
• ILLW 32-23 vs ILL60% → 96%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• WISL 21-31 vs WIS41% → 4%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• CMUW 21-14 vs CMU66% → 91%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +25, Possession & field position +2

Points of win probability, from Minnesota's side.

Closest call

GASO 32-35 MINN (2019) - Minnesota dropped to a 1.5% win probability before pulling it out.