Minnesota

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0728th
  Defense0.0086th
• 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.
  Offense43.6%50th
  Defense37.4%87th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.045th
  Defense+1.2231st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0849th
  Defense−0.0996th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0728th
  Defense+0.0972nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.9%67th
  Defense41.5%91st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.4%24th
  Defense30.7%78th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8737th
  Defense2.4590th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.2%35th
  Defense25.4%94th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.7%70th
  Defense18.9%80th

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, 2016

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. W
   ORST
2. W
   INST
3. W
   CSU
4. L
   PSU
5. L
   IOWA
6. W
   MD
7. W
   RUTG
8. W
   ILL
9. W
   PUR
10. L
    NEB
11. W
    NU
12. L
    WIS
13. W
    WSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Minnesota.

Players, 2016

1. Mitch LeidnerQB371 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 57th of 218 QBs
   1.29WAR0.68 to 1.87
2. Rodney SmithRB242 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 25th of 347 RBs
   0.67WAR0.46 to 0.89
3. Shannon BrooksRB146 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 81st of 347 RBs
   0.40WAR0.23 to 0.55
4. Drew WolitarskyWR89 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 30th of 417 WRs
   0.29WAR0.18 to 0.42
5. Emmit CarpenterPK19 plays · +0.459 pts/play · 19th of 116 kickers
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.21
6. Ryan SantosoP73 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 39th of 82 punters
   0.14WAR0.00 to 0.32
7. Rashad StillWR31 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 252nd of 417 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
8. Eric CarterWR19 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 351st of 417 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  53553559th of 128Roster talent: 535, 59th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17417454th of 128Recruiting: 174, 54th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  99%99%6th of 128Returning production: 99%, 6th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.6+12.624th of 128SP+ rating: +12.6, 24th 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, 2016

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 12 clear-cut ones account for 0.25 of the 0.31 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 WISQ4 8:01 4th & 3 at MINN 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. vs IOWAQ3 4:04 4th & 3 at IOWA 41, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
3. at NEBQ4 7:11 4th & 1 at MINN 25, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
4. at WSUQ4 4:40 4th & 4 at WSU 46, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
5. at NEBQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at NEB 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
6. at ILLQ4 13:46 4th & 3 at ILL 37, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
7. vs NUQ2 7:40 4th & 1 at NU 1, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
8. at PSUQ3 7:28 4th & 3 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

33rd 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. W

   ORST
2. W

   INST
3. W

   CSU
4. L

   PSU
5. L

   IOWA
6. W

   MD
7. W

   RUTG
8. W

   ILL
9. W

   PUR
10. L

    NEB
11. W

    NU
12. L

    WIS
13. W

    WSU

What moved it, 2016

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+1.09
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.35

Game by game

• ORSTW 30-23 vs ORST72% → 97%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• INSTW 58-28 vs INST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• CSUW 31-24 vs CSU88% → 97%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• PSUL 26-29 at PSU41% → 15%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts +22
• IOWAL 7-14 vs IOWA49% → 3%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −51, Clock −2
• MDW 31-10 at MD44% → 100%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• RUTGW 34-32 vs RUTG92% → 86%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −6: Scoreboard +11, Possession & field position +1
• ILLW 40-17 at ILL78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• PURW 44-31 vs PUR88% → 99%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• NEBL 17-24 at NEB28% → 4%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• NUW 29-12 vs NU60% → 99%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +1
• WISL 17-31 at WIS21% → 1%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• WSUW 17-12 at WSU37% → 97%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3

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.