Minnesota

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0118th
  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.
  Offense41.9%39th
  Defense42.3%46th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.045th
  Defense+1.1664th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0863rd
  Defense+0.0457th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.106th
  Defense+0.1450th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.1%57th
  Defense47.9%40th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.9%14th
  Defense30.6%71st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9050th
  Defense3.0233rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.9%71st
  Defense16.9%26th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.0%48th
  Defense17.6%66th

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, 2017

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
   BUF
2. W
   ORST
3. W
   MTSU
4. L
   MD
5. L
   PUR
6. L
   MSU
7. W
   ILL
8. L
   IOWA
9. L
   MICH
10. W
    NEB
11. L
    NU
12. L
    WIS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Minnesota.

Players, 2017

1. Rodney SmithRB211 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 35th of 352 RBs
   0.48WAR0.32 to 0.64
2. Conor RhodaQB120 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 139th of 226 QBs
   0.37WAR0.21 to 0.56
3. Demry CroftQB165 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 170th of 226 QBs
   0.26WAR−0.09 to 0.58
4. Shannon BrooksRB80 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 134th of 352 RBs
   0.24WAR0.17 to 0.30
5. Kobe McCraryRB68 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 176th of 352 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.24
6. Tyler JohnsonWR59 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 61st of 426 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
7. Emmit CarpenterPK16 plays · +0.480 pts/play · 23rd of 110 kickers
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20
8. Ryan SantosoP56 plays · +0.036 pts/play · 54th of 95 punters
   0.04WAR−0.06 to 0.13

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  54454462nd of 130Roster talent: 544, 62nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17317356th of 130Recruiting: 173, 56th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  35%35%106th of 128Returning production: 35%, 106th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.4+0.472nd of 128SP+ rating: +0.4, 72nd of 128 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, 2017

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.18 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 PURQ4 0:10 4th & 5 at PUR 27, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.7 pts
2. vs ILLQ3 8:33 4th & 2 at ILL 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. vs MDQ3 10:26 4th & 3 at MD 24, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs BUFQ3 6:58 4th & 2 at BUF 43, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs BUFQ4 2:05 4th & 1 at BUF 25, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs WISQ2 13:35 4th & 1 at MINN 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at IOWAQ2 12:05 4th & 3 at MINN 49, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs MSUQ4 3:01 4th & 4 at MINN 33, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

91st of 130 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

   BUF
2. W

   ORST
3. W

   MTSU
4. L

   MD
5. L

   PUR
6. L

   MSU
7. W

   ILL
8. L

   IOWA
9. L

   MICH
10. W

    NEB
11. L

    NU
12. L

    WIS

What moved it, 2017

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−0.66
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.09

Game by game

• BUFW 17-7 vs BUF93% → 96%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• ORSTW 48-14 at ORST42% → 100%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• MTSUW 34-3 vs MTSU81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +22
• MDL 24-31 vs MD80% → 5%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• PURL 17-31 at PUR39% → 2%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• MSUL 27-30 vs MSU39% → 9%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• ILLW 24-17 vs ILL82% → 93%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +19, Possession & field position +1
• IOWAL 10-17 at IOWA32% → 3%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• MICHL 10-33 at MICH11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16
• NEBW 54-21 vs NEB54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +1
• NUL 0-39 at NU28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −29
• WISL 0-31 vs WIS11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −16

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.