Minnesota

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0938th
  Defense+0.1342nd
• 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.
  Offense44.3%60th
  Defense42.9%45th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1422nd
  Defense+1.2723rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0850th
  Defense+0.1523rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1133rd
  Defense+0.1457th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.6%67th
  Defense46.8%52nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.7%44th
  Defense33.9%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3691st
  Defense2.8062nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.7%97th
  Defense23.8%89th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.5%45th
  Defense15.4%34th

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, 2018

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
   NMSU
2. W
   FRES
3. W
   M-OH
4. L
   MD
5. L
   IOWA
6. L
   OSU
7. L
   NEB
8. W
   IU
9. L
   ILL
10. W
    PUR
11. L
    NU
12. W
    WIS
13. W
    GT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Minnesota.

Players, 2018

1. Mohamed IbrahimRB174 plays · +0.233 pts/play · 14th of 351 RBs
   0.76WAR0.64 to 0.90
2. Tanner MorganQB168 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 119th of 225 QBs
   0.64WAR0.36 to 0.88
3. Zack AnnexstadQB161 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 156th of 225 QBs
   0.38WAR0.12 to 0.64
4. Tyler JohnsonWR98 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 8th of 434 WRs
   0.32WAR0.17 to 0.46
5. Bryce WilliamsRB73 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 198th of 351 RBs
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.27
6. Emmit CarpenterPK19 plays · +0.401 pts/play · 24th of 112 kickers
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
7. Seth GreenTE65 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 8th of 204 TEs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.21
8. Jacob HerbersP43 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 22nd of 91 punters
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  58958948th of 130Roster talent: 589, 48th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18218250th of 130Recruiting: 182, 50th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%89th of 129Returning production: 52%, 89th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.3+6.345th of 130SP+ rating: +6.3, 45th 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, 2018

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.13 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 FRESQ3 12:55 4th & 1 at MINN 25, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs NUQ3 5:45 4th & 2 at NU 20, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at WISQ3 1:02 4th & 3 at WIS 24, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at ILLQ2 1:32 4th & 13 at ILL 34, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
5. vs FRESQ4 9:43 4th & 5 at FRES 32, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at ILLQ2 7:48 4th & 1 at MINN 34, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at WISQ3 7:47 4th & 4 at WIS 5, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs IUQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at MINN 20, up 22Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

27th 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

   NMSU
2. W

   FRES
3. W

   M-OH
4. L

   MD
5. L

   IOWA
6. L

   OSU
7. L

   NEB
8. W

   IU
9. L

   ILL
10. W

    PUR
11. L

    NU
12. W

    WIS
13. W

    GT

What moved it, 2018

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+0.72
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.46

Game by game

• NMSUW 48-10 vs NMSU93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• FRESW 21-14 vs FRES47% → 97%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +44, Possession & field position −1
• M-OHW 26-3 vs M-OH83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +21
• MDL 13-42 at MD43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −42
• IOWAL 31-48 vs IOWA30% → 2%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• OSUL 14-30 at OSU3% → 2%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −8
• NEBL 28-53 at NEB36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −1
• IUW 38-31 vs IU46% → 97%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +38, Possession & field position +2
• ILLL 31-55 at ILL71% → 0%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −57, Timeouts −1
• PURW 41-10 vs PUR23% → 100%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +62, Possession & field position −1
• NUL 14-24 vs NU59% → 3%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• WISW 37-15 at WIS18% → 100%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +82: Scoreboard +67, Clock +4
• GTW 34-10 at GT31% → 99%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +63, Clock +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.