Minnesota

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.2490th
  Defense+0.0182nd
• 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.
  Offense48.1%87th
  Defense40.5%71st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2362nd
  Defense+1.1573rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0752nd
  Defense+0.0263rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.5297th
  Defense+0.0290th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.0%79th
  Defense46.6%60th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.4%94th
  Defense27.7%91st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0061st
  Defense2.8754th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.8%55th
  Defense16.8%20th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.0%55th
  Defense21.7%72nd

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, 2019

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
   SDST
2. W
   FRES
3. W
   GASO
4. W
   PUR
5. W
   ILL
6. W
   NEB
7. W
   RUTG
8. W
   MD
9. W
   PSU
10. L
    IOWA
11. W
    NU
12. L
    WIS
13. W
    AUB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Minnesota.

Players, 2019

1. Tanner MorganQB292 plays · +0.270 pts/play · 40th of 228 QBs
   1.48WAR0.98 to 1.97
2. Rodney SmithRB178 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 45th of 349 RBs
   0.54WAR0.42 to 0.67
3. Mohamed IbrahimRB82 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 112th of 349 RBs
   0.37WAR0.29 to 0.44
4. Tyler JohnsonWR88 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 19th of 439 WRs
   0.30WAR0.19 to 0.40
5. Rashod BatemanWR71 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 68th of 439 WRs
   0.20WAR0.10 to 0.30
6. Shannon BrooksRB49 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 221st of 349 RBs
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.21
7. Chris Autman-BellWR38 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 222nd of 439 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
8. Jacob HerbersP29 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 36th of 100 punters
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62162146th of 130Roster talent: 621, 46th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18918946th of 130Recruiting: 189, 46th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  100%100%2nd of 130Returning production: 100%, 2nd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.4+19.413th of 130SP+ rating: +19.4, 13th 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, 2019

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.07 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 SDSTQ3 0:57 4th & 2 at SDST 49, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. at IOWAQ2 2:24 4th & 18 at IOWA 33, down 17Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
3. vs NEBQ2 1:54 4th & 8 at NEB 35, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs GASOQ4 6:05 4th & 2 at GASO 18, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs GASOQ4 3:47 4th & 8 at MINN 27, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs WISQ2 6:27 4th & 5 at midfield, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs WISQ1 3:30 4th & 7 at WIS 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at PURQ1 6:39 4th & 3 at MINN 9, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

10th 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

   SDST
2. W

   FRES
3. W

   GASO
4. W

   PUR
5. W

   ILL
6. W

   NEB
7. W

   RUTG
8. W

   MD
9. W

   PSU
10. L

    IOWA
11. W

    NU
12. L

    WIS
13. W

    AUB

What moved it, 2019

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+1.25
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.16
• Timeouts+0.23
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.70

Game by game

• SDSTW 28-21 vs SDST87% → 96%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position −1
• FRESW 38-35 at FRES66% → 59%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −7: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +20
• GASOW 35-32 vs GASO90% → 2%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −88: Scoreboard −63, Clock −3
• PURW 38-31 at PUR52% → 95%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• ILLW 40-17 vs ILL86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +18
• NEBW 34-7 vs NEB71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31
• RUTGW 42-7 at RUTG97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• MDW 52-10 vs MD85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18
• PSUW 31-26 vs PSU38% → 96%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +4
• IOWAL 19-23 at IOWA45% → 4%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −3
• NUW 38-22 at NU89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +19, Clock +1
• WISL 17-38 vs WIS45% → 0%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• AUBW 31-24 at AUB35% → 95%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +54, 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.