Minnesota

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1974th
  Defense+0.306th
• 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.
  Offense45.2%70th
  Defense50.8%3rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2859th
  Defense+1.2071st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1367th
  Defense+0.323rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2871st
  Defense+0.2725th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.7%34th
  Defense58.2%2nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense43.9%98th
  Defense30.1%69th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9763rd
  Defense3.2517th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.6%74th
  Defense13.7%6th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.5%62nd
  Defense11.8%5th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   MICH
2. L
   MD
3. W
   ILL
4. L
   IOWA
5. W
   PUR
6. W
   NEB
7. L
   WIS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Minnesota.

Players, 2020

1. Mohamed IbrahimRB182 plays · +0.238 pts/play · 3rd of 338 RBs
   0.81WAR0.64 to 0.95
2. Tanner MorganQB172 plays · +0.233 pts/play · 44th of 212 QBs
   0.75WAR0.45 to 1.04
3. Rashod BatemanWR42 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 38th of 409 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.24
4. Chris Autman-BellWR32 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 147th of 409 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
5. Seth GreenTE7 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 92nd of 191 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
6. Brevyn Spann-FordTE4 plays · +0.030 pts/play · 137th of 191 TEs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59559560th of 127Roster talent: 595, 60th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19319345th of 127Recruiting: 193, 45th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%49th of 127Returning production: 73%, 49th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.7+4.748th of 127SP+ rating: +4.7, 48th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.06 of the 0.08 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 MDQ4 1:12 4th & 2 at MINN 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
2. at NEBQ3 14:55 4th & 2 at MINN 47, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. at WISQ4 11:30 4th & 4 at WIS 13, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
4. vs IOWAQ2 13:56 4th & 7 at IOWA 41, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs MICHQ2 3:13 4th & 4 at MINN 31, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at NEBQ3 7:22 4th & 4 at MINN 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at NEBQ1 0:14 4th & 4 at NEB 13, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at NEBQ2 11:40 4th & 8 at NEB 27, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

77th of 127 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

   MICH
2. L

   MD
3. W

   ILL
4. L

   IOWA
5. W

   PUR
6. W

   NEB
7. L

   WIS

What moved it, 2020

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+0.19
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.26
• Timeouts+0.42
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.09

Game by game

• MICHL 24-49 vs MICH43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• MDL 44-45 at MD89% → 34%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −55: Timeouts +17, Clock −15
• ILLW 41-14 at ILL70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• IOWAL 7-35 vs IOWA43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −46
• PURW 34-31 vs PUR41% → 95%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +3
• NEBW 24-17 at NEB25% → 96%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• WISL 17-20 at WIS23% → 38%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +14: Timeouts +21, Clock −13

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.