Penn State

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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−0.014th
  Defense−0.0499th
• 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.
  Offense38.4%13th
  Defense36.5%93rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1016th
  Defense+0.9699th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.058th
  Defense−0.0491st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.039th
  Defense−0.0499th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.4%9th
  Defense44.9%66th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.5%38th
  Defense21.5%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.203rd
  Defense2.3294th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense26.7%4th
  Defense27.4%98th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.9%56th
  Defense3.4%98th

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, 2014

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 Penn State 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
   UCF
2. W
   AKR
3. W
   RUTG
4. W
   MASS
5. L
   NU
6. L
   MICH
7. L
   OSU
8. L
   MD
9. W
   IU
10. W
    TEM
11. L
    ILL
12. L
    MSU
13. W
    BC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Penn State.

Players, 2014

1. Christian HackenbergQB513 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 73rd of 199 QBs
   1.37WAR0.61 to 2.15
2. DaeSean HamiltonWR126 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 22nd of 469 WRs
   0.32WAR0.14 to 0.52
3. Akeel LynchRB141 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 74th of 350 RBs
   0.29WAR0.17 to 0.39
4. Geno LewisWR77 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 41st of 469 WRs
   0.26WAR0.13 to 0.39
5. Bill BeltonRB141 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 106th of 350 RBs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.33
6. Sam FickenPK24 plays · +0.457 pts/play · 8th of 114 kickers
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.27
7. Chris GodwinWR36 plays · +0.250 pts/play · 100th of 469 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.24
8. Brent WilkersonTE1 plays · −0.022 pts/play · 31st of 212 TEs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.00

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 Penn State'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Penn State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.33 of the 0.40 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 ILLQ4 1:48 4th & 1 at PSU 41, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−9.9 pts
2. at IUQ4 2:55 4th & 1 at PSU 33, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.7 pts
3. at RUTGQ4 5:33 4th & 14 at RUTG 36, down 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−4.0 pts
4. vs BCQ4 10:38 4th & 6 at BC 37, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
5. vs TEMQ4 14:49 4th & 1 at PSU 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
6. vs MDQ4 2:16 4th & 3 at PSU 20, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
7. at UCFQ2 0:14 4th & 25 at UCF 39, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
8. at RUTGQ2 5:05 4th & 2 at RUTG 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

92nd of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Penn State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   UCF
2. W

   AKR
3. W

   RUTG
4. W

   MASS
5. L

   NU
6. L

   MICH
7. L

   OSU
8. L

   MD
9. W

   IU
10. W

    TEM
11. L

    ILL
12. L

    MSU
13. W

    BC

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Penn State'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−0.17
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.20
• Timeouts−0.40
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.40

Game by game

• UCFW 26-24 at UCF49% → 96%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• AKRW 21-3 vs AKR89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15
• RUTGW 13-10 at RUTG65% → 94%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2
• MASSW 48-7 vs MASS97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• NUL 6-29 vs NU74% → 1%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −64, Clock −3
• MICHL 13-18 at MICH54% → 3%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −4
• OSUL 24-31 vs OSU19% → 20%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −14
• MDL 19-20 vs MD57% → 6%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• IUW 13-7 at IU64% → 91%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +38, Clock +3
• TEMW 30-13 vs TEM78% → 99%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +26
• ILLL 14-16 at ILL68% → 13%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −3
• MSUL 10-34 vs MSU20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• BCW 31-30 vs BC50% → 83%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts −23

Points of win probability, from Penn State's side.

Closest call

GAST 0-56 PSU (2017) - Penn State dropped to a 1.9% win probability before pulling it out.