Penn State

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+0.2290th
  Defense−0.0388th
• 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.
  Offense46.9%88th
  Defense35.8%93rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3594th
  Defense+1.1856th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1581st
  Defense−0.1196th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3087th
  Defense+0.0478th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.2%67th
  Defense41.3%90th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense42.0%97th
  Defense26.5%95th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.517th
  Defense2.6076th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.9%12th
  Defense23.0%77th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%59th
  Defense18.5%76th

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 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
   AKR
2. W
   PITT
3. W
   GAST
4. W
   IOWA
5. W
   IU
6. W
   NU
7. W
   MICH
8. L
   OSU
9. L
   MSU
10. W
    RUTG
11. W
    NEB
12. W
    MD
13. W
    WASH

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

Players, 2017

1. Trace McSorleyQB425 plays · +0.286 pts/play · 9th of 226 QBs
   2.27WAR1.57 to 2.93
2. Saquon BarkleyRB202 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 29th of 352 RBs
   0.50WAR0.33 to 0.66
3. DaeSean HamiltonWR53 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 63rd of 426 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
4. Juwan JohnsonWR59 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 107th of 426 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.19
5. Blake GillikinP36 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 11th of 95 punters
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.21
6. DeAndre ThompkinsWR27 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 286th of 426 WRs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.10
7. Saeed BlacknallWR22 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 329th of 426 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.08
8. Tyler DavisPK8 plays · +0.322 pts/play · 96th of 110 kickers
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07

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

What it had and what it did, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  77977919th of 130Roster talent: 779, 19th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23723720th of 130Recruiting: 237, 20th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%14th of 128Returning production: 85%, 14th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +26.0+26.06th of 128SP+ rating: +26.0, 6th 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 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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.12 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 OSUQ4 1:22 4th & 15 at PSU 36, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.1 pts
2. at IOWAQ3 10:42 4th & 3 at IOWA 3, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at MSUQ3 2:11 4th & 3 at MSU 8, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at MSUQ3 12:35 4th & 10 at MSU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
5. vs PITTQ4 6:04 4th & 1 at PITT 46, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at IOWAQ1 1:01 4th & 1 at IOWA 1, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs IUQ3 11:39 4th & 3 at IU 3, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs IUQ2 12:23 4th & 1 at PSU 37, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

58th of 130 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

   AKR
2. W

   PITT
3. W

   GAST
4. W

   IOWA
5. W

   IU
6. W

   NU
7. W

   MICH
8. L

   OSU
9. L

   MSU
10. W

    RUTG
11. W

    NEB
12. W

    MD
13. W

    WASH

What moved it, 2017

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+0.42
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.28

Game by game

• AKRW 52-0 vs AKR97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• PITTW 33-14 vs PITT94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• GASTW 56-0 vs GAST99% → 2%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −96: Scoreboard −48, Clock −1
• IOWAW 21-19 at IOWA86% → 93%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +26, Clock +2
• IUW 45-14 vs IU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• NUW 31-7 at NU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• MICHW 42-13 vs MICH70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +30
• OSUL 38-39 at OSU30% → 4%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• MSUL 24-27 at MSU81% → 3%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −3
• RUTGW 35-6 vs RUTG98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• NEBW 56-44 vs NEB97% → 97%Before kickoff +47 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +9
• MDW 66-3 at MD94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• WASHW 35-28 vs WASH59% → 97%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2

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.