Penn State

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+0.1040th
  Defense0.0084th
• 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.
  Offense44.6%64th
  Defense38.3%86th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1011th
  Defense+1.1866th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1884th
  Defense+0.0653rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0215th
  Defense−0.0694th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.3%78th
  Defense43.1%83rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.2%21st
  Defense29.5%81st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3591st
  Defense2.7275th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.9%77th
  Defense23.8%88th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.5%60th
  Defense20.2%93rd

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 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
   APP
2. W
   PITT
3. W
   KENT
4. W
   ILL
5. L
   OSU
6. L
   MSU
7. W
   IU
8. W
   IOWA
9. L
   MICH
10. W
    WIS
11. W
    RUTG
12. W
    MD
13. L
    UK

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

Players, 2018

1. Trace McSorleyQB460 plays · +0.266 pts/play · 8th of 225 QBs
   2.29WAR1.66 to 2.99
2. Miles SandersRB205 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 23rd of 351 RBs
   0.69WAR0.55 to 0.84
3. KJ HamlerWR67 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 81st of 434 WRs
   0.16WAR0.08 to 0.24
4. Jake PinegarPK24 plays · +0.334 pts/play · 19th of 112 kickers
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
5. Blake GillikinP57 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 9th of 91 punters
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.23
6. DeAndre ThompkinsWR41 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 251st of 434 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12
7. Juwan JohnsonWR34 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 271st of 434 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.11
8. Pat FreiermuthTE33 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 26th of 204 TEs
   0.05WAR0.00 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 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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  83483412th of 130Roster talent: 834, 12th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25425412th of 130Recruiting: 254, 12th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  59%59%78th of 129Returning production: 59%, 78th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.0+19.015th of 130SP+ rating: +19.0, 15th 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 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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.18 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 MSUQ4 9:21 4th & 2 at MSU 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.3 pts
2. vs OSUQ4 1:16 4th & 5 at OSU 43, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.2 pts
3. vs WISQ2 1:03 4th & 15 at WIS 32, up 9Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
4. vs UKQ2 5:21 4th & 1 at PSU 42, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. at MICHQ3 11:37 4th & 1 at PSU 26, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at IUQ4 6:18 4th & 10 at IU 34, up 12Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at PITTQ2 12:28 4th & 10 at PITT 31, up 1Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs MSUQ3 4:06 4th & 3 at PSU 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

89th 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

   APP
2. W

   PITT
3. W

   KENT
4. W

   ILL
5. L

   OSU
6. L

   MSU
7. W

   IU
8. W

   IOWA
9. L

   MICH
10. W

    WIS
11. W

    RUTG
12. W

    MD
13. L

    UK

What moved it, 2018

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−0.03
• Timeouts−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.90

Game by game

• APPW 45-38 vs APP96% → 80%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −15: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts −9
• PITTW 51-6 at PITT73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +33
• KENTW 63-10 vs KENT98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• ILLW 63-24 at ILL96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• OSUL 26-27 vs OSU39% → 8%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• MSUL 17-21 vs MSU81% → 16%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3
• IUW 33-28 at IU86% → 91%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +24, Clock +2
• IOWAW 30-24 vs IOWA64% → 89%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +1
• MICHL 7-42 at MICH20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −23
• WISW 22-10 vs WIS70% → 98%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +1
• RUTGW 20-7 at RUTG96% → 98%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +11, Clock +1
• MDW 38-3 vs MD82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +21
• UKL 24-27 vs UK73% → 13%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −43, Clock −4

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.