Penn State

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+0.2080th
  Defense+0.0474th
• 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.
  Offense44.1%53rd
  Defense37.8%87th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2981st
  Defense+1.2529th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1887th
  Defense−0.0894th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2256th
  Defense+0.1653rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.5%74th
  Defense41.1%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.8%19th
  Defense32.1%62nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9857th
  Defense2.4292nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.6%96th
  Defense24.9%91st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.1%44th
  Defense22.0%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, 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 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
   IDHO
2. W
   BUF
3. W
   PITT
4. W
   MD
5. W
   PUR
6. W
   IOWA
7. W
   MICH
8. W
   MSU
9. L
   MINN
10. W
    IU
11. L
    OSU
12. W
    RUTG
13. W
    MEM

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

Players, 2019

1. Sean CliffordQB304 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 47th of 228 QBs
   1.41WAR0.80 to 1.92
2. Journey BrownRB97 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 121st of 349 RBs
   0.34WAR0.27 to 0.42
3. KJ HamlerWR66 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 52nd of 439 WRs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.31
4. Noah CainRB54 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 189th of 349 RBs
   0.21WAR0.18 to 0.24
5. Ricky SladeRB41 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 254th of 349 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
6. Blake GillikinP39 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 34th of 100 punters
   0.08WAR0.00 to 0.15
7. Pat FreiermuthTE38 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 16th of 207 TEs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14
8. Jahan DotsonWR26 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 300th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  85785710th of 130Roster talent: 857, 10th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25925913th of 130Recruiting: 259, 13th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  40%40%105th of 130Returning production: 40%, 105th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +24.3+24.36th of 130SP+ rating: +24.3, 6th 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 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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.10 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 IOWAQ4 10:13 4th & 5 at IOWA 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
2. vs PITTQ4 8:43 4th & 1 at PSU 35, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at MINNQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at MINN 3, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs PITTQ2 0:01 4th & 16 at PITT 39, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs PITTQ4 1:56 4th & 4 at PSU 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at MINNQ4 10:38 4th & 5 at MINN 5, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at MSUQ4 12:00 4th & 7 at MSU 35, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at OSUQ2 14:01 4th & 7 at OSU 36, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

17th 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

   IDHO
2. W

   BUF
3. W

   PITT
4. W

   MD
5. W

   PUR
6. W

   IOWA
7. W

   MICH
8. W

   MSU
9. L

   MINN
10. W

    IU
11. L

    OSU
12. W

    RUTG
13. W

    MEM

What moved it, 2019

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+2.15
• Clock+0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.69

Game by game

• IDHOW 79-7 vs IDHO74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position −1
• BUFW 45-13 vs BUF98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• PITTW 17-10 vs PITT88% → 86%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +16, Possession & field position −2
• MDW 59-0 at MD65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +40
• PURW 35-7 vs PUR96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• IOWAW 17-12 at IOWA58% → 96%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• MICHW 28-21 vs MICH65% → 96%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +3
• MSUW 28-7 at MSU61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• MINNL 26-31 at MINN62% → 4%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −4
• IUW 34-27 vs IU81% → 93%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +19, Possession & field position +2
• OSUL 17-28 at OSU10% → 3%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• RUTGW 27-6 vs RUTG99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• MEMW 53-39 vs MEM67% → 99%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +32, 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.