Pittsburgh

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+0.2273rd
  Defense+0.2612th
• 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.
  Offense51.9%98th
  Defense44.1%32nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.063rd
  Defense+1.2724th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2083rd
  Defense+0.256th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2663rd
  Defense+0.2724th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense56.3%99th
  Defense50.0%22nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.1%88th
  Defense31.2%62nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2688th
  Defense3.0922nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.9%78th
  Defense18.2%31st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.4%90th
  Defense2.3%69th

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 Pittsburgh 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
   DEL
2. W
   BC
3. W
   FIU
4. L
   IOWA
5. L
   AKR
6. L
   UVA
7. W
   VT
8. L
   GT
9. L
   DUKE
10. L
    UNC
11. W
    SYR
12. W
    MIA
13. L
    HOU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Pittsburgh.

Players, 2014

1. Chad VoytikQB336 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 60th of 199 QBs
   1.51WAR0.98 to 2.05
2. James ConnerRB247 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 7th of 350 RBs
   0.70WAR0.49 to 0.89
3. Tyler BoydWR104 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 28th of 469 WRs
   0.30WAR0.16 to 0.44
4. Chris BlewittPK17 plays · +0.363 pts/play · 48th of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17
5. Chris JamesRB65 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 225th of 350 RBs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
6. Ryan WinslowP41 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 62nd of 94 punters
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.11
7. Dontez FordWR7 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 413th of 469 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Isaac BennettRB12 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 291st of 350 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03

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 Pittsburgh'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 Pittsburgh's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.21 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 IOWAQ4 1:37 4th & 10 at IOWA 29, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.7 pts
2. vs AKRQ3 3:17 4th & 1 at PITT 29, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
3. vs VTQ3 3:13 4th & 6 at VT 38, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. at MIAQ4 7:19 4th & 2 at MIA 43, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
5. vs IOWAQ3 4:54 4th & 2 at IOWA 11, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. vs VTQ2 7:09 4th & 1 at PITT 39, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at UNCQ2 8:28 4th & 2 at UNC 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. vs IOWAQ3 11:35 4th & 7 at IOWA 36, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

120th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Pittsburgh's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 11 of 13 games; 2 have no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   DEL
2. W

   BC
3. W

   FIU
4. L

   IOWA
5. L

   AKR
6. L

   UVA
7. W

   VT
8. L

   GT
9. L

   DUKE
10. L

    UNC
11. W

    SYR
12. W

    MIA
13. L

    HOU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Pittsburgh'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−1.33
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.01

Game by game

• BCW 30-20 at BC51% → 96%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• IOWAL 20-24 vs IOWA60% → 16%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −42, Clock −4
• AKRL 10-21 vs AKR88% → 3%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −85: Scoreboard −61, Clock −4
• UVAL 19-24 at UVA36% → 6%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −4
• VTW 21-16 vs VT42% → 95%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +3
• GTL 28-56 vs GT63% → 0%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −60, Clock −2
• DUKEL 48-51 vs DUKE56% → 12%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −19
• UNCL 35-40 at UNC45% → 4%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −3
• SYRW 30-7 vs SYR69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts −1
• MIAW 35-23 at MIA24% → 98%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +60, Clock +3
• HOUL 34-35 vs HOU55% → 7%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Pittsburgh's side.

Closest call

PITT 28-27 CIN (2024) - Pittsburgh dropped to a 4.3% win probability before pulling it out.