Pittsburgh

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+0.0946th
  Defense+0.1238th
• 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.
  Offense44.9%69th
  Defense42.1%49th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1222nd
  Defense+1.2437th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0443rd
  Defense+0.0651st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1650th
  Defense+0.1936th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.4%72nd
  Defense44.6%71st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.9%63rd
  Defense37.1%16th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7938th
  Defense3.2212th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.0%34th
  Defense17.5%31st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.2%24th
  Defense15.5%43rd

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 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
   YSU
2. L
   PSU
3. L
   OKST
4. L
   GT
5. W
   RICE
6. L
   SYR
7. L
   NCSU
8. W
   DUKE
9. W
   UVA
10. L
    UNC
11. L
    VT
12. W
    MIA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Pittsburgh.

Players, 2017

1. Ben DinucciQB159 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 117th of 226 QBs
   0.53WAR0.26 to 0.78
2. Darrin HallRB120 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 80th of 352 RBs
   0.34WAR0.24 to 0.44
3. Kenny PickettQB91 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 153rd of 226 QBs
   0.31WAR0.16 to 0.46
4. Jester WeahWR59 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 45th of 426 WRs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.26
5. Max BrowneQB78 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 179th of 226 QBs
   0.18WAR0.06 to 0.32
6. Qadree OllisonRB71 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 185th of 352 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
7. Alex KessmanPK15 plays · +0.465 pts/play · 36th of 110 kickers
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.18
8. Rafael Araujo-LopesWR42 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 203rd of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.12

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

What it had and what it did, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66066034th of 130Roster talent: 660, 34th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19619639th of 130Recruiting: 196, 39th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  38%38%103rd of 128Returning production: 38%, 103rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.0+6.047th of 128SP+ rating: +6.0, 47th 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 Pittsburgh'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 0.04 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 SYRQ4 14:55 4th & 6 at SYR 38, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
2. at VTQ4 14:13 4th & 7 at VT 15, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
3. at VTQ4 4:14 4th & 9 at PITT 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs UVAQ4 11:09 4th & 2 at UVA 12, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at SYRQ2 7:26 4th & 4 at SYR 31, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs UNCQ1 2:59 4th & 1 at PITT 40, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs NCSUQ3 2:32 4th & 4 at PITT 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs YSUQ3 13:35 4th & 2 at YSU 44, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

53rd of 130 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.

1. W

   YSU
2. L

   PSU
3. L

   OKST
4. L

   GT
5. W

   RICE
6. L

   SYR
7. L

   NCSU
8. W

   DUKE
9. W

   UVA
10. L

    UNC
11. L

    VT
12. W

    MIA

What moved it, 2017

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−0.07
• Possession & field position−0.09
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.57

Game by game

• YSUW 28-21 vs YSU85% → 80%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −5: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts −14
• PSUL 14-33 at PSU6% → 1%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• OKSTL 21-59 vs OKST19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• GTL 17-35 at GT28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −29, Possession & field position −1
• RICEW 42-10 vs RICE91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +11
• SYRL 24-27 at SYR37% → 12%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −22, Possession & field position −2
• NCSUL 17-35 vs NCSU20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• DUKEW 24-17 at DUKE23% → 94%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +57, Clock +4
• UVAW 31-14 vs UVA50% → 99%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• UNCL 31-34 vs UNC76% → 5%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• VTL 14-20 at VT17% → 15%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −17, Possession & field position +1
• MIAW 24-14 vs MIA19% → 97%Before kickoff −31 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +2

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.