Pittsburgh

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+0.1562nd
  Defense+0.1053rd
• 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.
  Offense42.4%39th
  Defense42.2%52nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2981st
  Defense+1.2436th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2392nd
  Defense+0.1133rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0111th
  Defense+0.1063rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.3%40th
  Defense48.2%43rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.1%47th
  Defense30.0%77th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1380th
  Defense2.9246th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.0%40th
  Defense18.9%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.1%50th
  Defense18.2%77th

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 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
   UALB
2. L
   PSU
3. W
   GT
4. L
   UNC
5. L
   UCF
6. W
   SYR
7. L
   ND
8. W
   DUKE
9. W
   UVA
10. W
    VT
11. W
    WAKE
12. L
    MIA
13. L
    CLEM
14. L
    STAN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Pittsburgh.

Players, 2018

1. Kenny PickettQB354 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 78th of 225 QBs
   1.09WAR0.50 to 1.69
2. Qadree OllisonRB182 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 25th of 351 RBs
   0.68WAR0.54 to 0.81
3. Darrin HallRB138 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 53rd of 351 RBs
   0.53WAR0.40 to 0.67
4. Alex KessmanPK17 plays · +0.481 pts/play · 16th of 112 kickers
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
5. Maurice FfrenchWR68 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 150th of 434 WRs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.19
6. Rafael Araujo-LopesWR43 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 185th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.16
7. Taysir MackWR38 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 194th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.15
8. Kirk ChristodoulouP59 plays · +0.039 pts/play · 64th of 91 punters
   0.04WAR−0.04 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 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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63863838th of 130Roster talent: 638, 38th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19719738th of 130Recruiting: 197, 38th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  51%51%91st of 129Returning production: 51%, 91st of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.7+2.761st of 130SP+ rating: +2.7, 61st 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 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 0.05 of the 0.11 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 STANQ4 2:42 4th & 11 at PITT 3, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.9 pts
2. at MIAQ3 7:52 4th & 1 at PITT 35, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at NDQ4 7:26 4th & 5 at midfield, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs GTQ1 3:56 4th & 2 at PITT 49, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at UVAQ4 4:25 4th & 6 at UVA 35, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at UVAQ4 0:50 4th & 6 at UVA 11, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs PSUQ2 0:59 4th & 6 at PITT 42, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at NDQ4 1:38 4th & 29 at PITT 19, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

13th 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

   UALB
2. L

   PSU
3. W

   GT
4. L

   UNC
5. L

   UCF
6. W

   SYR
7. L

   ND
8. W

   DUKE
9. W

   UVA
10. W

    VT
11. W

    WAKE
12. L

    MIA
13. L

    CLEM
14. L

    STAN

What moved it, 2018

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+1.00
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.20
• Timeouts−0.28
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.77

Game by game

• UALBW 33-7 vs UALB95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• PSUL 6-51 vs PSU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −33
• GTW 24-19 vs GT35% → 95%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +1
• UNCL 35-38 at UNC52% → 10%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• UCFL 14-45 at UCF16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −19
• SYRW 44-37 vs SYR39% → 80%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts −22
• NDL 14-19 at ND7% → 4%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• DUKEW 54-45 vs DUKE39% → 98%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts −4
• UVAW 23-13 at UVA32% → 96%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• VTW 52-22 vs VT54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts −1
• WAKEW 34-13 at WAKE65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +41, Clock +1
• MIAL 3-24 at MIA27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30
• CLEML 10-42 vs CLEM3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• STANL 13-14 vs STAN32% → 5%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −38, Clock −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.