Pittsburgh

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+0.0112th
  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.
  Offense40.9%27th
  Defense36.5%96th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.011st
  Defense+1.1670th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.104th
  Defense−0.0275th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0926th
  Defense+0.0386th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.1%31st
  Defense41.7%90th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.0%26th
  Defense28.3%88th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8038th
  Defense2.6974th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.6%37th
  Defense20.3%59th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.3%41st
  Defense28.2%99th

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 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. L
   UVA
2. W
   OHIO
3. L
   PSU
4. W
   UCF
5. W
   DEL
6. W
   DUKE
7. W
   SYR
8. L
   MIA
9. W
   GT
10. W
    UNC
11. L
    VT
12. L
    BC
13. W
    EMU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Pittsburgh.

Players, 2019

1. Kenny PickettQB548 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 65th of 228 QBs
   1.23WAR0.31 to 2.04
2. A.J. DavisRB148 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 92nd of 349 RBs
   0.41WAR0.31 to 0.51
3. Taysir MackWR99 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 32nd of 439 WRs
   0.27WAR0.12 to 0.42
4. Alex KessmanPK30 plays · +0.454 pts/play · 2nd of 114 kickers
   0.25WAR0.15 to 0.37
5. Vincent Davis Jr.RB56 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 196th of 349 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.25
6. Maurice FfrenchWR125 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 87th of 439 WRs
   0.18WAR0.00 to 0.33
7. Todd SibleyRB50 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 215th of 349 RBs
   0.18WAR0.15 to 0.21
8. V'Lique CarterWR62 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 97th of 439 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.25

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63863842nd of 130Roster talent: 638, 42nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19719739th of 130Recruiting: 197, 39th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  51%51%90th of 130Returning production: 51%, 90th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.1+4.148th of 130SP+ rating: +4.1, 48th 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 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 0.26 of the 0.35 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 PSUQ4 4:54 4th & 1 at PSU 1, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−10.4 pts
2. vs UNCQ4 5:18 4th & 2 at UNC 6, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.5 pts
3. vs BCQ4 5:26 4th & 1 at BC 25, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
4. at PSUQ4 11:23 4th & 2 at PSU 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
5. at EMUQ4 4:24 4th & 3 at PITT 32, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
6. at GTQ3 13:08 4th & 1 at PITT 29, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
7. vs OHIOQ4 14:41 4th & 2 at OHIO 47, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs DELQ3 9:57 4th & 7 at DEL 39, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

42nd 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. L

   UVA
2. W

   OHIO
3. L

   PSU
4. W

   UCF
5. W

   DEL
6. W

   DUKE
7. W

   SYR
8. L

   MIA
9. W

   GT
10. W

    UNC
11. L

    VT
12. L

    BC
13. W

    EMU

What moved it, 2019

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+0.40
• Possession & field position+0.13
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts−0.13

Game by game

• UVAL 14-30 vs UVA41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −46, Clock −1
• OHIOW 20-10 vs OHIO63% → 92%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position +1
• PSUL 10-17 at PSU12% → 14%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +2: Scoreboard −16, Possession & field position +2
• UCFW 35-34 vs UCF21% → 82%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position +4
• DELW 17-14 vs DEL97% → 93%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard +9, Timeouts +1
• DUKEW 33-30 at DUKE42% → 95%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• SYRW 27-20 at SYR60% → 95%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• MIAL 12-16 vs MIA60% → 5%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• GTW 20-10 at GT75% → 97%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• UNCW 34-27 vs UNC59% → 92%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts −15
• VTL 0-28 at VT37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −37
• BCL 19-26 vs BC71% → 10%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −52, Clock −1
• EMUW 34-30 at EMU79% → 96%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +31, 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.