Pittsburgh

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0734th
  Defense+0.0379th
• 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.
  Offense40.6%33rd
  Defense37.3%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2755th
  Defense+1.408th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0125th
  Defense−0.0383rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1650th
  Defense+0.0973rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.3%32nd
  Defense41.8%91st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.5%50th
  Defense29.8%74th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.294th
  Defense2.2696th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense27.0%2nd
  Defense27.6%96th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.6%14th
  Defense22.7%99th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   APSU
2. W
   SYR
3. W
   LOU
4. L
   NCSU
5. L
   BC
6. L
   MIA
7. L
   ND
8. W
   FSU
9. W
   VT
10. L
    CLEM
11. W
    GT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Pittsburgh.

Players, 2020

1. Kenny PickettQB341 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 63rd of 212 QBs
   0.58WAR0.03 to 1.16
2. Vincent Davis Jr.RB145 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 58th of 338 RBs
   0.40WAR0.26 to 0.52
3. Jordan AddisonWR73 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 19th of 409 WRs
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.28
4. DJ TurnerWR64 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 48th of 409 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23
5. A.J. DavisRB54 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 211th of 338 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.19
6. Joey YellenQB66 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 151st of 212 QBs
   0.13WAR0.02 to 0.24
7. Shocky Jacques-LouisWR41 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 102nd of 409 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
8. Alex KessmanPK26 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 2nd of 97 kickers
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65365336th of 127Roster talent: 653, 36th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19219247th of 127Recruiting: 192, 47th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  74%74%44th of 127Returning production: 74%, 44th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.0+6.041st of 127SP+ rating: +6.0, 41st of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.12 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 FSUQ4 12:01 4th & 1 at FSU 1, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
2. vs VTQ2 10:24 4th & 1 at PITT 15, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. at GTQ4 8:04 4th & 4 at GT 4, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at BCQ2 0:00 4th & 7 at BC 37, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at MIAQ3 0:31 4th & 3 at MIA 12, down 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs SYRQ2 0:03 4th & 12 at SYR 28, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at MIAQ2 12:48 4th & 10 at PITT 42, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs NDQ2 12:06 4th & 7 at ND 37, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

65th of 127 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

   APSU
2. W

   SYR
3. W

   LOU
4. L

   NCSU
5. L

   BC
6. L

   MIA
7. L

   ND
8. W

   FSU
9. W

   VT
10. L

    CLEM
11. W

    GT

What moved it, 2020

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+0.96
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.19
• Timeouts+0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.59

Game by game

• APSUW 55-0 vs APSU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +4
• SYRW 21-10 vs SYR93% → 96%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +13
• LOUW 23-20 vs LOU55% → 92%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +32, Clock −1
• NCSUL 29-30 vs NCSU84% → 31%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −24, Clock −4
• BCL 30-31 at BC71% → 34%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −37: Timeouts +20, Clock −18
• MIAL 19-31 at MIA22% → 2%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −1
• NDL 3-45 vs ND25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1
• FSUW 41-17 at FSU55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2
• VTW 47-14 vs VT38% → 100%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +55, Timeouts −1
• CLEML 17-52 at CLEM5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• GTW 34-20 at GT66% → 99%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +42, 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.