Pittsburgh

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.2688th
  Defense+0.0388th
• 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.
  Offense47.6%84th
  Defense40.1%68th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2747th
  Defense+1.2367th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1664th
  Defense−0.0595th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3582nd
  Defense+0.1181st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.1%87th
  Defense45.4%74th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.8%57th
  Defense29.7%57th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1558th
  Defense2.6195th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.2%47th
  Defense19.0%71st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.5%71st
  Defense19.8%90th

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, 2021

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
   MASS
2. W
   TENN
3. L
   WMU
4. W
   UNH
5. W
   GT
6. W
   VT
7. W
   CLEM
8. L
   MIA
9. W
   DUKE
10. W
    UNC
11. W
    UVA
12. W
    SYR
13. W
    WAKE
14. L
    MSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Pittsburgh.

Players, 2021

1. Kenny PickettQB480 plays · +0.254 pts/play · 24th of 219 QBs
   2.28WAR1.38 to 3.14
2. Jordan AddisonWR116 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 5th of 474 WRs
   0.39WAR0.23 to 0.52
3. Vincent Davis Jr.RB135 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 109th of 387 RBs
   0.37WAR0.26 to 0.49
4. Israel AbanikandaRB101 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 125th of 387 RBs
   0.34WAR0.27 to 0.41
5. Rodney Hammond Jr.RB65 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 209th of 387 RBs
   0.21WAR0.17 to 0.25
6. Jared WayneWR49 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 76th of 474 WRs
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.25
7. Kirk ChristodoulouP52 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 27th of 101 punters
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.24
8. Taysir MackWR24 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 256th of 474 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  66966937th of 130Roster talent: 669, 37th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19419446th of 130Recruiting: 194, 46th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%40th of 128Returning production: 85%, 40th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +17.6+17.69th of 130SP+ rating: +17.6, 9th 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, 2021

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 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 MSUQ3 7:29 4th & 1 at PITT 37, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. at WAKEQ3 7:52 4th & 2 at midfield, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. vs MIAQ4 10:55 4th & 3 at PITT 42, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at WAKEQ3 12:19 4th & 1 at PITT 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. at DUKEQ2 7:53 4th & 2 at DUKE 6, down 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at MSUQ4 5:37 4th & 3 at PITT 29, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs MIAQ2 7:42 4th & 9 at MIA 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs UNCQ2 8:19 4th & 3 at PITT 43, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

50th 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

   MASS
2. W

   TENN
3. L

   WMU
4. W

   UNH
5. W

   GT
6. W

   VT
7. W

   CLEM
8. L

   MIA
9. W

   DUKE
10. W

    UNC
11. W

    UVA
12. W

    SYR
13. W

    WAKE
14. L

    MSU

What moved it, 2021

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+1.57
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts−0.15
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.10

Game by game

• MASSW 51-7 vs MASS100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• TENNW 41-34 at TENN66% → 95%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2
• WMUL 41-44 vs WMU86% → 6%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• UNHW 77-7 vs UNH96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• GTW 52-21 at GT61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +43, Clock +1
• VTW 28-7 at VT73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +35, Clock +1
• CLEMW 27-17 vs CLEM65% → 97%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• MIAL 34-38 vs MIA74% → 17%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2
• DUKEW 54-29 at DUKE92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +13
• UNCW 30-23 vs UNC71% → 92%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts −14
• UVAW 48-38 vs UVA82% → 97%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• SYRW 31-14 at SYR82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• WAKEW 45-21 at WAKE62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• MSUL 21-31 at MSU47% → 3%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −36, 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.