Pittsburgh

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1146th
  Defense−0.0191st
• 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.
  Offense43.2%55th
  Defense36.5%91st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2551st
  Defense+1.3319th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1260th
  Defense+0.0270th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2245th
  Defense+0.0393rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.0%52nd
  Defense41.5%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.3%62nd
  Defense28.8%66th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1355th
  Defense2.6291st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.5%38th
  Defense23.9%93rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.7%52nd
  Defense22.0%97th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   WVU
2. L
   TENN
3. W
   WMU
4. W
   URI
5. L
   GT
6. W
   VT
7. L
   LOU
8. L
   UNC
9. W
   SYR
10. W
    UVA
11. W
    DUKE
12. W
    MIA
13. W
    UCLA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Pittsburgh.

Players, 2022

1. Israel AbanikandaRB213 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 16th of 384 RBs
   0.63WAR0.43 to 0.83
2. Kedon SlovisQB271 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 117th of 234 QBs
   0.53WAR0.00 to 1.12
3. Jared WayneWR71 plays · +0.288 pts/play · 3rd of 455 WRs
   0.38WAR0.26 to 0.53
4. Rodney Hammond Jr.RB93 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 119th of 384 RBs
   0.25WAR0.18 to 0.31
5. Nick PattiQB69 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 182nd of 234 QBs
   0.18WAR0.00 to 0.37
6. Gavin BartholomewTE29 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 28th of 214 TEs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
7. Ben SaulsPK20 plays · +0.286 pts/play · 19th of 110 kickers
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
8. Vincent Davis Jr.RB49 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 255th of 384 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65565545th of 129Roster talent: 655, 45th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18418456th of 129Recruiting: 184, 56th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  29%29%109th of 128Returning production: 29%, 109th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.6+8.640th of 129SP+ rating: +8.6, 40th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 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. vs WVUQ3 9:56 4th & 2 at WVU 49, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. at MIAQ2 12:48 4th & 2 at MIA 42, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. vs TENNQ2 1:50 4th & 2 at PITT 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs TENNQ3 10:49 4th & 3 at TENN 28, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs SYRQ3 12:26 4th & 2 at PITT 48, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs SYRQ4 10:40 4th & 2 at PITT 36, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at LOUQ3 1:47 4th & 4 at LOU 19, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at UNCQ2 2:02 4th & 2 at PITT 33, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

26th of 131 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

   WVU
2. L

   TENN
3. W

   WMU
4. W

   URI
5. L

   GT
6. W

   VT
7. L

   LOU
8. L

   UNC
9. W

   SYR
10. W

    UVA
11. W

    DUKE
12. W

    MIA
13. W

    UCLA

What moved it, 2022

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+1.61
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Clock+0.18
• Timeouts−0.14
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.21

Game by game

• WVUW 38-31 vs WVU69% → 96%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• TENNL 27-34 vs TENN26% → 21%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −16
• WMUW 34-13 at WMU75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• URIW 45-24 vs URI98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +5
• GTL 21-26 vs GT90% → 26%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −33, Possession & field position +4
• VTW 45-29 vs VT82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +22
• LOUL 10-24 at LOU39% → 1%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• UNCL 24-42 at UNC37% → 1%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −1
• SYRW 19-9 vs SYR54% → 97%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• UVAW 37-7 at UVA57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +46, Clock +1
• DUKEW 28-26 vs DUKE67% → 96%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Possession & field position +1
• MIAW 42-16 at MIA52% → 100%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +51, Clock +2
• UCLAW 37-35 at UCLA24% → 86%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +43, Clock +4

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.