Pittsburgh

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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−0.046th
  Defense+0.0386th
• 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.
  Offense37.7%14th
  Defense39.2%73rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2437th
  Defense+1.3030th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.074th
  Defense−0.0387th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0612th
  Defense+0.2055th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.5%20th
  Defense43.5%82nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.3%8th
  Defense30.2%48th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8517th
  Defense2.8480th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.1%22nd
  Defense22.0%90th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.2%16th
  Defense17.7%69th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   WOF
2. L
   CIN
3. L
   WVU
4. L
   UNC
5. L
   VT
6. W
   LOU
7. L
   WAKE
8. L
   ND
9. L
   FSU
10. L
    SYR
11. W
    BC
12. L
    DUKE

Bars above the line: better than expected for Pittsburgh.

Players, 2023

1. Nate YarnellQB68 plays · +0.269 pts/play · 152nd of 250 QBs
   0.34WAR0.21 to 0.49
2. Rodney Hammond Jr.RB113 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 109th of 383 RBs
   0.25WAR0.16 to 0.33
3. Bub MeansWR45 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 71st of 457 WRs
   0.21WAR0.08 to 0.33
4. Phil JurkovecQB105 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 192nd of 250 QBs
   0.19WAR−0.02 to 0.39
5. Christian VeilleuxQB176 plays · +0.048 pts/play · 198th of 250 QBs
   0.16WAR−0.24 to 0.58
6. Daejon ReynoldsWR27 plays · +0.268 pts/play · 128th of 457 WRs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.20
7. C'Bo FlemisterRB79 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 197th of 383 RBs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
8. Caleb JunkoP52 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 32nd of 103 punters
   0.11WAR0.01 to 0.21

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70070039th of 130Roster talent: 700, 39th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18818854th of 130Recruiting: 188, 54th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  32%32%104th of 128Returning production: 32%, 104th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.3−7.388th of 130SP+ rating: −7.3, 88th 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, 2023

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 0.04 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 WAKEQ4 13:03 4th & 3 at WAKE 23, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. vs CINQ4 14:48 4th & 9 at CIN 9, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
3. at VTQ2 4:30 4th & 3 at VT 33, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at SYRQ2 11:23 4th & 1 at PITT 25, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at SYRQ3 6:14 4th & 3 at PITT 19, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at DUKEQ3 7:02 4th & 4 at DUKE 29, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs LOUQ3 11:32 4th & 4 at LOU 28, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs LOUQ4 10:34 4th & 2 at PITT 24, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

125th of 133 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

   WOF
2. L

   CIN
3. L

   WVU
4. L

   UNC
5. L

   VT
6. W

   LOU
7. L

   WAKE
8. L

   ND
9. L

   FSU
10. L

    SYR
11. W

    BC
12. L

    DUKE

What moved it, 2023

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−1.92
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.12

Game by game

• WOFW 45-7 vs WOF98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• CINL 21-27 vs CIN69% → 4%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• WVUL 6-17 at WVU46% → 3%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• UNCL 24-41 vs UNC26% → 2%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• VTL 21-38 at VT52% → 1%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• LOUW 38-21 vs LOU30% → 100%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +54, Timeouts +2
• WAKEL 17-21 at WAKE52% → 18%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position −3
• NDL 7-58 at ND8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• FSUL 7-24 vs FSU7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −14, Clock −1
• SYRL 13-28 at SYR54% → 1%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• BCW 24-16 vs BC53% → 98%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• DUKEL 19-30 at DUKE29% → 2%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1

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.