Purdue

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.0720th
  Defense+0.1451st
• 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.
  Offense38.7%15th
  Defense44.7%29th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2051st
  Defense+1.1377th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1153rd
  Defense+0.1243rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0411th
  Defense+0.1860th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.6%14th
  Defense48.3%40th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.6%29th
  Defense37.2%17th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8544th
  Defense3.0035th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.5%37th
  Defense19.0%41st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.5%21st
  Defense1.6%25th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Purdue 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
   WMU
2. L
   CMU
3. L
   ND
4. W
   SIU
5. L
   IOWA
6. W
   ILL
7. L
   MSU
8. L
   MINN
9. L
   NEB
10. L
    WIS
11. L
    NU
12. L
    IU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Purdue.

Players, 2014

1. Austin ApplebyQB234 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 118th of 199 QBs
   0.82WAR0.40 to 1.23
2. Danny EtlingQB133 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 143rd of 199 QBs
   0.42WAR0.23 to 0.60
3. Akeem HuntRB195 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 44th of 350 RBs
   0.36WAR0.19 to 0.52
4. Raheem MostertRB92 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 112th of 350 RBs
   0.20WAR0.13 to 0.28
5. Paul GriggsPK17 plays · +0.395 pts/play · 36th of 114 kickers
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
6. Danny AnthropWR40 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 213th of 469 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
7. Cameron PoseyWR22 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 338th of 469 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
8. DeAngelo YanceyWR23 plays · +0.052 pts/play · 398th of 469 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.06

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 Purdue'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Purdue's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.18 of the 0.24 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 MINNQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at PUR 37, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.1 pts
2. at IUQ4 11:24 4th & 2 at IU 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.8 pts
3. at IUQ3 6:15 4th & 1 at PUR 19, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
4. vs IOWAQ3 12:22 4th & 1 at PUR 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
5. vs IOWAQ2 5:11 4th & 1 at PUR 47, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
6. at ILLQ2 0:06 4th & 3 at ILL 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at IUQ2 7:52 4th & 9 at IU 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs MSUQ4 14:41 4th & 11 at PUR 41, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

91st of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Purdue's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   WMU
2. L

   CMU
3. L

   ND
4. W

   SIU
5. L

   IOWA
6. W

   ILL
7. L

   MSU
8. L

   MINN
9. L

   NEB
10. L

    WIS
11. L

    NU
12. L

    IU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Purdue'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−1.03
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.62

Game by game

• WMUW 43-34 vs WMU70% → 96%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• CMUL 17-38 vs CMU59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −58, Clock −2
• NDL 14-30 at ND4% → 1%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −7
• SIUW 35-13 vs SIU61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +1
• IOWAL 10-24 vs IOWA19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• ILLW 38-27 at ILL28% → 97%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +59, Clock +4
• MSUL 31-45 vs MSU7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• MINNL 38-39 at MINN18% → 20%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +2: Scoreboard −10, Timeouts −2
• NEBL 14-35 at NEB6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• WISL 16-34 vs WIS16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• NUL 14-38 vs NU44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −47, Clock −2
• IUL 16-23 at IU45% → 10%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2

Points of win probability, from Purdue's side.

Closest call

PUR 34-31 ILL (2016) - Purdue dropped to a 12.1% win probability before pulling it out.