Purdue

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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.
  Offense0.0017th
  Defense+0.1430th
• 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.
  Offense40.4%27th
  Defense46.0%25th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1115th
  Defense+1.2045th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0332nd
  Defense+0.0747th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.0115th
  Defense+0.2230th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.3%50th
  Defense50.4%24th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.8%9th
  Defense35.9%27th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7939th
  Defense2.6176th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.6%91st
  Defense22.4%71st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.8%14th
  Defense1.7%33rd

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, 2015

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. L
   MRSH
2. W
   INST
3. L
   VT
4. L
   BGSU
5. L
   MSU
6. L
   MINN
7. L
   WIS
8. W
   NEB
9. L
   ILL
10. L
    NU
11. L
    IOWA
12. L
    IU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Purdue.

Players, 2015

1. David BloughQB267 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 87th of 205 QBs
   1.07WAR0.65 to 1.47
2. Austin ApplebyQB173 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 121st of 205 QBs
   0.62WAR0.30 to 0.92
3. Markell JonesRB162 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 57th of 333 RBs
   0.34WAR0.22 to 0.44
4. D.J. KnoxRB109 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 128th of 333 RBs
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.26
5. Danny AnthropWR61 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 134th of 411 WRs
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.25
6. Joe SchopperP50 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 50th of 92 punters
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15
7. DeAngelo YanceyWR71 plays · +0.052 pts/play · 280th of 411 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.04 to 0.18
8. Domonique YoungWR34 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 296th of 411 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  53453459th of 128Roster talent: 534, 59th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15915969th of 128Recruiting: 159, 69th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  54%54%74th of 127Returning production: 54%, 74th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.4−7.496th of 128SP+ rating: −7.4, 96th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.16 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 MRSHQ3 6:46 4th & 2 at PUR 28, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. at NUQ4 14:51 4th & 3 at PUR 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs BGSUQ2 2:21 4th & 2 at BGSU 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs BGSUQ4 15:00 4th & 4 at PUR 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs INSTQ2 2:40 4th & 2 at INST 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. vs INSTQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at INST 49, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs BGSUQ3 11:50 4th & 9 at BGSU 25, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs INSTQ3 3:22 4th & 6 at PUR 41, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

119th 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. L

   MRSH
2. W

   INST
3. L

   VT
4. L

   BGSU
5. L

   MSU
6. L

   MINN
7. L

   WIS
8. W

   NEB
9. L

   ILL
10. L

    NU
11. L

    IOWA
12. L

    IU

What moved it, 2015

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−2.62
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.77

Game by game

• MRSHL 31-41 at MRSH58% → 4%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −42
• INSTW 38-14 vs INST88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +16
• VTL 24-51 vs VT30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −34, Clock −1
• BGSUL 28-35 vs BGSU49% → 8%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts +4
• MSUL 21-24 at MSU6% → 6%Before kickoff −44 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts −1
• MINNL 13-41 vs MINN43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −46, Clock −2
• WISL 7-24 at WIS9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −14, Clock +1
• NEBW 55-45 vs NEB23% → 97%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• ILLL 14-48 vs ILL42% → 0%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• NUL 14-21 at NU19% → 5%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• IOWAL 20-40 at IOWA7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −11
• IUL 36-54 vs IU38% → 1%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −44, Clock −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.