Purdue

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0631st
  Defense+0.0367th
• 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.
  Offense42.1%41st
  Defense38.4%83rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1431st
  Defense+1.1759th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0650th
  Defense−0.1197th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0728th
  Defense+0.1936th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.3%42nd
  Defense42.9%81st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.7%50th
  Defense30.5%74th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2189th
  Defense2.5085th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.0%80th
  Defense24.1%86th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.2%24th
  Defense16.2%50th

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, 2017

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
   LOU
2. W
   OHIO
3. W
   MIZ
4. L
   MICH
5. W
   MINN
6. L
   WIS
7. L
   RUTG
8. L
   NEB
9. W
   ILL
10. L
    NU
11. W
    IOWA
12. W
    IU
13. W
    ARIZ

Bars above the line: better than expected for Purdue.

Players, 2017

1. Elijah SindelarQB329 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 95th of 226 QBs
   0.81WAR0.26 to 1.42
2. David BloughQB167 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 127th of 226 QBs
   0.46WAR0.17 to 0.79
3. Markell JonesRB112 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 122nd of 352 RBs
   0.27WAR0.18 to 0.35
4. D.J. KnoxRB100 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 139th of 352 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.30
5. Joe SchopperP64 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 10th of 95 punters
   0.14WAR0.04 to 0.25
6. Anthony MahoungouWR44 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 101st of 426 WRs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.17
7. Richie WorshipRB61 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 221st of 352 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.17
8. Jackson AnthropWR71 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 135th of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  50350370th of 130Roster talent: 503, 70th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15615673rd of 130Recruiting: 156, 73rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%77th of 128Returning production: 56%, 77th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.8+5.848th of 128SP+ rating: +5.8, 48th of 128 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, 2017

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.21 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. vs NEBQ4 8:51 4th & 1 at PUR 37, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. at IOWAQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at IOWA 37, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
3. at IOWAQ3 10:29 4th & 3 at IOWA 39, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. vs MINNQ3 1:40 4th & 4 at MINN 34, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
5. vs MINNQ4 9:58 4th & 2 at MINN 2, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
6. vs NEBQ3 6:24 4th & 3 at NEB 3, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
7. vs LOUQ3 11:04 4th & 1 at PUR 34, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
8. at IOWAQ4 8:27 4th & 4 at IOWA 41, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

30th of 130 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. L

   LOU
2. W

   OHIO
3. W

   MIZ
4. L

   MICH
5. W

   MINN
6. L

   WIS
7. L

   RUTG
8. L

   NEB
9. W

   ILL
10. L

    NU
11. W

    IOWA
12. W

    IU
13. W

    ARIZ

What moved it, 2017

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+0.91
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.24

Game by game

• LOUL 28-35 vs LOU6% → 4%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −15, Clock −1
• MIZW 35-3 at MIZ30% → 100%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +67
• MICHL 10-28 vs MICH16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• MINNW 31-17 vs MINN61% → 98%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• WISL 9-17 at WIS13% → 3%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• RUTGL 12-14 at RUTG73% → 8%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −1
• NEBL 24-25 vs NEB63% → 27%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position −2
• ILLW 29-10 vs ILL82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• NUL 13-23 at NU32% → 4%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• IOWAW 24-15 at IOWA37% → 96%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• IUW 31-24 vs IU54% → 97%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• ARIZW 38-35 vs ARIZ42% → 93%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +3

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.