Purdue

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1459th
  Defense+0.1723rd
• 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.
  Offense44.6%63rd
  Defense46.9%16th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2260th
  Defense+1.1474th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0848th
  Defense+0.1521st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2056th
  Defense+0.2229th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.8%55th
  Defense53.2%11th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.5%70th
  Defense32.9%47th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8540th
  Defense3.1020th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.9%40th
  Defense16.2%16th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.9%37th
  Defense12.1%6th

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, 2018

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
   NU
2. L
   EMU
3. L
   MIZ
4. W
   BC
5. W
   NEB
6. W
   ILL
7. W
   OSU
8. L
   MSU
9. W
   IOWA
10. L
    MINN
11. L
    WIS
12. W
    IU
13. L
    AUB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Purdue.

Players, 2018

1. David BloughQB476 plays · +0.251 pts/play · 12th of 225 QBs
   2.23WAR1.48 to 2.99
2. D.J. KnoxRB152 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 77th of 351 RBs
   0.42WAR0.31 to 0.54
3. Rondale MooreWR148 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 10th of 434 WRs
   0.32WAR0.16 to 0.50
4. Markell JonesRB106 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 157th of 351 RBs
   0.28WAR0.21 to 0.35
5. Spencer EvansPK21 plays · +0.375 pts/play · 21st of 112 kickers
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.19
6. Joe SchopperP51 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 6th of 91 punters
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.24
7. Isaac ZicoWR72 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 133rd of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.23
8. Elijah SindelarQB48 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 201st of 225 QBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.20

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52052071st of 130Roster talent: 520, 71st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16416468th of 130Recruiting: 164, 68th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  77%77%36th of 129Returning production: 77%, 36th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.5+6.544th of 130SP+ rating: +6.5, 44th 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, 2018

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 10 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.27 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 NUQ4 12:05 4th & 1 at PUR 28, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
2. vs IOWAQ4 1:58 4th & 2 at IOWA 30, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.8 pts
3. at NEBQ3 12:22 4th & 1 at NEB 47, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. vs OSUQ3 3:09 4th & 1 at PUR 44, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
5. vs WISQ4 2:51 4th & 10 at WIS 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
6. vs WISQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at WIS 3, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
7. vs WISQ4 9:57 4th & 2 at WIS 2, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
8. at AUBQ2 10:27 4th & 1 at PUR 34, down 35Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

113th 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.

1. L

   NU
2. L

   EMU
3. L

   MIZ
4. W

   BC
5. W

   NEB
6. W

   ILL
7. W

   OSU
8. L

   MSU
9. W

   IOWA
10. L

    MINN
11. L

    WIS
12. W

    IU
13. L

    AUB

What moved it, 2018

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−0.66
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock+0.14
• Timeouts−0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.27

Game by game

• NUL 27-31 vs NU57% → 4%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• EMUL 19-20 vs EMU89% → 5%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −52, Clock −2
• MIZL 37-40 vs MIZ34% → 4%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• BCW 30-13 vs BC34% → 99%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +50
• NEBW 42-28 at NEB62% → 99%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2
• ILLW 46-7 at ILL78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• OSUW 49-20 vs OSU18% → 100%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +82: Scoreboard +64, Clock +1
• MSUL 13-23 at MSU54% → 4%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −3
• IOWAW 38-36 vs IOWA56% → 93%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +33, Possession & field position −1
• MINNL 10-41 at MINN77% → 0%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −62, Possession & field position +1
• WISL 44-47 vs WIS60% → 12%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −19
• IUW 28-21 at IU65% → 95%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +40, Clock +3
• AUBL 14-63 at AUB38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −39

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.