Purdue

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0622nd
  Defense+0.1631st
• 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.
  Offense41.5%31st
  Defense44.7%37th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1843rd
  Defense+1.2248th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.152nd
  Defense+0.1420th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1845th
  Defense+0.1944th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.1%32nd
  Defense49.6%33rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.0%42nd
  Defense33.3%49th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.392nd
  Defense3.0629th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.7%9th
  Defense18.7%39th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense23.1%17th
  Defense19.3%41st

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, 2019

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
   NEV
2. W
   VAN
3. L
   TCU
4. L
   MINN
5. L
   PSU
6. W
   MD
7. L
   IOWA
8. L
   ILL
9. W
   NEB
10. W
    NU
11. L
    WIS
12. L
    IU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Purdue.

Players, 2019

1. Jack PlummerQB233 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 108th of 228 QBs
   0.66WAR0.24 to 1.09
2. Aidan O'ConnellQB152 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 111th of 228 QBs
   0.60WAR0.37 to 0.85
3. Elijah SindelarQB119 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 127th of 228 QBs
   0.49WAR0.29 to 0.69
4. King DoerueRB126 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 120th of 349 RBs
   0.35WAR0.26 to 0.44
5. David BellWR104 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 21st of 439 WRs
   0.29WAR0.18 to 0.40
6. Zander HorvathRB87 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 172nd of 349 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.29
7. Brycen HopkinsTE76 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 3rd of 207 TEs
   0.17WAR0.04 to 0.31
8. J.D. DellingerPK15 plays · +0.443 pts/play · 52nd of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.16

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60760751st of 130Roster talent: 607, 51st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17917956th of 130Recruiting: 179, 56th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  41%41%101st of 130Returning production: 41%, 101st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.7−0.764th of 130SP+ rating: −0.7, 64th 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, 2019

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.08 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 MDQ2 5:00 4th & 2 at MD 10, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
2. vs TCUQ2 7:58 4th & 1 at PUR 12, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at NUQ2 8:01 4th & 1 at PUR 33, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at NEVQ3 12:22 4th & 6 at NEV 37, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs IUQ2 9:52 4th & 3 at IU 3, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs TCUQ2 12:35 4th & 5 at TCU 36, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs MDQ2 0:57 4th & 1 at PUR 34, up 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs TCUQ3 7:01 4th & 3 at PUR 9, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

95th 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

   NEV
2. W

   VAN
3. L

   TCU
4. L

   MINN
5. L

   PSU
6. W

   MD
7. L

   IOWA
8. L

   ILL
9. W

   NEB
10. W

    NU
11. L

    WIS
12. L

    IU

What moved it, 2019

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−0.89
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock+0.09
• Timeouts−0.11
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.28

Game by game

• NEVL 31-34 at NEV78% → 5%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −43, Possession & field position −1
• VANW 42-24 vs VAN71% → 99%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +30, Clock +1
• TCUL 13-34 vs TCU39% → 1%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −45, Clock −1
• MINNL 31-38 vs MINN48% → 5%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• PSUL 7-35 at PSU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• MDW 40-14 vs MD38% → 100%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +53
• IOWAL 20-26 at IOWA11% → 3%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• ILLL 6-24 vs ILL75% → 2%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −62, Clock −2
• NEBW 31-27 vs NEB36% → 96%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +2
• NUW 24-22 at NU51% → 94%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +49, Clock +2
• WISL 24-45 at WIS6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• IUL 41-44 vs IU28% → 11%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −14

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.