Purdue

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1461st
  Defense+0.1155th
• 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.
  Offense43.9%63rd
  Defense43.7%44th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1920th
  Defense+1.0998th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0810th
  Defense−0.0484th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2565th
  Defense+0.3118th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.5%72nd
  Defense48.4%47th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.1%33rd
  Defense33.3%40th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6423rd
  Defense2.5087th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.9%6th
  Defense21.0%64th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.0%53rd
  Defense13.7%19th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   IOWA
2. W
   ILL
3. L
   NU
4. L
   MINN
5. L
   RUTG
6. L
   NEB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Purdue.

Players, 2020

1. Aidan O'ConnellQB148 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 80th of 212 QBs
   0.41WAR0.16 to 0.69
2. Zander HorvathRB121 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 62nd of 338 RBs
   0.39WAR0.30 to 0.48
3. Jack PlummerQB138 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 92nd of 212 QBs
   0.34WAR0.06 to 0.59
4. David BellWR76 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 16th of 409 WRs
   0.22WAR0.12 to 0.32
5. Rondale MooreWR49 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 138th of 409 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
6. Milton WrightWR33 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 194th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12
7. King DoerueRB19 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 275th of 338 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.07
8. J.D. DellingerPK9 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 55th of 97 kickers
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64464440th of 127Roster talent: 644, 40th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19519542nd of 127Recruiting: 195, 42nd of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  82%82%22nd of 127Returning production: 82%, 22nd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.9+5.943rd of 127SP+ rating: +5.9, 43rd of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.02 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 IOWAQ3 7:51 4th & 3 at PUR 19, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
2. vs NUQ1 1:20 4th & 3 at NU 13, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
3. vs NEBQ4 2:21 4th & 6 at PUR 31, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at ILLQ4 2:55 4th & 5 at PUR 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs NUQ1 6:12 4th & 3 at PUR 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs NEBQ2 6:13 4th & 16 at NEB 38, down 17Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs RUTGQ3 3:42 4th & 13 at RUTG 38, down 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)<0.1 pts
8. at ILLQ2 1:13 4th & 4 at ILL 19, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

116th of 127 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

   IOWA
2. W

   ILL
3. L

   NU
4. L

   MINN
5. L

   RUTG
6. L

   NEB

What moved it, 2020

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−1.21
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.22

Game by game

• IOWAW 24-20 vs IOWA45% → 93%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• ILLW 31-24 at ILL77% → 94%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• NUL 20-27 vs NU42% → 4%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• MINNL 31-34 at MINN59% → 5%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −3
• RUTGL 30-37 vs RUTG81% → 5%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −58, Clock −1
• NEBL 27-37 vs NEB55% → 4%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −51, Clock −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.