So I thought I'd try something new here for the 2 nerds who actually read these 'Beyond the Box Score' bits. Since I've entered all the play-by-plays for MU and NU, I thought I'd try to pinpoint some advantages and disadvantages by looking at the categories on which I base my Beyond the Box Score post-game posts. Just makes you a-twitter with anticipation, doesn't it?
Success Rate by Quarter
Missouri (all plays)
Q1 – Missouri 48.8%, Opponents 39.7%
Q2 – Opponents 54.3%, Missouri 51.7%
Q3 – Opponents 52.4%, Missouri 51.3%
Q4 – Missouri 50.0%, Opponents 50.0%
TOTAL – Missouri 50.5%, Opponents 49.8%
Nebraska (all plays)
Q1 – Nebraska 48.2%, Opponents 41.0%
Q2 – Nebraska 53.6%, Opponents 43.8%
Q3 – Nebraska 54.9%, Opponents 42.2%
Q4 – Nebraska 51.4%, Opponents 44.7%
TOTAL – Nebraska 52.1%, Opponents 43.0%
This looks like Nebraska has the edge here until you take out the plays made when the game wasn’t close (i.e. within 16 points or less).
Missouri (close)
Q1 – Missouri 48.8%, Opponents 39.7%
Q2 – Missouri 54.9%, Opponents 44.4%
Q3 – Missouri 65.6%, Opponents 52.4%
Q4 – Missouri 40.9%, Opponents 37.5%
TOTAL – Missouri 51.5%, Opponents 42.1%
Nebraska (close)
Q1 – Nebraska 48.2%, Opponents 41.0%
Q2 – Nebraska 53.6%, Opponents 43.8%
Q3 – Nebraska 53.8%, Opponents 40.3%
Q4 – Nebraska 46.8%, Opponents 46.7%
TOTAL – Nebraska 51.0%, Opponents 42.6%
Other than the fact that NU plays better than Missouri does when the game's not close (which makes sense considering Callahan kept his starters in against USC's third string to make the final score look closer than it was a couple weeks ago), it’s striking to see not only how close the overall numbers are (Missouri is +9.4%, Nebraska +8.4%), but how the game seems to flow the same by quarter.
-- In Q1, MU is +9.1%, NU +7.2.
-- In Q2, MU is +10.5%, NU is +9.8%.
-- Q3 is where the movement takes place—in Q3, MU is +13.2%, NU is +13.5%.
-- In Q4, MU is +3.4%, NU is +0.1%.
What does this mean? Not sure...could mean a lot of things, I guess (sparkling analysis!), but chances are that it means the team who gets off to the more efficient start could be able to dictate the action throughout. Since Memorial Stadium will be pretty psychotic at kickoff, that might say good things about Missouri’s chances.
QB Success Rate
As always, this only looks at when the game was within two possessions.
Missouri
Chase Daniel – 119 for 229 (52.0%)
Chase Patton – 0 for 1 (0.0%)
TOTAL – 119 for 230 (51.7%)
Nebraska
Sam Keller – 151 for 293 (51.5%)
Even though Keller and Daniel run distinctly different offenses, they run them with almost identical rates of success. Daniel ranks much higher on most lists simply because a lot of Mizzou’s numbers come from passing, while NU is content to run a ton if you’ll let them. The main difference between them, I think, is their propensity for responding to pressure. That comes mostly in sack rate and in turnovers, both of which we’ll discuss in detail later.
Run Success Rate
Missouri
Earl Goldsmith – 1 for 1 (100.0%)
Chase Daniel – 9 for 18 (50.0%)
Jeremy Maclin – 6 for 8 (75.0%)
Martin Rucker – 3 for 5 (60.0%)
Marcus Woods – 2 for 4 (50.0%)
Derrick Washington – 1 for 2 (50.0%)
Tony Temple – 20 for 47 (42.6%)
Jimmy Jackson – 1 for 5 (20.0%)
TOTAL – 43 for 90 (47.8%)
TOTAL, RB’s – 25 for 59 (42.4%)
TOTAL, QB’s – 9 for 18 (50.0%)
TOTAL, WR/TE’s – 9 for 13 (69.2%)
Nebraska
Quentin Castille – 15 for 26 (57.7%)
Cody Glenn – 5 for 9 (55.6%)
Marlon Lucky – 50 for 97 (51.5%)
Roy Helu – 2 for 4 (50.0%)
Sam Keller – 1 for 7 (14.3%)
Terrence Nunn – 0 for 2 (0.0%)
TOTAL – 73 for 145 (50.3%)
TOTAL, RB’s – 72 for 136 (52.9%)
TOTAL, QB’s – 1 for 7 (14.3%)
TOTAL, WR’s – 0 for 2 (0.0%)
In the last three games since Illinois, Temple (17 for 30 (56.7%)) and Daniel (7 for 9 (77.8%)) have seen their numbers skyrocket, but I still give the advantage to Nebraska here. Missouri lines up in more formations, and they set up quite a few direct-snap situations for Maclin, Temple, Rucker, etc., but I don’t think there’s any disagreeing with the fact that NU’s running game is more proven at this stage in the game.
Receiver Success Rate
Missouri
Greg Bracey – 1 for 1 (100.0%)
Jason Ray – 1 for 1 (100.0%)
Derrick Washington – 1 for 1 (100.0%)
Chase Coffman – 13 for 14 (92.9%)
Jeremy Maclin – 14 for 16 (87.5%)
Tommy Saunders – 6 for 7 (85.7%)
Will Franklin – 12 for 15 (80.0%)
Martin Rucker – 17 for 22 (77.3%)
Jared Perry – 3 for 4 (75.0%)
Tony Temple – 2 for 3 (66.7%)
Danario Alexander – 5 for 9 (55.6%)
Jimmy Jackson – 1 for 2 (50.0%)
TOTAL – 76 for 95 (80.0%)
TOTAL, WR’s – 42 for 53 (79.2%)
TOTAL, TE’s – 30 for 36 (83.3%)
TOTAL, RB’s – 4 for 6 (66.7%)
Nebraska
Nate Swift – 14 for 14 (100.0%)
Cody Glenn (RB) – 2 for 2 (100.0%)
Thomas Lawson (FB) – 2 for 2 (100.0%)
J.B. Phillips (TE) – 1 for 1 (100.0%)
Dan Erickson – 1 for 1 (100.0%)
Quentin Castille (RB) – 1 for 1 (100.0%)
Roy Helu (RB) – 1 for 1 (100.0%)
Maurice Purify – 14 for 15 (93.3%)
Terrence Nunn – 13 for 15 (86.7%)
Sean Hill (TE) – 6 for 7 (85.7%)
Frantz Hardy – 4 for 5 (80.0%)
Hunter Teafatiller (TE) – 2 for 3 (66.7%)
Todd Peterson – 3 for 5 (60.0%)
Marlon Lucky (RB) – 14 for 24 (58.3%)
TOTAL – 78 for 96 (81.3%)
TOTAL, WR’s – 49 for 55 (89.1%)
TOTAL, TE’s – 9 for 11 (81.8%)
TOTAL, RB’s – 20 for 30 (66.7%)
A lot of the difference in numbers here comes from different offensive philosophies. NU rarely throws short to their WR’s, instead dumping off to their RB’s 4x more than Mizzou (6.0 per game to MU’s 1.5). Meanwhile, both teams’ TE’s are used effectively...the glaring difference, of course, being that Mizzou’s TE’s catch 9 passes per game (with the score within 16 points), while NU’s catch just 2.2 passes per game.
The wildcard here, of course, is that Maurice Purify might not play Saturday since he is in California awaiting the funeral of his girlfriend, who died in a car accident last weekend. Even if he does play, there’s no telling where his mind will be, as he was still recovering from the loss of his brother about a month ago. That’s as swift a reminder that there’s more to life than football if I ever saw one.
Line Yards and Sack Rate (OFFENSE)
In my line stats discussion from a couple weeks ago, I looked at Line Yards and Sack Rates to get a decent analysis of lineplay. Until something better comes along, that’s what I’ll continue to use.
LINE YARDS
Missouri
2007 Missouri average: 3.09 yds/carry (91 carries, 281.6 yards)
2006 Missouri average (in conference): 2.77 yds/carry
2006 Big 12 average: 2.86 yds/carry
Nebraska
2007 Nebraska average: 2.63 yds/carry (148 carries, 389.3 yards)
2006 Nebraska average (in conference): 3.15 yds/carry
2006 Big 12 average: 2.86 yds/carry
SACK RATE (FIRST & SECOND DOWNS)
Missouri
2007 Missouri rate: 0.9% (1 sack, 106 attempts)
2006 Missouri rate (in conference): 4.6%
2006 Big 12 rate: 5.5%
Nebraska
2007 Nebraska rate: 1.9% (2 sacks, 108 attempts)
2006 Nebraska rate (in conference): 8.2%
2006 Big 12 rate: 5.5%
These numbers will almost certainly go up as conference season progresses, but give Mizzou the edge so far.
SACK RATE (THIRD & FOURTH DOWNS)
Missouri
2007 Missouri rate: 3.0% (1 sack, 33 attempts)
2006 Missouri rate (in conference): 5.2%
2006 Big 12 rate: 8.1%
Nebraska
2007 Nebraska rate: 5.0% (2 sacks, 40 attempts)
2006 Nebraska rate (in conference): 8.9%
2006 Big 12 rate: 8.1%
This surprised me a bit, simply because when I’ve seen Sam Keller play, he’s always seemed to freeze up a bit when someone gets some pressure on him. More often than not, he seems to rush his delivery and throw a pretty inaccurate ball...but I still thought he was getting sacked more than this. Either way, though, Missouri has a slight advantage in all O-line categories. Some of that can be explained by the schedule (Illinois’ D-line is good, but it’s safe to say that USC’s is better), but not all of it.
Line Yards and Sack Rate (DEFENSE)
LINE YARDS
Missouri
2007 Missouri average: 3.10 yds/carry (72 carries, 223.4 yards)
2006 Missouri average (in conference): 3.19 yds/carry
2006 Big 12 average: 2.86 yds/carry
Nebraska
2007 Nebraska average: 2.60 yds/carry (154 carries, 401 yards)
2006 Nebraska average (in conference): 2.59 yds/carry
2006 Big 12 average: 2.86 yds/carry
SACK RATE (FIRST & SECOND DOWNS)
Missouri
2007 Missouri rate: 6.7%
2006 Missouri rate (in conference): 7.8%
2006 Big 12 rate: 5.5%
Nebraska
2007 Nebraska rate: 4.4%
2006 Nebraska rate (in conference): 3.7%
2006 Big 12 rate: 5.5%
SACK RATE (THIRD & FOURTH DOWNS)
Missouri
2007 Missouri rate: 3.1%
2006 Missouri rate (in conference): 9.8%
2006 Big 12 rate: 8.1%
Nebraska
2007 Nebraska rate: 0.0%
2006 Nebraska rate (in conference): 9.3%
2006 Big 12 rate: 8.1%
I was going to use this as evidence that Missouri has been holding back in the blitz department—you’re not supposed to have a worse sack rate on third downs (a blitzing down) than you do on first and second. However...what’s Nebraska’s excuse? Playing a team like USC, they had no reason to keep some tricks up their sleeves in anticipation of the Missouri game. In close games, they have yet to record a sack on third or fourth down...something made even more astounding considering they played Bret “I get sacked every other time I drop back to pass” Meyer last week, and the game was actually close for a while. This does somewhat explain how Ball State racked up 400 passing yards on them.
Hmm...Missouri's leading the nation in third down efficiency...Nebraska doesn't sack QBs on third down...hmm...
Defensive Success Rate
MISSOURI
Defensive Line
Leader: Lorenzo Williams – 9.0 tackles, 9.0 successful (100.0%)
TOTAL – 25.5 tackles, 17.5 successful (68.6%) (2006 Big 12 average: 71.4%)
Linebackers
Leader: Brock Christopher – 16.5 tackles, 11.0 successful (66.7%)
TOTAL – 37.5 tackles, 21.5 successful (57.3%) (2006 Big 12 average: 57.1%)
Defensive Backs
Leader: Pig Brown – 15.5 tackles, 6.0 successful (38.7%)
TOTAL – 56.0 tackles, 15.0 successful (26.8%) (2006 Big 12 average: 28.2%)
% of plays made by...
Defensive Line: 25.5 of 119.0 (21.4%) (2006 Big 12 average: 26.0%)
Linebackers: 37.5 of 119.0 (31.5%) (2006 Big 12 average: 33.1%)
Defensive Backs: 56.0 of 119.0 (47.1%) (2006 Big 12 average: 40.9%)
NEBRASKA
Defensive Line
Leader: Ndamukong Suh – 15.5 tackles, 13.0 successful (83.9%)
TOTAL – 52.5 tackles, 39.5 successful (75.2%) (2006 Big 12 average: 71.4%)
Linebackers
Leader: Corey McKeon – 15.5 tackles, 10.5 successful (67.7%)
TOTAL – 78.5 tackles, 44 successful (56.1%) (2006 Big 12 average: 57.1%)
Defensive Backs
Leader: Larry Asante – 16.5 tackles, 5.5 successful (33.3%)
TOTAL – 63.5 tackles, 15.0 successful (23.6%) (2006 Big 12 average: 28.2%)
% of plays made by...
Defensive Line: 52.5 of 194.5 (27.0%) (2006 Big 12 average: 26.0%)
Linebackers: 78.5 of 194.5 (40.4%) (2006 Big 12 average: 33.1%)
Defensive Backs: 63.5 of 194.5 (32.6%) (2006 Big 12 average: 40.9%)
For the 2006 Big 12 games I compiled, I’ve begun to compare some of these ‘success rates’ to actual success, i.e. wins, total yards, points, etc. I was wondering if it was more important for a unit like the D-line to be making plays, period, or if it was more important that they have a high success rate. I suspected, too, that you could tell a lot by what % of plays the secondary is forced to make. While that was somewhat important, by far the biggest indicator of success was Defensive Line success rate. To this extent, players like MU’s Zo Williams and NU’s Ndamukong Suh have been playing as well as you can play—Williams averaging 2.3 ‘successful’ plays a game and Suh averaging 2.6.
As a whole, however, Mizzou’s D-line has failed to make a strong level of successful plays—their 68.6% rate is too low, especially compared to NU’s 75.2%. However, anybody who watched the NU-USC game knows why we assume these stats tell the whole story. NU’s D-line repeatedly got blown up, leading to lanes so big that The Beef or I could have run for 100 yards against the Blackshirts.
In other words, neither D-line has been, shall we say, overly effective so far.
The other main problem for these two teams is that their secondaries have not made enough strong plays either...aside from the turnover department anyway. Which leads us to...
Turnover Costliness
For this stat, I’m looking at all turnovers period, not just those taking place when the game is close. And once again, here is how I measure “costliness” (also once again: if you can think of something more effective, please pass it along):
• Field position: 3 points if the turnover took place between the goal line and the 20, 2 points between the 20 and the 40, 1 point between the 40s.
• Game status: 2 points if the game was within 16 points or less, 1 if it was within 24 points of less, 0 if the margin was higher than that.
So...
Missouri
Offense: 7 turnovers, 23 total points = 3.29 average
Defense: 11 takeaways, 39 total points = 3.55 average
So they’re +4 on turnover margin and +16 on turnover costliness.
Nebraska
Offense: 12 turnovers, 45 points = 3.75 average
Defense: 10 takeaways, 37 points = 3.70 average
So they’re -2 on turnover margin and -8 on turnover costliness.
In all, Missouri turns the ball over less than Nebraska, and their T/O’s are less costly overall. They also force more turnovers than Nebraska, but thanks to Bo Ruud’s 2 INT’s for TD, NU’s takeaways are worth a little more.
Statistical MIPs
Two of the main themes that are emerging here are third downs and turnovers. You could say that pretty much every game is decided by third downs and turnovers, but it appears to be even more true here. With that in mind, here are the MIPs (Most Important Players...not Minors in Possession) for Saturday:
Missouri Offense: Chase Daniel. Duh. He's held onto the ball a bit too long and forced some passes a bit too tightly into traffic the last two games, and while my theory on that has simply been that he was testing his limits...re-learning what he can and can't do...he needs to be on his game Saturday. If he's making quick decisions and not forcing throws into traffic, MU should throw the ball at will.
Missouri Defense: I'm going to say Sean Weatherspoon. If we have indeed been holding back in the blitz department, then I'd say Weatherspoon is the most likely weapon to be unleashed Saturday. If we get pressure on Keller on third downs (without letting Marlon Lucky wander unabated into the flat for screen pass after screen pass), then the game is ours.
Nebraska Offense: Marlon Lucky. Nate Swift has been the secret weapon, but Marlon Lucky makes or breaks the offense. In just five games, Lucky has touched the ball 121 times with the score within two possessions, 97 on the ground and 24 in the air. He's been getting the tough, when-necessary yards, and if he's not allowed to make an impact in the game, then NU's toast.
Nebraska Defense: Bo Ruud. He is the defense's biggest playmaker. He disappears for series at a time, then he pops up to make back-to-back hits or, in the case of the last two games, score on a pick six. Plus, he had a huge deflected INT of Chase Daniel last year as Mizzou was beginning to put the pieces together offensively. He is the biggest potential disrupting force on the NU D.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Mizzou-Nebraska: Beyond the Box Score Preview
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Mizzou-Illinois State: Beyond the Box Score
I never really shared too many thoughts about Saturday’s game; while part of that is simply because it was a relatively un-memorable affair, I’ll try to add some observations throughout this Beyond the Box Score bit.
Another note: some time in the next week or so, I’m going to analyze Mizzou’s performance as a whole through the first four weeks, comparing it to that of our next opponent, Nebraska. Anyway, on with the show...
Success Rate by Quarter
All Plays
Q1 – Missouri 52.9%, ISU 41.2%
Q2 – Missouri 61.9%, ISU 57.9%
Q3 – Missouri 60.0%, ISU 61.1%
Q4 – Missouri 58.8%, ISU 52.2%
TOTAL – Missouri 58.7%, ISU 53.2%
Close (within two possessions)
Q1 – Missouri 52.9%, ISU 41.2%
Q2 – Missouri 61.9%, ISU 30.0%
Q3 – Missouri 60.0%, ISU 58.8%
Q4 – N/A
TOTAL – Missouri 58.6%, Illinois State 45.5%
As with every other game this year, Mizzou was relatively dominant when the game was within two possessions (i.e. less than 17 points), but things evened up when the rout was on. And again, that’s not the worst problem in the world to have. Bottom line is, we’ve been up 20+ in all four games this season. Only putting up 38 points (tied for our lowest total this season) was a little disappointing, but the offense moved the ball efficiently the entire game. The missed field goal and the three INT’s (two of which came relatively deep in ISU territory, both in the fourth quarter) were the drive-killers, not offensive inefficiency.
QB Success Rate
I think I’m going to still label Daniel as the QB in all of the plays where others (Rucker, Maclin, Temple) take the direct snap. Daniel’s still on the field, and it’s still his offense—it’s just that the offense goes into quite unique formations from time to time.
That said, only two QB’s were on the field on Saturday when the game was close.
Mizzou
Chase Daniel – 34-for-58 (58.6%)
ISU
Luke Drone – 20-for-44 (45.5%)
Run Success Rate
Mizzou
Tony Temple – 9-for-15 (60.0%)
Marcus Woods – 2-for-4 (50.0%)
Derrick Washington – 1-for-2 (50.0%)
Chase Daniel – 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Earl Goldsmith – 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Jimmy Jackson – 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Jeremy Maclin – 1-for-1 (100.0%)
TOTAL – 16-for-25 (64.0%)
ISU
Geno Blow – 8-for-13 (61.5%)
Luke Drone – 2-for-3 (66.7%)
Parrish Fisher – 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Rafael Rice – 0-for-4 (0.0%)
TOTAL – 11-for-21 (52.3%)
Considering the teams we’ll be facing over the next couple of months, 52.3% is just too damn high for Illinois State. It’s like when Rice left the game, we just decided they wouldn’t run the ball anymore. Offensively, however, I don’t think you could ask for much more than this. Chase Daniel only ran once, which is fantastic for a meaningless game like this, and Tony Temple’s backups went 5-for-8. Everybody was running with confidence, and I was pleased to see the way Chase has been taking two steps forward during the handoff...something obviously designed to give the RB’s more of a running start, especially up the middle. We seem to have strayed somewhat from the ‘hand the ball to the RB while he’s standing still 7 yards behind the line of scrimmage’ plays, though they were still utilized a bit.
Receiver Success Rate
Mizzou
Jeremy Maclin – 4-for-5 (80.0%)
Martin Rucker - 3-for-4 (75.0%)
Chase Coffman - 3-for-3 (100.0%)
Will Franklin - 2-for-2 (100.0%)
Tommy Saunders - 2-for-2 (100.0%)
Tony Temple - 1-for-2 (50.0%)
Jimmy Jackson - 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Jason Ray - 1-for-1 (100.0%)
TOTAL – 18-for-21 (85.7%)
Illinois State
Meredith – 3-for-3 (100.0%)
Mickle – 2-for-2 (100.0%)
Salem – 2-for-2 (100.0%)
Geno Blow – 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Chandler – 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Harcar – 0-for-2 (0.0%)
TOTAL – 9-for-11 (81.2%)
The emergence of Jeremy Maclin has pretty much allowed Mizzou to keep Will Franklin in reserve and just dust him off when necessary. The opening TD went to Franklin, then he only saw one other meaningful ball. The more I think about it, the more I like the fact that Maclin and Rucker have dominated a good portion of the non-conference action (sans Franklin’s first half against Ole Miss). Franklin and Coffman are kind of drifting under the radar right now, plus Alexander is still on pace (I believe) to return for NU. It’s pretty nice knowing that you have 5 guys who could go for 100 (or 150) yards receiving on any given Saturday.
Line Yards
Mizzou
Rushing – 25 attempts, 96.0 yards (3.84 per carry)
Total – 58 plays, 223.2 yards (3.85 per play)
ISU
Rushing – 22 attempts, 79.3 yards (3.60 per carry)
Total – 44 plays, 129.7 yards (2.95 per play)
Defensive Success Rates
Defensive Line
Tommy Chavis – 1.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (100.0%)
Ziggy Hood – 1.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (100.0%)
Lorenzo Williams – 1.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (100.0%)
Stryker Sulak – 3.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (33.3%)
Tyler Crane – 1.5 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
TOTAL – 7.5 tackles, 4.0 successful (53.3%)
Linebackers
Brock Christopher – 3.5 tackles, 2.5 successful (71.4%)
Sean Weatherspoon – 5.5 tackles, 3.0 successful (54.5%)
Van Alexander – 1.0 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
TOTAL – 10.0 tackles, 5.5 successful (55.0%)
Defensive Backs
Castine Bridges – 0.5 tackles, 0.5 successful (100.0%)
William Moore – 3.5 tackles, 2.0 successful (57.1%)
Pig Brown – 6.0 tackles, 2.0 successful (33.3%)
Carl Gettis – 2.0 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
Justin Garrett – 1.5 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
Hardy Ricks – 1.5 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
Darnell Terrell – 1.5 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
TOTAL – 16.5 tackles, 4.5 successful (27.3%)
So coming into this game, I wanted to see good things from the following players: Van Alexander, Ziggy Hood, Stryker Sulak. Alexander did next to nothing. Take the “close game” filter off, and he was outplayed by Luke Lambert. Hood did next to nothing. Sulak had a nice sack and continues to make a bunch of ‘almost’ plays...but did next to nothing otherwise. Not encouraging. Also not so encouraging: that the secondary had to make that many tackles. Once I have more data together, I’ll be able to start looking at what % of tackles you see from each unit on good defenses compared to shaky ones. Needless to say, I’m pretty sure the 48.5% made by the DB’s is way too damn high.
Turnover Costliness
Mizzou1: Q1, 14-3 MU, 1st-and-10 from the Mizzou 31 (Interception by Nelson): 4 points
Mizzou2: Q4, 38-10 MU, 1st-and-goal from the ISU 7 (Interception by Roberts): 3 points
ISU1: Q4, 38-10 MU, 3rd-and-13 from the Mizzou 18 (Interception by W. Moore): 3 points
Mizzou3: Q4, 38-10 MU, 2nd-and-10 from the ISU 37 (Interception by Nelson): 2 points
Total
Mizzou: 3 turnovers, 9 points (3.0 avg)
ISU: 1 turnover, 3 points
Statistical MVPs
Offense: Once again, the statistical MVP directly coincides with the “watched with my eyes” MVP. It’s gotta be Jeremy Maclin, who was ‘successful’ on 5 of 6 opportunities (83.3%) and scored two TD’s. Tony Temple (10-for-17, 58.8%, 1 TD) is probably the runner-up.
Defense: We’ll go with William Moore, who made 2.0 ‘successful’ tackles from the safety position and had an INT worth 3 points. Runner-up: Sean Weatherspoon, who led the team with 3.0 ‘successful’ tackles.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Mizzou-WMU: Beyond the Box Score
It's time once again for me to interest only myself by delving into game stats from a different angle...
Success Rate by Quarter
Once again, “success” is defined as follows: 40% of needed yardage on 1st down, 70% of needed yardage on 2nd down, or 100% of needed yardage on 3rd or 4th down. This looks at the rate of success for each team by each quarter. Its goal is to see how the game flowed from one quarter to another.
Q1: MU 55.6%, WMU 43.8%
Q2: WMU 50.0%, MU 43.5%
Q3: WMU 35.3%, MU 30.4%
Q4: MU 69.6%, WMU 65.4%
GAME: WMU 50.6%, MU 49.4%
Alarming? Not so much. Here’s the success rate for only plays taking place when the score was within 16 points or less (i.e. two possessions):
Q1: MU 55.6%, WMU 43.8%
Q2: MU 57.1%, WMU 25.0%
Q3: N/A (the game was never within 16 points)
Q4: MU 83.3%, WMU N/A (MU got the ball up 14 and immediately drove down for a TD)
GAME-CLOSE: MU 61.3%, WMU 40.0%
Again, this shows what we’ve been seeing all season—Mizzou takes its foot off the gas when up big. And again, this problem could be worse...we could not be up huge in every game.
For the season...
Q1: Mizzou 47.8%, Opp 39.0%
Q2: Opp 53.2%, Mizzou 48.5%
Q3: Opp 50.0%, Mizzou 48.3%
Q4: Opp 49.3%, Mizzou 48.3%
GAME: Opp 48.7%, Mizzou 48.2%
For the season, in close games...
Q1: Mizzou 47.8%, Opp 39.0%
Q2: Mizzou 52.0%, Opp 48.6%
Q3: Mizzou 75.0%, Opp 25.0%
Q4: Mizzou 41.9%, Opp 37.5%
GAME-CLOSE: Mizzou 49.4%, Opp 40.8%
Now you see why I only look at stats when the game is within two possessions. That’s what I’ll solely observe for the rest of these numbers.
QB Success Rate
This looks at the success rate of every play in which a specific QB takes the snap.
Mizzou
Chase Daniel: 19-for-30 (63.3%) (SEASON: 81-for-165 (49.1%))
Martin Rucker: 0-for-1 (0.0%) (SEASON: 4-for-6 (66.7%))
TEAM: 19-for-31 (61.3%) (SEASON: 85-for-172 (49.4%))
WMU
Tim Hiller: 8-for-20 (40.0%)
Run Success Rate
Mizzou
Tony Temple: 6-for-6 (100.0%) (SEASON: 11-for-32 (34.4%))
Jeremy Maclin: 2-for-4 (50.0%) (SEASON: 5-for-7 (71.4%))
Chase Daniel: 2-for-2 (100.0%) (SEASON: 8-for-17 (47.1%))
Martin Rucker: 0-for-1 (0.0%) (SEASON: 3-for-5 (60.0%))
TEAM: 10-for-13 (76.9%) (SEASON: 27-for-66 (40.9%))
WMU
West: 2-for-6 (33.3%)
Bonds: 1-for-4 (25.0%)
TEAM: 3-for-10 (30.0%) (OPPONENTS, SEASON: 19-for-50 (38.0%))
Temple and MU's rates are slowly improving from the disaster that was the Illinois game.
Receiver Success Rate
Mizzou
Jeremy Maclin: 4-for-4 (100.0%) (SEASON: 10-for-11 (90.9%))
Martin Rucker: 2-for-4 (50.0%) (SEASON: 14-for-18 (77.8%))
Will Franklin: 1-for-1 (100.0%) (SEASON: 10-for-13 (76.9%))
Tommy Saunders: 1-for-1 (100.0%) (SEASON: 4-for-5 (80.0%))
Jared Perry: 1-for-1 (100.0%) (SEASON: 3-for-4 (75.0%))
Jimmy Jackson: 0-for-1 (0.0%) (SEASON: 0-for-1 (0.0%))
TEAM: 9-for-12 (75.0%) (SEASON: 58-for-74 (78.4%))
WMU
Ledbetter: 1-for-2 (50.0%)
West: 1-for-2 (50.0%)
Martin: 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Middleton: 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Simmons: 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Bonds: 0-for-1 (0.0%)
TEAM: 5-for-8 (62.5%) (OPPONENTS, SEASON: 30-for-38 (78.9%))
Line Yards
Again, here are the rules for Line Yards, an attempted measure of O-line (and D-line) effectiveness:• For a play that resulted in negative yards, the O-line is granted 120% of the effort (i.e. a 3-yard loss would be a 3.6-yard loss for the O-line).
As a whole, it makes a lot more sense in regard to running plays (the line’s responsible for creating lanes necessary for the RB moving up the field) than passing plays (most of the time, the line’s only responsible for the QB getting the pass off comfortably).
• For a play that resulted in a 0-4 yard gain, the O-line is granted 100%.
• For a play that resulted in a 5-10 yard gain, the O-line is granted 50% of the yards over 4 (i.e. an 8-yard gain would be a 6-yard gain for the O-line).
• For a play that resulted in a 10+ yard gain, the O-line get no extra credit—by that point, the runner is into the secondary, and the line won’t get much chance to block. Therefore (if the math in my head is correct), the most credit an O-line can get is 7.5 yards.
Mizzou-WMU
Mizzou
13 rushes, 64 yards (4.92/carry)
31 total plays, 130 yards (4.19/play)
WMU
10 rushes, 30.8 yards (3.08/carry)
20 total plays, 52.1 yards (2.61/play)
Season
Mizzou
66 rushes, 185.6 yards (2.81/carry)
173 plays, 552.2 yards (3.19/play)
Opponents
50 rushes, 144.1 yards (2.88/carry)
120 plays, 319.9 yards (2.67/play)
And as a point of reference...
2006 Conference Numbers
Mizzou
251 rushes, 687.5 yards (2.74/carry)
551 plays, 1628.5 yards (2.96/play)
Opponents
306 rushes, 1006.2 yards (3.29/carry)
548 plays, 1644.4 yards (3.00/play)
You would want your non-conference numbers to be better than last year’s conference numbers, and they are across the board. How that translates to 2007 conference numbers, we’ll have to wait and see. Either way, though, the line yards figures show improvement against WMU as compared to previous weeks...one would hope so, as WMU likely isn’t as good as UI or Ole Miss were.
Defensive Success Rates
I’m going to do this one a little differently this week. The last couple of weeks, I’ve laid out these stats as follows: total tackles (when the game was within two possessions), the number of those tackles that resulted in a successful play for the offense, and the overall success rate. That was fine, except it was a little confusing, as the lower the success rate was for a defender, the better. It makes more sense for a higher number to signify success (this isn’t golf), so I’m now defining the “successful” plays listed below as whether a play was successful for the defense (i.e. was not a successful play for the offense). Make sense? I’m sure it does. So now, if a defensive player has a 100% success rate, that’s good.
And as I’ve mentioned before, you have to kind of figure that the DL will have a better rate than the LB’s, and the LB’s better than the DB’s, just thinking about how close to the line of scrimmage (and the ‘success’ line) they line up on a given play.
MIZZOU VS WMU
Defensive Line
Lorenzo Williams – 3.5 tackles, 3.5 successful (100.0%)
Tommy Chavis – 1.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (100.0%)
Charles Gaines – 1.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (100.0%)
Ziggy Hood – 0.5 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
TOTAL – 6.0 tackles, 5.5 successful (91.7%)
Linebackers
Sean Weatherspoon – 1.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (100.0%)
Brock Christopher – 2.0 tackles, 1.5 successful (75.0%)
TOTAL – 3.0 tackles, 2.5 successful (83.3%)
Defensive Backs
Castine Bridges – 1.5 tackles, 1.0 successful (66.7%)
William Moore – 2.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (50.0%)
Justin Garrett – 0.5 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
Carl Gettis – 2.0 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
Pig Brown – 1.5 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
Hardy Ricks – 1.5 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
TOTAL – 9.0 tackles, 2.0 successful (22.2%)
SEASON
Defensive Line
Lorenzo Williams – 8.0 tackles, 8.0 successful (100.0%)
Jaysen Corbett – 1.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (100.0%)
Charles Gaines – 1.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (100.0%)
Tommy Chavis – 2.0 tackles, 1.5 successful (75.0%)
Stryker Sulak – 1.5 tackles, 1.0 successful (66.7%)
Ziggy Hood – 3.5 tackles, 1.0 successful (28.6%)
TOTAL – 17.0 tackles, 13.5 successful (79.4%)
Linebackers
Brock Christopher – 13.0 tackles, 8.5 successful (65.4%)
Sean Weatherspoon – 11.5 tackles, 7.0 successful (60.9%)
Van Alexander – 3.0 tackles, 0.5 successful (16.7%)
TOTAL – 27.5 tackles, 16.0 successful (58.2%)
Defensive Backs
Castine Bridges – 1.5 tackles, 1.0 successful (66.7%)
Justin Garrett – 1.0 tackles, 0.5 successful (50.0%)
Pig Brown – 9.5 tackles, 4.0 successful (42.1%)
William Moore – 9.0 tackles, 3.0 successful (33.3%)
Hardy Ricks – 7.0 tackles, 2.0 successful (28.6%)
Carl Gettis – 6.0 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
Del Howard – 3.0 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
Darnell Terrell – 2.5 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
TOTAL – 39.5 tackles, 10.5 successful (26.6%)
The only comments I have about this are as follows:
• All Lorenzo Williams does is make big plays. He has well over half of the D-Line’s ‘successful’ plays for the season. That’s both good and bad, I think. I’ll get into that one more later.
• We really, really, really need for three guys to start making positive contributions: Ziggy Hood, Stryker Sulak and Van Alexander. Hood has officially made 1.0 successful plays this year, not counting his 2nd quarter fumble recovery against WMU (which does factor into consideration a bit). Sulak caused that 2nd quarter fumble and was a lot more noticeable against WMU, though all of his plays came with Mizzou up comfortably. Alexander, meanwhile, is leading the team (by my count, anyway) in missed arm tackles, while his ‘success rate’ is significantly far below that of Weatherspoon and Christopher. We have two-thirds of a successful LB corps, but that’s not nearly enough. Either Alexander needs to improve, or somebody like Luke Lambert needs to step up and steal some playing time.
• Pig Brown hasn’t done much since the Illinois game. He makes some nice hits, but they’re all coming after big gains.
Turnover Costliness
The super-primitive formula for this can be found here. As always, if you have a better idea for this formula, let me know. One of these days, I’ll get a response to that request.
WMU1: Q1, 7-0 MU, 3rd and 5 from the WMU 42 (Christopher INT) – 3 points
MU1: Q2, 21-3 MU, 3rd and 10 from the MU 35 (Gebhart INT) – 3 points
WMU2: Q2, 28-3 MU, 1st and 10 from the MU 45 (Sulak FF, Hood FR) – 1 point
MU2: Q3, 31-3 MU, 3rd and 7 from the MU 30 (C.J. INT for TD) – automatic 5 points
Total: MU 6 points on 2 turnovers (3.0 avg), WMU 4 points on 2 turnovers (2.0 avg)
Season: MU 15 points on 4 turnovers (3.8 avg), Opponents 36 points on 9 turnovers (4.0 avg).
So I guess you can say that not only does MU have a +5 turnover margin for the year, they have a +21 turnover costliness margin.
Mizzou Statistical MVPs
Offensive: You don’t need to delve to deeply into the box score to notice Jeremy Maclin’s diverse and effective day. He did a little of everything—run, catch, return kicks—and he did it all effectively. Martin Rucker had an amazing day as well, but more of his came when the game was a little less tight.
Defensive: Brock Christopher’s been the defense’s rock this year, and he showed it here. He only made 1.5 ‘successful’ defensive plays (when the game was within 2 possessions), but he also had an INT (worth 3 points). That bumps him ahead of Lorenzo Williams and his 3.5 successful plays.
For the season...
Offensive: Really, the only guys who have brought their A-game all three games so far are Chase Daniel, Maclin, and Rucker. Compared to others at his position, Rucker is by far the biggest success of the three guys, but I really can’t give a ‘season MVP’ award to anybody other than Chase Daniel.
Defensive: Just as with the WMU game, Brock Christopher gets the slight nod over Lorenzo Williams for the season because of the successful plays/turnovers combination...and because of the D-line's overall ineffectiveness. Williams is the Mizzou defense’s version of Cris “All he does is catch TD’s” Carter—all he does is make big plays. And as with that original quote about Carter, that’s not a 100% good thing...at least not when compared to the defense as a whole.
The D-line needs to make more plays, period, if this defense is going to play well enough for Mizzou to win the Big 12 North. I’m sure Williams could be doing more, but as I said above...he’s made 8 of the D-Line’s 13 successful plays. Guys like Hood, Sulak, etc., need to do something...anything. Sulak had a nice game against WMU, though most of it came with Mizzou up comfortably. Hopefully that’s a sign of things to come, though.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Mizzou-Ole Miss: Beyond the Box Score
Mizzou-Illinois
I’m sticking that link at the top so you can check out any needed explanations of the categories below.
Success Rate by Quarter
So is it a cause-effect here that when Mizzou goes up big, their play crumbles? Or would we have crumbled anyway, and we were just lucky to have a big lead? If it’s the former, I guess that’s not the worst problem to have—better to play badly when you have a big lead than to play badly when the game’s tight. If it’s the latter...well, it’ll catch up to us soon enough, won’t it...
Q1: Mizzou 50.0%, Ole Miss 40.0%
Q2: Mizzou 59.1%, Ole Miss 55.0%
Q3: Mizzou 57.1%, Ole Miss 61.9%
Q4: Mizzou 36.4%, Ole Miss 38.5%
Total: Mizzou 51.9%, Ole Miss 49.4%
For the season...
Q1: Mizzou 44.9%, Opponents 36.0%
Q2: Mizzou 51.2%, Opponents 55.0%
Q3: Mizzou 59.5%, Opponents 55.3%
Q4: Mizzou 35.1%, Opponents 39.0%
Total: Mizzou 47.6%, Opponents 47.7%
However, when games are within less than 17 points...
Q1: Mizzou 44.9%, Opponents 36.0%
Q2: Mizzou 51.2%, Opponents 51.6%
Q3: Mizzou 75.0%, Opponents 25.0% (just 4 plays each)
Q4: Mizzou 35.1%, Opponents 37.5%
Total: Mizzou 46.8%, Opponents 41.0%
Eventually we’ll get enough of a sample size to be able to tell what the primary causes of Mizzou’s defensive lapses are—youth, sustained intensity, lack of killer instinct, lack of talent, whatever—but for now we really don’t know the whole story. All we know is, when the game is tight, Mizzou does enough to win.
QB Success Rate
As always, we’re now going to look at only plays taking place when the game was within less than 17.
Mizzou
Chase Daniel – 29 for 58 (50.0%)
Martin Rucker – 2 for 3 (66.7%)
TOTAL – 31 for 61 (50.8%)
Ole Miss
Seth Adams – 20 for 51 (39.2%)
It should be noted that pretty much all of Seth Adams’ big pass plays came when Mizzou was up 21-0, 35-7, 38-13, or 38-19. The defense was a lot stiffer when the game was tighter.
Run Success Rate
Mizzou
Tony Temple – 3 for 11 (27.3%) (season: 19.2%)
Chase Daniel – 4 for 6 (66.7%) (season: 40.0%)
Jimmy Jackson – 0 for 4 (0.0%) (season: 0.0%)
Jeremy Maclin – 2 for 2 (100.0%) (season: 100.0%)
Martin Rucker – 1 for 2 (50.0%) (season: 75.0%)
TOTAL – 10 for 25 (40.0%) (season: 32.7%)
Ole Miss
Ben Jarvus Green-Ellis – 8 for 16 (50.0%)
Seth Adams – 0 for 2 (0.0%)
Cordera Eason – 0 for 1 (0.0%)
TOTAL – 8 for 19 (42.1%) (season for all opponents: 40.0%)
Tony Temple had some nice runs Saturday, but most of his yards came from just a small handful of carries, only a couple of which came when the game was close. It’s once again hard to complain too much about an offense that’s averaging 39 points and almost 500 yards a game, but...the running game has got to get better.
Receiver Success Rate
Mizzou
Will Franklin – 6 for 8 (75.0%) (season: 75.0%)
Jeremy Maclin – 4 for 5 (80.0%) (season: 85.7%)
Chase Coffman – 4 for 4 (100.0%) (season: 90.9%)
Martin Rucker – 3 for 4 (75.0%) (season: 85.7%)
Jared Perry – 1 for 2 (50.0%) (season: 66.7%)
Greg Bracey – 1 for 1 (100.0%) (season: 100.0%)
Tony Temple – 1 for 1 (100.0%) (season: 100.0%)
TOTAL – 20 for 25 (80.0%) (season: 79.0%)
Ole Miss
Shay Hodge – 4 for 4 (100.0%)
Marshay Green – 3 for 4 (75.0%)
Mike Wallace – 2 for 3 (66.7%)
Robert Lane – 2 for 2 (100.0%)
Michael Hicks – 1 for 2 (50.0%)
TOTAL – 12 for 15 (80.0%) (season for all opponents: 83.3%)
Ole Miss did relatively well passing the ball, but their success all stemmed from Green-Ellis. As he went, so went the passing game.
Line Yards
Line Yards – Rushing
Mizzou: 3.42 LY/carry (season: 2.36)
Ole Miss: 4.06 LY/carry (season for all opponents: 2.83)
Line Yards – Total
Mizzou: 3.74 LY/play (season: 3.00)
Ole Miss: 2.95 LY/play (season for all opponents: 2.68)
This says the same thing as the ‘Run Success Rate’ suggested above: Mizzou has got to get better at running the ball.
Defensive Success Rates
Defensive Line
Lorenzo Williams – 3.5 tackles, 0.0 resulted in offensive success (0.0%)
Jaysen Corbett – 1.0 / 0.0 (0.0%)
Tommy Chavis – 0.5 / 0.0 (0.0%)
Ziggy Hood – 0.5 / 0.0 (0.0%)
TOTAL – 5.5 tackles, 0.0 resulted in offensive success (0.0%)
SEASON TOTAL – 11.0 tackles, 3.0 resulted in offensive success (27.3%)
Linebackers
Brock Christopher – 5.5 / 1.5 (27.3%)
Sean Weatherspoon – 4.5 / 2.0 (44.4%)
Van Alexander – 1.5 / 1.0 (66.7%)
TOTAL – 11.5 tackles, 4.5 resulted in offensive success (39.1%)
SEASON TOTAL – 24.5 tackles, 11.0 resulted in offensive success (44.9%)
Secondary
Justin Garrett – 0.5 / 0.0 (0.0%)
Hardy Ricks – 3.0 / 2.0 (66.7%)
Pig Brown – 3.5 / 2.5 (71.4%)
Carl Gettis – 4.0 / 4.0 (100.0%)
William Moore – 3.0 / 3.0 (100.0%)
Darnell Terrell – 1.0 / 1.0 (100.0%)
TOTAL – 15 tackles, 12.5 resulted in offensive success (83.3%)
SEASON TOTAL – 30.5 tackles, 22.0 resulted in offensive success (72.1%)
This pretty much shows the flaws in the ‘success rate’ idea. The D-line, led by Lorenzo Williams, has a great ratio of successful-to-unsuccessful plays. The problem is, they’re just not making enough plays, period. Too many plays are filtering through to the secondary. You’d expect the smallest number of tackles to come from the D-line, but they need to be making at least half the plays the LB’s are making. Stryker Sulak laid a big goose egg on Saturday...that cannot continue.
Turnover Costliness
After last weekend’s turnover deluge (7 turnovers in the MU-UI game), this game was played a bit more under control. Mizzou won the turnover battle, 2-0.
OleMiss1: Q2, 14-0 MU, 2nd-and-goal from the MU 12 (Green-Ellis fumbles at Mizzou) – 5 points
OleMiss2: Q4, 38-25 MU, 2nd-and-10 from the MU 21 (Garrett intercepts ball near goalline) – 4 points
Average: 4.5 points
Mizzou’s getting good at forcing turnovers deep in their territory, though if they rely on that too much, it will cost them eventually.
Mizzou Statistical MVPs
Offensive – Chase Daniel. The running game worked in spurts on Saturday, but not enough to prevent a deluge of 3rd downs. Throwing on 3rd-and-4, Chase was 1-for-1 getting the first down. On 3rd-and-5, 3-for-3. On 3rd-and-7, 2-for-3. On 3rd-and-10, 1-for-1. In all, he got the first down 7 of 9 times throwing on third down. That’s insane, and it made the difference in the game. Chase has lots of weapons at his disposal, but finding the right weapon at that high a rate is still quite impressive.
Defensive – Brock Christopher. When the game was within 17, the Tigers made 15 ‘successful’ plays (i.e. unsuccessful for offense). Christopher had 4 of them and forced a BJGE fumble inside the Mizzou 10. It wasn’t a good day for the defense, but they still made plays when they absolutely needed to, and Christopher led the way in that regard.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Mizzou-Illinois: Beyond the Box Score
I haven’t finished walking through all the different statistical categories I’ll be using yet (see what I have done so far here), but as I finish that up, I still plan on walking through the play-by-play stats of each game as they’re completed.
Which means it’s time to look at the Illinois game. What you will find below has nothing to do with what can be found in a box score—box scores are filled with beyond vital information, and everybody looks at them, but...well, everybody looks at them. There’s no point in rehashing. What I want to look at here are only things you can’t find anywhere else. So let’s get started.
Success Rate by Quarter
Instead of looking at the scores by quarter, we’ll look at Success Rates (as defined in previous stat posts). While this inevitably will match up at least partially with the scores for each quarter, this will give a better idea of who was dictating the play at the time.
Q1: Missouri 37.0%, Illinois 25.0%
Q2: Missouri 42.9%, Illinois 59.1%
Q3: Missouri 64.7%, Illinois 45.2%
Q4: Missouri 33.3%, Illinois 36.8%
Total: Missouri 42.4%, Illinois 44.0%
As you see, this suggests that Missouri controlled the play in the first quarter, while Illinois did in the 2nd. That makes sense if you watched the game, though the score by quarter shows a completely different tale. Missouri won the first quarter 7-6 and won the second quarter 16-0, even though Illinois began moving the ball quite well. What Success Rates don’t show you, of course, are the big plays. Illinois’ blocked punt, Pig Brown’s fumble return TD, Jeremy Maclin’s punt return TD, Chase Daniel’s “fumble” (yes, I’m still bitter), the Mizzou safeties’ two fourth quarter INT’s, etc. Big plays obviously define games and dictate wins and losses, but success rates give you a better idea of how a team really played...and it might be an indicator of how they’ll play in the future. We’ll see. For Mizzou’s sake, hopefully not...though this does reaffirm what the 2006 QB stats showed last week—Mizzou was fantastic in the first and third quarters, mediocre-at-best in the second and fourth.
QB Success Rate
For this, we’ll go back to a consistent criterion for my looks at data: we’ll only look at plays made when the game was within less than 17 points. Above, we looked at everything. This actually (unintentionally) removes quite a bit of Illinois’ 3rd quarter plays since they had possessions start when the game was 23-6, 30-13, 37-13, and 37-20. As for Mizzou, the only drive it took away was one at 37-27.
Remember: the QB Success Rate measures the success rate for every play in which the given QB took the snap. Even running plays that had little to nothing to do with the QB.
Missouri
Chase Daniel – 35 for 84 (41.7%)
Martin Rucker – 2 for 2 (100.0%)
Chase Patton – 0 for 1 (0.0%)
TOTAL – 37 for 87 (42.5%)
Martin Rucker for starting QB!
Illinois
Eddie McGee – 16 for 39 (41.0%)
Juice Williams – 8 for 18 (44.4%)
TOTAL – 24 for 57 (42.1%)
It should be noted that the last five plays Juice Williams ran before his injury were ‘successful’ plays. He was 3-for-13 (23.1%) before that string of success. Would that success have continued? Probably not, but it’s not like we’ll ever know for sure.
Run Success Rate
(Again, only when the game was within less than 17.)
Missouri
Tony Temple – 2 for 15 (13.3%)
Chase Daniel – 2 for 9 (22.2%)
Martin Rucker – 2 for 2 (100.0%)
Jeremy Maclin – 1 for 1 (100.0%)
TOTAL – 7 for 27 (25.9%)
UGH. Horrid. As bad as Temple’s % is, Daniel’s is almost worse. When a QB runs (and this isn’t including sacks), he really needs to be successful...otherwise the risk is too great. Ironically, he was concussed on one of his two runs that were successful.
Illinois
Rashard Mendenhall – 3 for 10 (30.0%)
Juice Williams – 3 for 5 (60.0%)
Eddie McGee – 1 for 3 (33.3%)
Daniel Dufrene – 1 for 3 (33.3%)
TOTAL – 8 for 21 (38.1%)
Illinois wasn’t very good running either, but in comparison to Mizzou they had Ladanian Tomlinson and Brad Smith in the backfield.
Receiver Success Rate
Missouri
Martin Rucker – 9 for 10 (90.0%)
Danario Alexander – 5 for 9 (55.6%)
Chase Coffman – 6 for 7 (85.7%)
Will Franklin – 3 for 4 (75.0%)
Tommy Saunders – 3 for 4 (75.0%)
Jeremy Maclin – 2 for 2 (100.0%)
Jared Perry – 1 for 1 (100.0%)
TOTAL – 29 for 37 (78.4%)
All-World TE Chmartin Ruffman with an outstanding 15-for-17 effort.
Illinois
Rejus Benn – 3 for 4 (75.0%)
Kyle Hudson – 3 for 3 (100.0%)
Jacob Willis – 2 for 3 (66.7%)
Brian Gamble – 2 for 2 (100.0%)
Rashard Mendenhall – 2 for 2 (100.0%)
Joe Morgan – 1 for 1 (100.0%)
TOTAL – 13 for 15 (86.7%)
Kind of a “quantity vs quality” dynamic here. When Illinois completed a pass, it was almost certainly successful...but in a close game, Illinois only completed 13 passes. Mizzou had a worse success rate, but they had over twice the completions (29) overall.
Line Yards
This is a concept I haven’t covered here yet. Line Yards are a way to evaluate the play by the Offensive and Defensive Lines. The general rules (as studied and tweaked by the good folks at Football Outsiders) are as follows:• For a play that resulted in negative yards, the O-line is granted 120% of the effort (i.e. a 3-yard loss would be a 3.6-yard loss for the O-line).
As you would expect, the Line Yards averages aren’t going to be all that high. This is the next thing I’m going to cover in my 2006 data pieces, so you’ll see how teams compare to each other then. For now, we will only know enough to compare Illinois to Missouri.
• For a play that resulted in a 0-4 yard gain, the O-line is granted 100%.
• For a play that resulted in a 5-10 yard gain, the O-line is granted 50% of the yards over 4 (i.e. an 8-yard gain would be a 6-yard gain for the O-line).
• For a play that resulted in a 10+ yard gain, the O-line get no extra credit—by that point, the runner is into the secondary, and the line won’t get much chance to block. Therefore (if the math in my head is correct), the most credit an O-line can get is 7.5 yards.
Line Yards – Rushing
(Again, with the game within <17>Line Yards – Passing
To me, this stat doesn’t carry as much weight as the rushing yards, though obviously a line will get significantly penalized for sacks.
Missouri: 55 attempts, 165.3 yards (2 sacks for -26 yards) (3.01 LY/pass)
Illinois: 30 attempts, 87.2 yards (1 sack for -4.8 yards) (2.91 LY/pass)
Line Yards – TOTAL
Missouri: 82 plays, 202.7 yards (2.47 LY/play)
Illinois: 51 plays, 123.4 yards (2.42 LY/play)
Defensive Success Rates
This will measure the success rates (the lower the better, since we’re still dealing with offensive ‘success’) for each player who made a tackle. I’ll only do Missouri here, unless somebody is just dying to see Illinois’. As a whole, you expect the D-Line to have the best (i.e. lowest) overall percentages, then LB’s, then secondary. If they don’t go in that order, something was funky. This makes sense, since well, the D-line starts closer to the line of scrimmage and therefore closer to the ‘success’ line.
Defensive Line
Lorenzo Williams – 1.0 tackles, 0.0 were successful (0.0%)
Stryker Sulak – 1.5 tackles, 0.5 were successful (33.3%)
Ziggy Hood – 2.5 tackles, 2.0 were successful (80.0%)
Tommy Chavis – 0.5 tackles, 0.5 were successful (100.0%)
TOTAL – 5.5 tackles, 3.0 were successful (54.5%)
Linebackers
Sean Weatherspon – 6.0 tackles, 2.5 were successful (41.7%)
Brock Christopher – 5.5 tackles, 2.5 were successful (45.5%)
Van Alexander – 1.5 tackles, 1.5 were successful (100.0%)
TOTAL – 13.0 tackles, 6.5 were successful (50.0%)
Secondary
Pig Brown – 4.5 tackles, 1.5 were successful (33.3%)
Hardy Ricks – 2.5 tackles, 1.5 were successful (60.0%)
William Moore – 4.0 tackles, 2.0 were successful (50.0%)
Darnell Terrell – 1.5 tackles, 1.5 were successful (100.0%)
Del Howard – 3.0 tackles, 3.0 were successful (100.0%)
TOTAL – 15.5 tackles, 9.5 were successful (61.3%)
It’s definitely weird when the LB’s are more successful than the D-Line, and it’s even more weird when the best overall success rate belongs to Pig Brown, the strong safety, the supposed last line of defense.
Turnover Costliness
A while back, I asked for feedback (and got none, ahem) regarding a measure of turnover costliness. Here’s the formula I discussed then:As I've been entering the play-by-plays, I came up with a pretty primitive equation that simply factors where the turnover took place (3 points if it took place between either your or your opponent's goalline and 20, 2 if it took place between either 20 and 40, 1 if it took place between the 40's) and how close the game was at the time of the turnover (2 points if within two possessions, 1 point if within 24 points, 0 if over 24 points). There's a maximum of 5 points available. If the turnover is returned for a TD, it's an automatic 5 points.
I also added...That's okay, but it still doesn't really tell the story. For instance, if you fumbled at your 45 and it was returned to your 1, that's 1 point because it took place at your 45. I guess I could simply look at resulting field position to fix that problem...but that would open up the opposite problem (you fumble at your opponent's 1, they return it to the 45...and it's only 1 point). Maybe an average of the two?
Until I come up with a better formula, however, this is the one I’m going to use. However, when more descriptive of the situation, I’ll use the resulting field position. Here’s a summary of the game’s 7 turnovers:
Illinois1 (MU 7-6, Eddie McGee fumbles at Mizzou 2, Pig Brown returns for TD) – 5
Illinois2 (MU 13-6, Eddie McGee fumbles at Mizzou 32, Pig Brown recovers) – 4
Illinois3 (MU 20-6, Duvalt fumbles kick return, Connell Davis recovers at UI 14) – 5
Missouri1 (MU 37-20, Danario Alexander fumbles exchange at Mizzou 38) – 3
Missouri2 (MU 37-27, Daniel “fumbles” at Mizzou 11, returned to Mizzou 2) – 5
Illinois4 (MU 40-34, William Moore interception at Mizzou 23) – 4
Illinois5 (MU 40-34, Pig Brown interception at Mizzou 1) – 5
Average costliness of Illinois turnover: 4.6 (23 divided by 5)
Average costliness of Mizzou turnover: 4.0 (9 divided by 2)
I guess that makes some semblance of sense. I mean, Mizzou’s turnovers were costly—they both resulted in TD’s within 10 seconds of the turnover—but Illinois’ were even more costly—two occurred at the Mizzou goalline, one was returned 100 yards for a TD, one was recovered inside the Illinois redzone, and two others stopped drives deep in Mizzou territory. Still, though...I know something better can be done with this ‘Costliness’ figure...I just don’t know what yet. Ideas?
Mizzou Statistical MVPs
Offensive: Martin Rucker – he touched the ball 12 times (twice even lining up at QB), 11 of which resulted in ‘success’ (91.7%). It’s really hard to get better than that.
Defensive: Pig Brown – duh. Not only did he have the three takeaways—including a TD and the game-clinching INT—he was also the most ‘successful’ tackler on the field (a 33.3% offensive success rate). Gary Pinkel said yesterday that he couldn’t imagine Pig Brown ever being able to play better than that...it’s maybe a weird thing for a coach to say about one of his own players, but it’s true. Playing better statistically would be damn near impossible.
So there you have it. I will now attempt to solicit more feedback. What do folks think about this? Is it interesting to anybody beyond just me? Are other stats or different formatting I should be looking at? Is there a better way to look at turnover costliness?
