/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/41867258/457065596.0.jpg)
Oklahoma 31, Texas 26
Confused? Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here.
Basics | Oklahoma | Texas | Nat'l Avg |
---|---|---|---|
Total Plays | 50 | 84 | |
Close Rate (non-garbage time) | 91.0% | ||
Avg Starting FP | 31.4 | 25.2 | 29.8 |
Possessions | 13 | 15 | |
Scoring Opportunities* |
3 | 5 | |
Points Per Opportunity | 5.67 | 5.40 | 4.70 |
Leverage Rate** | 64.0% | 54.8% | 68.3% |
Close S&P*** | 0.448 | 0.467 | 0.507 |
* A scoring opportunity occurs when an offense gets a first down inside the opponent's 40 (or scores from outside the 40). ** Leverage Rate = Standard Downs / (Standard Downs + Passing Downs) *** When using IsoPPP, the S&P formula is (0.8*Success Rate) + (0.2*IsoPPP) |
|||
EqPts (what's this?) | Oklahoma | Texas | |
Total | 15.0 | 29.1 | |
Rushing | 6.8 | 10.1 | |
Passing | 8.2 | 19.0 | |
Success Rate (what's this?) | Oklahoma | Texas | Nat'l Avg |
All (close) | 34.0% | 37.5% | 42.0% |
Rushing (close) | 31.0% | 38.2% | 43.4% |
Passing (close) | 38.1% | 36.8% | 40.6% |
Standard Downs | 46.9% | 37.0% | 47.3% |
Passing Downs | 11.1% | 38.5% | 30.6% |
IsoPPP (what's this?) | Oklahoma | Texas | Nat'l Avg |
All (close) | 0.88 | 0.84 | 0.85 |
Rushing (close) | 0.75 | 0.72 | 0.73 |
Passing (close) | 1.03 | 0.94 | 0.99 |
Standard Downs | 0.86 | 0.75 | 0.77 |
Passing Downs | 1.08 | 0.98 | 1.14 |
Line Stats | Oklahoma | Texas | Nat'l Avg |
Line Yards/Carry (what's this?) | 2.22 | 2.93 | 2.92 |
Std. Downs Sack Rt. | 9.1% | 5.9% | 4.7% |
Pass. Downs Sack Rt. | 0.0% | 4.8% | 7.3% |
Turnovers | Oklahoma | Texas |
---|---|---|
Turnovers | 0 | 1 |
Turnover Points (what's this?) | 0.0 | 8.0 |
Turnover Margin | Oklahoma +1 | |
Exp. TO Margin | Oklahoma +1.17 | |
TO Luck (Margin vs. Exp. Margin) | Texas +0.17 | |
TO Points Margin | Oklahoma +8.0 points | |
Situational | Oklahoma | Texas |
Q1 S&P | #DIV/0! | 0.409 |
Q2 S&P | 0.402 | 0.573 |
Q3 S&P | 0.488 | 0.268 |
Q4 S&P | 0.587 | 0.589 |
1st Down S&P | 0.564 | 0.449 |
2nd Down S&P | 0.417 | 0.468 |
3rd Down S&P | 0.256 | 0.573 |
Projected Scoring Margin: Texas by 6.0 | ||
Actual Scoring Margin: Oklahoma by 5 |
I figured the strangest game of the week was a good place to start. Covered this a bit in today's Numerical.
Texas outgained Oklahoma by 250 yards, committed only one turnover, held OU to 1-for-11 success on third downs, and lost on Saturday, 31-26. That's really difficult to do.
So how did it happen?
Field position: Oklahoma didn't hold a significant advantage here but still started its drives 6.2 yards further up the field (31.4 to 25.2). Texas didn't have many huge plays and would usually figure out a way to stall out before the end zone. Plus, almost every Texas drive either ended in points or simply ended quickly. Texas went three-and-out four times and four-and-out twice. OU also went three-and-out five times, but Texas couldn't take advantage from a field-tilting perspective.
Returns: That one Texas turnover? A pick-six by Zack Sanchez. Alex Ross also had a 91-yard kick return score. They allowed the Sooners to go up 17-3 without the offense being on the field.
Penalties: Penalties aren't always as important as we tend to think -- they hold almost no correlation to win percentages -- but when one team commits 11 for 85 yards and the other commits three for 20, it gives the less-penalized team an opportunity. Texas committed three false starts and a delay of game penalty on the first drive; two of those penalties came on the last set of downs and forced Texas to settle for a field goal. Another false start and a hold forced a three-and-out. A kick catch interference penalty set OU up in UT field position on an early field goal drive. A third-quarter personal foul led to a punt. Penalties might not be as costly as you think, but they were poorly timed for the 'Horns.
That's about it. The early return scores gave OU a cushion, and then the Sooners used up that cushion. UT cut it to 17-13 at halftime while outgaining OU, 273-19. (Plays: Texas 47, Oklahoma 15.) The second half was even and by the book.
At some point, I'll get a grasp on adding special teams to this layout, and if I had, then obviously OU's kick return touchdown would have made the "projected scoring margin" about even. Still, the flow of this game was as strange as you'll see.
Loading comments...