:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/42400934/20141018_ajw_aj5_027.JPG.0.jpg)
Minnesota 39, Purdue 38
Confused? Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here.
| Basics | Minnesota | Purdue | Nat'l Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Plays | 70 | 61 | |
| Close Rate (non-garbage time) | 100.0% | ||
| Avg Starting FP | 33.4 | 31.2 | 29.8 |
| Possessions | 13 | 13 | |
| Scoring Opportunities* |
8 | 7 | |
| Points Per Opportunity | 5.12 | 5.43 | 4.69 |
| Leverage Rate** | 74.3% | 60.7% | 68.3% |
| Close S&P*** | 0.588 | 0.576 | 0.506 |
|
* 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?) | Minnesota | Purdue | |
| Total | 31.9 | 31.4 | |
| Rushing | 19.9 | 18.3 | |
| Passing | 12.0 | 13.1 | |
| Success Rate (what's this?) | Minnesota | Purdue | Nat'l Avg |
| All (close) | 51.4% | 39.3% | 42.0% |
| Rushing (close) | 53.9% | 40.0% | 43.5% |
| Passing (close) | 44.4% | 38.5% | 40.4% |
| Standard Downs | 57.7% | 37.8% | 47.3% |
| Passing Downs | 33.3% | 41.7% | 30.5% |
| IsoPPP (what's this?) | Minnesota | Purdue | Nat'l Avg |
| All (close) | 0.89 | 1.31 | 0.85 |
| Rushing (close) | 0.71 | 1.31 | 0.73 |
| Passing (close) | 1.50 | 1.31 | 0.99 |
| Standard Downs | 0.86 | 1.67 | 0.77 |
| Passing Downs | 1.01 | 0.80 | 1.14 |
| Line Stats | Minnesota | Purdue | Nat'l Avg |
| Line Yards/Carry (what's this?) | 3.65 | 3.08 | 2.93 |
| Std. Downs Sack Rt. | 0.0% | 0.0% | 4.7% |
| Pass. Downs Sack Rt. | 0.0% | 0.0% | 7.4% |
| Turnovers | Minnesota | Purdue |
|---|---|---|
| Turnovers | 1 | 2 |
| Turnover Points (what's this?) | 5.9 | 9.7 |
| Turnover Margin | Minnesota +1 | |
| Exp. TO Margin | +0 | |
| TO Luck (Margin vs. Exp. Margin) | Minnesota +1 | |
| TO Points Margin | Minnesota +3.8 points | |
| Situational | Minnesota | Purdue |
| Q1 S&P | 0.645 | 0.782 |
| Q2 S&P | 0.526 | 0.582 |
| Q3 S&P | 0.698 | 0.627 |
| Q4 S&P | 0.442 | 0.337 |
| 1st Down S&P | 0.528 | 0.563 |
| 2nd Down S&P | 0.672 | 0.493 |
| 3rd Down S&P | 0.566 | 0.759 |
| Projected Scoring Margin: Minnesota by 4.3 | ||
| Actual Scoring Margin: Minnesota by 1 | ||
So basically, Minnesota was more efficient, Purdue had bigger big plays, Minnesota was slightly lucky from a turnovers perspective, and Minnesota created one more scoring chance. Purdue was better in the first quarter, things were about even in the second and third, and Minnesota was better in the fourth.
Sound about right?
Loading comments...