:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/41215074/20141004_kkt_sg8_367.jpg.0.jpg)
Mississippi State 48, Texas A&M 31
Confused? Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here.
| Basics | Mississippi State | Texas A&M | Nat'l Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Plays | 77 | 93 | |
| Close Rate (non-garbage time) | 68.8% | ||
| Avg Starting FP | 31.3 | 29.2 | 29.7 |
| Possessions | 14 | 16 | |
| Scoring Opportunities* |
8 | 8 | |
| Points Per Opportunity | 6.12 | 3.88 | 4.69 |
| Leverage Rate** | 67.5% | 41.9% | 68.4% |
| Close S&P*** | 0.689 | 0.478 | 0.508 |
|
* 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?) | Mississippi State | Texas A&M | |
| Total | 40.3 | 31.3 | |
| Rushing | 23.7 | 8.3 | |
| Passing | 16.6 | 23.0 | |
| Success Rate (what's this?) | Mississippi State | Texas A&M | Nat'l Avg |
| All (close) | 63.5% | 46.3% | 42.2% |
| Rushing (close) | 65.8% | 56.3% | 43.6% |
| Passing (close) | 60.0% | 42.1% | 40.7% |
| Standard Downs | 67.3% | 53.9% | 47.5% |
| Passing Downs | 45.5% | 26.7% | 30.7% |
| IsoPPP (what's this?) | Mississippi State | Texas A&M | Nat'l Avg |
| All (close) | 0.91 | 0.54 | 0.85 |
| Rushing (close) | 0.78 | 0.41 | 0.73 |
| Passing (close) | 1.12 | 0.61 | 0.99 |
| Standard Downs | 0.76 | 0.51 | 0.77 |
| Passing Downs | 1.91 | 0.68 | 1.14 |
| Line Stats | Mississippi State | Texas A&M | Nat'l Avg |
| Line Yards/Carry (what's this?) | 3.86 | 4.31 | 2.93 |
| Std. Downs Sack Rt. | 10.5% | 8.0% | 4.7% |
| Pass. Downs Sack Rt. | 0.0% | 0.0% | 7.3% |
| Turnovers | Mississippi State | Texas A&M |
|---|---|---|
| Turnovers | 2 | 3 |
| Turnover Points (what's this?) | 8.3 | 15.3 |
| Turnover Margin | Mississippi State +1 | |
| Exp. TO Margin | Mississippi State +1.03 | |
| TO Luck (Margin vs. Exp. Margin) | Texas A&M +0.03 | |
| TO Points Margin | Mississippi State +7.0 points | |
| Situational | Mississippi State | Texas A&M |
| Q1 S&P | 0.669 | 0.499 |
| Q2 S&P | 0.659 | 0.528 |
| Q3 S&P | 0.738 | 0.453 |
| Q4 S&P | 0.430 | 0.578 |
| 1st Down S&P | 0.596 | 0.530 |
| 2nd Down S&P | 0.729 | 0.524 |
| 3rd Down S&P | 0.565 | 0.457 |
| Projected Scoring Margin: Mississippi State by 16.0 | ||
| Actual Scoring Margin: Mississippi State by 17 | ||
The element of surprise was certainly involved -- MSU knew A&M wasn't going to run and was geared to stop the pass, and besides, when it's 28-7 in the second quarter, the other team's going to pass a lot -- but ... yeah, A&M maybe should have run more on Saturday. It worked when the Aggies tried it (Tra Carson, Tray Williams, and Brandon Williams: 19 carries, 126 yards), and it would have eased the pressure on a freshman quarterback who was losing the plot.
Kenny Hill is good and will probably be awesome soon, but asking him to shoulder the load of a huge comeback probably wasn't the greatest thing in the world. (Neither was the fact that his receivers had the dropsies again.) And in the end, there was a lot of good and bad on his stat line: 37-for-62 (60%), 365 yards, 4 TD, 3 INT, 4 sacks for 33, 5.0 yards per attempt.
Meanwhile, anything over 50% is a pretty good success rate. Mississippi State's success rates were obscene. 64% would have been pretty good had MSU been playing Texas A&M-Kingsville. This offense is just humming.
Loading comments...