:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47474588/usa-today-8863472.0.jpg)
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4174994/Screen_Shot_2015-10-18_at_9.42.44_PM.0.png)
Top 5 Plays
|
|
Play Number |
Offense |
Down |
Distance |
Spot |
Quarter |
Play Description |
Home Team Predicted WP |
Home Team Win Probability Added |
|
1 |
28 |
UCLA |
1 |
10 |
70 |
1 |
Josh Rosen Pass to Darren Andrews for 70, TOUCHDOWN |
0.832 |
-0.123 |
|
2 |
24 |
UCLA |
5 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
KICKOFF |
0.708 |
0.123 |
|
3 |
16 |
UCLA |
2 |
2 |
53 |
1 |
Paul Perkins Rush for 43, FIRST DOWN |
0.696 |
-0.097 |
|
4 |
37 |
Stanford |
3 |
13 |
65 |
1 |
Kevin Hogan Pass to Austin Hooper for 16, FIRST DOWN |
0.667 |
0.092 |
|
5 |
40 |
Stanford |
3 |
12 |
51 |
1 |
Kevin Hogan Pass to Austin Hooper for 22, FIRST DOWN |
0.705 |
0.092 |
Stanford 56, UCLA 35
Confused? Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here.
| Basics | Stanford | UCLA | Nat'l Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Plays | 65 | 73 | |
| Close Rate (non-garbage time) | 44.9% | ||
| Avg Starting FP | 37.4 | 25.1 | 29.6 |
| Possessions | 15 | 15 | |
| Scoring Opportunities* |
7 | 6 | |
| Points Per Opportunity | 7.00 | 5.67 | 4.77 |
| Leverage Rate** | 81.6% | 54.2% | 68.1% |
| Close S&P*** | 0.726 | 0.688 | 0.586 |
|
* 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?) | Stanford | UCLA | |
| Total | 42.9 | 46.2 | |
| Rushing | 29.4 | 18.5 | |
| Passing | 13.6 | 27.7 | |
| Success Rate (what's this?) | Stanford | UCLA | Nat'l Avg |
| All (close) | 60.5% | 33.3% | 41.6% |
| Rushing (close) | 61.5% | 33.3% | 42.4% |
| Passing (close) | 58.3% | 33.3% | 40.7% |
| Standard Downs | 64.5% | 53.9% | 47.1% |
| Passing Downs | 42.9% | 9.1% | 29.9% |
| IsoPPP (what's this?) | Stanford | UCLA | Nat'l Avg |
| All (close) | 1.21 | 2.11 | 1.27 |
| Rushing (close) | 0.89 | 2.01 | 1.08 |
| Passing (close) | 1.94 | 2.16 | 1.47 |
| Standard Downs | 1.16 | 2.12 | 1.11 |
| Passing Downs | 1.51 | 2.00 | 1.79 |
| Line Stats | Stanford | UCLA | Nat'l Avg |
| Line Yards/Carry (what's this?) | 3.55 | 2.90 | 2.85 |
| Std. Downs Sack Rt. | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.0% |
| Pass. Downs Sack Rt. | 0.0% | 0.0% | 7.3% |
| Turnovers | Stanford | UCLA |
|---|---|---|
| Turnovers | 1 | 2 |
| Turnover Points (what's this?) | 4.2 | 9.7 |
| Turnover Margin | Stanford +1 | |
| Exp. TO Margin | Stanford +0.59 | |
| TO Luck (Margin vs. Exp. Margin) | Stanford +0.41 | |
| TO Points Margin | Stanford +5.5 points | |
| Situational | Stanford | UCLA |
| Q1 S&P | 0.644 | 0.953 |
| Q2 S&P | 0.772 | 0.574 |
| Q3 S&P | 0.843 | 0.460 |
| Q4 S&P | 0.607 | 0.717 |
| 1st Down S&P | 0.616 | 0.631 |
| 2nd Down S&P | 0.684 | 0.597 |
| 3rd Down S&P | 0.729 | 0.704 |
| Projected Scoring Margin: Stanford by 2.2 | ||
| Actual Scoring Margin: Stanford by 21 | ||
Stanford had a 12-yard advantage (per possession) in field position, stayed above 80 percent in leverage rate, and finished every scoring opportunity with seven points. It is almost impossible to lose doing that. That's just a staggeringly high level of execution, even if you give up some big plays along the way (and Stanford did). But a lot of UCLA's yards came when the Bruins were well behind, so aside from a few plays in the first half, it's hard to fault the defense much, either.
That thin defense is still a bit of a concern, but good gracious, this offense is just a killing machine at the moment...