:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47583779/usa-today-8896486.0.jpg)
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4223081/Screen_Shot_2015-11-02_at_7.06.29_PM.0.png)
Top 5 Plays
|
|
Play.Number |
Offense |
Down |
Distance |
Spot |
Quarter |
Play_Description |
Pred |
WPA |
|
1 |
199 |
Washington State |
4 |
1 |
27 |
4 |
FIELD_GOAL |
0.523 |
-0.523 |
|
2 |
176 |
Washington State |
2 |
10 |
55 |
4 |
Luke Falk Pass to NA NA for 0, INTERCEPTION |
0.696 |
-0.226 |
|
3 |
136 |
Stanford |
1 |
10 |
59 |
3 |
Kevin Hogan Rush for 59, TOUCHDOWN |
0.832 |
-0.170 |
|
4 |
140 |
Washington State |
2 |
8 |
80 |
3 |
Luke Falk Pass to NA NA for 0, INTERCEPTION |
0.639 |
-0.165 |
|
5 |
25 |
Stanford |
1 |
10 |
49 |
1 |
Kevin Hogan Rush for -3, FUMBLE |
0.377 |
0.164 |
Stanford 30, Washington State 28
Confused? Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here.
| Basics | Stanford | Washington State | Nat'l Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Plays | 59 | 86 | |
| Close Rate (non-garbage time) | 100.0% | ||
| Avg Starting FP | 42.8 | 29.7 | 29.8 |
| Possessions | 13 | 14 | |
| Scoring Opportunities* |
6 | 8 | |
| Points Per Opportunity | 5.00 | 3.62 | 4.77 |
| Leverage Rate** | 67.8% | 68.6% | 68.1% |
| Close S&P*** | 0.587 | 0.562 | 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 | Washington State | |
| Total | 31.6 | 41.0 | |
| Rushing | 25.8 | 10.0 | |
| Passing | 5.9 | 31.0 | |
| Success Rate (what's this?) | Stanford | Washington State | Nat'l Avg |
| All (close) | 33.9% | 41.9% | 41.7% |
| Rushing (close) | 41.7% | 40.0% | 42.5% |
| Passing (close) | 21.7% | 42.4% | 40.8% |
| Standard Downs | 42.5% | 44.1% | 47.0% |
| Passing Downs | 15.8% | 37.0% | 30.3% |
| IsoPPP (what's this?) | Stanford | Washington State | Nat'l Avg |
| All (close) | 1.58 | 1.14 | 1.26 |
| Rushing (close) | 1.72 | 1.25 | 1.07 |
| Passing (close) | 1.17 | 1.11 | 1.47 |
| Standard Downs | 1.37 | 1.12 | 1.11 |
| Passing Downs | 2.79 | 1.20 | 1.77 |
| Line Stats | Stanford | Washington State | Nat'l Avg |
| Line Yards/Carry (what's this?) | 3.09 | 3.73 | 2.86 |
| Std. Downs Sack Rt. | 7.7% | 0.0% | 4.9% |
| Pass. Downs Sack Rt. | 30.0% | 12.0% | 7.5% |
| Turnovers | Stanford | Washington State |
|---|---|---|
| Turnovers | 2 | 2 |
| Turnover Points (what's this?) | 7.6 | 9.5 |
| Turnover Margin | +0 | |
| Exp. TO Margin | Washington State +0.36 | |
| TO Luck (Margin vs. Exp. Margin) | Stanford +0.36 | |
| TO Points Margin | Stanford +1.9 points | |
| Situational | Stanford | Washington State |
| Q1 S&P | 0.476 | 0.021 |
| Q2 S&P | 0.313 | 0.630 |
| Q3 S&P | 0.814 | 0.671 |
| Q4 S&P | 0.610 | 0.572 |
| 1st Down S&P | 0.598 | 0.558 |
| 2nd Down S&P | 0.662 | 0.555 |
| 3rd Down S&P | 0.418 | 0.636 |
| Projected Scoring Margin: Washington State by 7.4 | ||
| Actual Scoring Margin: Stanford by 2 | ||
You had it, Cougs. You played the game you needed to play. You rendered Stanford's smoking hot offense completely inefficient. You created more scoring opportunities. You won in the trenches. You more or less broke even in the turnovers department. All of these things allowed you to overcome Stanford's field position advantage.
But you couldn't finish. Stanford, bad for so long at just that, managed three TDs and three FGs in six scoring chances; WSU attempted six field goals and scored two TDs in eight opportunities. And that was the difference.