Mizzou-ISU (and the rest of the Big 12): Beyond the Box Score

Alright, as with last week's piece, I'll start with KSU-MU analysis, then drop in all of last week's Big 12 BTBS box scores...and as always, the most interesting stuff is bolded...

Mizzou (52)


Iowa St. (20)

% Close = 35.5%
46.6% Field Position %
53.4%
76.6% Leverage %
67.5%
TOTAL
64 Plays 77
37.04 EqPts 25.81
62.5% Success Rate 45.5%
0.58 Points Per Play (PPP) 0.34
1.204 S&P (Success + PPP) 0.790
CLOSE GAME ONLY
36 Plays 14
16.52 EqPts 2.94
52.8% Success Rate 35.7%
0.46 PPP 0.21
0.987 S&P 0.567
RUSHING
15.57 EqPts 4.46
65.2% Success Rate 39.1%
0.68 PPP 0.19
1.329 S&P 0.585
2.90 Line Yards/carry
3.06
PASSING
21.47 EqPts 21.34
61.0% Success Rate 48.2%
0.52 PPP 0.40
1.133 S&P 0.877
NON-PASSING DOWNS
63.3% Success Rate 46.2%
0.63 PPP 0.24
1.264 S&P 0.706
PASSING DOWNS
60.0% Success Rate 44.0%
0.41 PPP 0.52
1.008 S&P 0.963
TURNOVERS
2 Number 2
6.39 Points Lost 6.06
1.82 Points Given 8.31
8.21 Total T/O Pts 14.37
+6.16 Turnover Pts Margin -6.16
0.915 Q1 S&P 0.839
1.245 Q2 S&P 0.704
1.251 Q3 S&P 0.766
1.645 Q4 S&P 0.896
0.787 1st Down S&P 0.649
1.281 2nd Down S&P 1.024
2.265 3rd Down S&P 0.840
  • The yardage ended up being pretty close between the two teams (Mizzou 479, Iowa State 444), but all that truly matters is close-game stats, and Mizzou dominated here.
  • After last year's performance, I was wary of the day Alexander Robinson might have against Mizzou, but the Mizzou front seven was up for the challenge.  Aside from one nice run by Robinson that got them out of the shadow of their goalline (okay, there were no shadows...it was at night) and a couple shifty runs by Austen Arnaud, there was nothing here for the Cyclones.  Mizzou's rushing PPP was almost four times higher than ISU's.
  • For the first time in a while, Mizzou's S&P on Passing Downs crept back over the 1.000 mark.  Good to see.  We'll need all the Passing Downs success we can find in our two trips to Arrowhead.
  • ISU's success on third downs and Passing Downs was unacceptably high, but...I feel comfortable in saying that anytime Mizzou manages a 2.265 S&P on third downs (remember: anything over about 0.900 or 0.950 is a good S&P), they're going to win no matter what their defense does.
  • It was also nice to see Mizzou's offense continue to get into more and more of a rhythm with each passing quarter--their S&P improved each 15 minutes.

 

And now, a review of last week's "key players"...

Key Players: Iowa State

RB Alexander Robinson

Despite a nice 38-yard run in the 3rd quarter, Robinson was a non-factor.  He touched the ball 15 times and managed just a 27% success rate and 0.459 S&P.  Mizzou was on him immediately every time he touched the ball.

WR RJ Sumrall

Six catches, 24 yards, 1.10 EqPts.  Awful.  The Carl Gettis Treatment strikes again.


I should mention, though, just how effective Iowa State's tight ends were in this game.  Derrick Catlett and Collin Franklin combined for 8 catches and 8.08 EqPts in sustaining what was a pretty decent ISU passing attack, at least after the score was within a comfortable arm's length for Missouri.

LB Fred Garrin

Garrin had, by all means, a decent game, with 6.5 tackles and 1 TFL.  But he was needed in the turnover game, and came up empty there.  I also mentioned Leonard Johnson as the other potential turnover candidate, and he came through with a fumble recovery and an INT that was called back due to a roughing penalty.  He was solid all game, but it obviously wasn't nearly enough.

P Mike Brandtner

The fact that Brandtner punted only once should have been an encouraging thing for ISU, but the two turnovers and three failed fourth-down conversions killed ISU.

Key Players: Mizzou

QB Chase Daniel

Professor Chaos returned to his "automatic on third downs" ways Saturday.  Mizzou was iffy on first downs all night, but 8-for-10 on third downs will win you a lot of games, as will completing your first 16 passes of the night.  Chase found a reliable target in Andrew Jones, and after struggling a bit without Chase Coffman against KSU, the Mizzou offense was clicking on all cylinders.  That's the upside about injuries to key players--as long as they're not season-long, and as long as they don't cost you in big games (as Coffman's injury did in the Big 12 title game last year), they get other guys some big minutes...and when the injured guy comes back, you've got even more weapons at your disposal.

RB Derrick Washington

He didn't come close to the 20 touches I requested, but in only 13 touches, he managed 151 yards and 2 TDs and led Mizzou with 11.52 EqPts.  Efficiency, explosiveness, et cetera.  Aside from the fumble he almost lost, this was a darn near perfect game from D-Wash.

FS William Moore

BINGO.  Keep calling Willy Mo out, and eventually he'll come through with a big game.  Four tackles, some hard hitting...oh yeah, and his fourth career pick six, one that basically put the game out of reach midway through the second quarter.

P Jake Harry

Jake Harry?  Who the hell is Jake Harry?

MU-ISU Summary

North Champions once again.  To quote our esteemed coach, "That's awesome."  In all, this has worked out pretty nicely for Mizzou.  The North title was clinched pretty easily, nobody else got hurt, Chase Coffman has a bye week to get healthy, and in theory Mizzou should head into Arrowhead with a clear head and healthy bodies, ready to culminate Hate Week(s) with a comfortable victory over a to-date lesser team.  That's awesome.

--

Other Big 12 Games

 Texas (35)


Kansas (7)

% Close = 66.7%
52.9% Field Position %
47.1%
70.0%
Leverage %
68.9%
TOTAL
70 Plays 74
29.90 EqPts 13.88
47.1% Success Rate 40.5%
0.43 Points Per Play (PPP) 0.19
0.899 S&P (Success + PPP) 0.593
CLOSE GAME ONLY
59 Plays 37
22.58 EqPts 4.39
44.1% Success Rate 37.8%
0.38 PPP 0.12
0.823 S&P 0.497
RUSHING
12.25 EqPts 3.42
40.0% Success Rate 50.0%
0.35 PPP 0.17
0.750 S&P 0.671
2.63 Line Yards/carry
3.02
PASSING
17.65 EqPts 10.46
54.3% Success Rate 37.0%
0.50 PPP 0.19
1.047 S&P 0.564
NON-PASSING DOWNS
51.0% Success Rate 39.2%
0.35 PPP 0.11
0.857 S&P 0.507
PASSING DOWNS
38.1% Success Rate 43.5%
0.62 PPP 0.35
0.997 S&P 0.784

TURNOVERS
1 Number 2
1.84 Points Lost 3.12
2.29 Points Given 5.70
4.13 Total T/O Pts 8.82
+4.69 Turnover Pts Margin -4.69

0.841 Q1 S&P 0.538
0.627 Q2 S&P 0.454
1.191 Q3 S&P 0.688
0.870 Q4 S&P 0.647
0.864 1st Down S&P 0.585
1.023 2nd Down S&P 0.679
0.789 3rd Down S&P 0.544
  • UT's offense really wasn't clicking during this game, third quarter aside.  However, despite the limitations of a less-than-100% healthy Brian Orakpo, the Texas defense had KU disheveled and discombobulated all morning and afternoon.  Dezmon Briscoe's acrobatic catch aside, KU had no semblance of a downfield threat against UT's speed, and it made the difference in the game.
  • And despite decent blocking up front, KU's RBs just didn't have enough speed to get by UT's front seven.
  • A 0.507 S&P is pretty bad on Passing Downs.  That was KU's performance on Non-Passing Downs.  That's horrendous.  And it negates what was actually a decent performance by KU on Passing Downs (0.784).
  • Meanwhile, Texas continues to lead the country in Passing Downs success.  For the season, they're actually averaging a higher S&P on Passing Downs than Non-Passing Downs.  They're the only team in the country who can say that, though that disproportionality was one of the things that bit them in the behind against Texas Tech.

Nebraska (56)


K-State (28)

% Close = 58.1%
86.4% Field Position %
13.6%
78.2%
Leverage %
63.8%
TOTAL
78 Plays 58
46.85 EqPts 14.73
57.7% Success Rate 27.6%
0.60 Points Per Play (PPP) 0.25
1.178 S&P (Success + PPP) 0.530
CLOSE GAME ONLY
56 Plays 23
36.65 EqPts 5.87
60.7% Success Rate 21.7%
0.65 PPP 0.26
1.262 S&P 0.473
RUSHING
31.29 EqPts 5.28
59.6% Success Rate 32.1%
0.60 PPP 0.19
1.198 S&P 0.510
3.60 Line Yards/carry
2.94
PASSING
15.56 EqPts 9.45
53.9% Success Rate 23.3%
0.60 PPP 0.32
1.137 S&P 0.548
NON-PASSING DOWNS
62.3% Success Rate 27.0%
0.54 PPP 0.21
1.168 S&P 0.481
PASSING DOWNS
41.2% Success Rate 28.6%
0.80 PPP 0.33
1.213 S&P 0.616

TURNOVERS
2 Number 1
6.56 Points Lost 1.23
7.99 Points Given 3.33
14.55 Total T/O Pts 4.56
-9.99 Turnover Pts Margin +9.99

1.262 Q1 S&P 0.347
1.124 Q2 S&P 0.619
0.932 Q3 S&P 0.947
1.355 Q4 S&P 0.214
0.950 1st Down S&P 0.559
1.322 2nd Down S&P 0.472
1.250 3rd Down S&P 0.514
  • Nebraska is the winner of the Most Dominant Performance of the Week competition, though playing K-State should probably disqualify you from the contest at this point.
  • How did this game stay within two possessions for 58% of the time despite NU's complete domination?  Try a pick six early and a kick return TD late.
  • The three-headed Nebraska rushing attack has picked up steam in recent weeks, albeit against less than stellar rush defenses (OU game aside).  Roy Helu Jr., Quentin Castille and Marlon Lucky have all had their moments, and at this point I'm going to say that Helu is the #2 RB in the North next year (behind our man D-Wash, of course).
  • Know how I said KU's 0.507 S&P on Non-Passing Downs was horrible?  KSU's was 0.481.
  • If Ron Prince wanted to give his team the best chance to win, he'd have to seriously think about a QB platoon between a grayshirt (Carson Coffman) and the guy who was picked by some to be a 2009 1st Round draft pick (Josh Freeman).  Just sayin'.
  • Just think where this game could have been if KSU hadn't won the turnover battle by 10 points!

OSU
(30)


Colorado (17)

% Close = 82.4%
53.7% Field Position %
46.3%
76.2%
Leverage %
57.5%
TOTAL
63 Plays 73
29.04 EqPts 17.04
49.2% Success Rate 34.3%
0.46 Points Per Play (PPP) 0.23
0.953 S&P (Success + PPP) 0.576
CLOSE GAME ONLY
59 Plays 53
28.97 EqPts 9.02
52.5% Success Rate 35.9%
0.49 PPP 0.17
1.016 S&P 0.529
RUSHING
17.12 EqPts 8.19
42.5% Success Rate 42.4%
0.43 PPP 0.25
0.853 S&P 0.672
3.12 Line Yards/carry
2.58
PASSING
11.92 EqPts 8.85
60.9% Success Rate 27.5%
0.52 PPP 0.22
1.127 S&P 0.496
NON-PASSING DOWNS
47.9% Success Rate 38.1%
0.40 PPP 0.23
0.875 S&P 0.607
PASSING DOWNS
53.3% Success Rate 29.0%
0.67 PPP 0.24
1.201 S&P 0.534

TURNOVERS
1 Number 1
1.23 Points Lost 1.63
4.13 Points Given 2.38
5.36 Total T/O Pts 4.01
-1.35 Turnover Pts Margin +1.35

0.944 Q1 S&P 0.438
1.219 Q2 S&P 0.661
1.429 Q3 S&P 0.653
0.497 Q4 S&P 0.501
1.111 1st Down S&P 0.499
0.641 2nd Down S&P 0.593
0.987 3rd Down S&P 0.280
  • Really a ho-hum game here.  OSU was never threatened by CU's offense, and their own offense made plays when it had to...and yet OSU only won by 13.  OSU's rushing performance was a little below standard for them, but overall the 'Pokes won just about every category.
  • As far as I can tell, one of the things that kept CU as close as they were was a near-even field position battle.  OSU was content to run the ball (40 rushes, just 23 passes) and grind out the win, and CU was able to pin them just far enough back that every drive didn't end up in FG range.

ATM
(21)


Baylor (41)

% Close = 54.0%
35.3% Field Position %
64.7%
78.4%
Leverage %
72.0%
TOTAL
51 Plays 75
19.98 EqPts 33.80
45.1% Success Rate 44.0%
0.39 Points Per Play (PPP) 0.45
0.843 S&P (Success + PPP) 0.891
CLOSE GAME ONLY
26 Plays 42
7.83 EqPts 21.69
42.3% Success Rate 45.2%
0.30 PPP 0.52
0.724 S&P 0.969
RUSHING
4.69 EqPts 17.84
47.4% Success Rate 42.3%
0.25 PPP 0.34
0.721 S&P 0.766
3.22 Line Yards/carry
2.43
PASSING
15.29 EqPts 15.96
43.8% Success Rate 47.8%
0.48 PPP 0.69
0.915 S&P 1.172
NON-PASSING DOWNS
47.5% Success Rate 42.6%
0.40 PPP 0.35
0.873 S&P 0.777
PASSING DOWNS
36.4% Success Rate 47.6%
0.37 PPP 0.71
0.732 S&P 1.184

TURNOVERS
5 Number 0
11.65 Points Lost 0.00
11.18 Points Given 0.00
22.83 Total T/O Pts 0.00
-22.83 Turnover Pts Margin +22.83

0.666 Q1 S&P 0.700

0.767

Q2 S&P 1.015
0.669 Q3 S&P 1.162
1.288 Q4 S&P 0.601
1.035 1st Down S&P 0.671
0.594 2nd Down S&P 0.776
0.462 3rd Down S&P 1.374
  • ATM is so lucky that the final score didn't end up much worse.  And it was much worse...BU was up 41-7 when they took their foots of the gas in the fourth quarter.  Repeat: Baylor was up 41-7.  In a conference game.
  • Really, Baylor walked a fine line here--they were far from dominant in Non-Passing Downs situations...but they were as good as they've ever been on Passing Downs, and ATM's failure there doomed them.
  • Whereas Baylor got better on each progressive down, ATM got worse, and it forced them into situations with higher probabilities of turnovers.
X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior users will need to choose a permanent username, along with a new password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

I already have a Vox Media account!

Verify Vox Media account

Please login to your Vox Media account. This account will be linked to your previously existing Eater account.

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior MT authors will need to choose a new username and password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Rock M Nation

You must be a member of Rock M Nation to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Rock M Nation. You should read them.

Join Rock M Nation

You must be a member of Rock M Nation to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Rock M Nation. You should read them.

Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9347_tracker