Confused? Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here. Or just skip to the words. I won't be offended. (Okay, I'll only be a little offended.)
Missouri 51, Vanderbilt 28
|Close %||62.0%||STANDARD DOWNS|
|Field Position %||67.6%||34.2%||Success Rate||59.5%||54.2%|
|Close Success Rate||56.1%||38.9%||Success Rate||46.7%||8.3%|
|Close Success Rate||60.7%||44.4%||Turnover Pts||0.0||5.9|
|Close PPP||0.75||0.29||Turnover Pts Margin||+5.9||-5.9|
|Line Yards/carry||3.76||2.78||Q1 S&P||1.448||0.451|
|Close Success Rate||51.7%||33.3%|
|Close PPP||0.92||0.16||1st Down S&P||1.430||1.016|
|Close S&P||1.433||0.493||2nd Down S&P||1.225||1.390|
|SD/PD Sack Rate||5.6% / 9.1%||10.0% / 12.5%||3rd Down S&P||0.812||0.489|
|Projected Pt. Margin: Missouri +15.8 | Actual Pt. Margin: Missouri +23|
1. The first down issues I keep imagining are totally in my head. I keep thinking Mizzou is having some issues here and there, but going by the numbers, the Tigers were spectacular on first down. So apparently I notice the failures and nothing else. But on Saturday, even the failures were minimal. James Franklin started out 4-for-6 for 67 yards on first downs (he finished 1-for-5, though the completion was a 42-yard touchdown), and while Mizzou's first two first-down rushes of the game lost five yards, the next 13 gained 140. So yeah, totally in my head.
2. While the game was "close," Vandy couldn't pass. We know that eventually the 'Dores began finding guys downfield, but it took a while. And for the game as a whole, Vandy just had no chance throwing the ball consistently, as attested by the 33 percent success rate on passes and the eight percent success rate on passing downs.
Mizzou was up 10-0 before Austyn Carta-Samuels could even once target Jordan Matthews, and the Tigers were up 20-0 before he caught a pass. That's pretty much perfect. First-quarter targets to Matthews were 1-for-3 for three yards, and second-quarter targets were 1-for-3 for five. (Second half: 5-for-6 for 115.) If you completely shut down the ACS-to-Matthews connection for a half, you're probably going to have a big lead to show for it.
3. Average starting field position: Mizzou 40, Vanderbilt 20. The box score tells us that Mizzou only outgained Vandy by 55 yards for the game as a whole (523-468), but over the course of 12 possessions each, field position was worth almost an extra 250 yards for the Tigers. (On the other hand, starting with such good field position meant Mizzou's clicking-on-all-cylinders offense didn't get to gain as many yards. Boo, field position.)
4. Tackles for loss: Vandy 10, Mizzou 7. Non-sack tackles for loss: Vandy 8, Mizzou 0. It's nitpicking, I guess, but as it pertains to point no. 1 above, there were indeed some negative plays along the way for Missouri. But the Tigers were automatic on passing downs when they did fall behind schedule; they've been that way all year, actually. Mizzou is currently 10th in standard downs S&P (unadjusted for opponent), eighth in passing downs S&P.
5. With the win, Missouri moves to 12th overall in the F/+ rankings, the highest the Tigers have been since around this same time in 2010. (As means of comparison, Mizzou finished ninth in 2007, 14th in 2008, and 13th in 2010.)
Here are where SEC teams currently rank overall:
20. Texas A&M
28. South Carolina
38. Ole Miss
53. Mississippi State
I'll take that.