Advanced Box Score – Missouri edition

Courtesy: peegs.com

Courtesy: peegs.com

How about those Hoosiers?!

One week after an embarrassing loss to Bowling Green, Indiana responded with one of their best performances in recent (and not so recent) memory.

The offense remained steady, even during the period of time Tevin Coleman spent in the locker room.  The defense pressured Maty Mauk and was consistently making plays in the backfield.

Let’s dive into the numbers.

This was about as close of a game as 2 teams can play.  Unlike the 2004 Oregon game where Indiana benefited from a highly generous Oregon team, this victory was hard earned.  The Hoosiers lost a game most thought they would win[ref]Bowling Green[/ref] and won a game most everyone thought they would lose.[ref]Missouri[/ref]  With an important game on deck against Maryland, a bowl game is again very much on the table.

  • The Hoosiers were much more efficient running the ball than the Tigers.  Coleman, Roberts, and Redding continually moved the ball downfield.  Indiana had a rushing success rate of 53% compared to 27% for Missouri.
  • By being successful, especially rushing the ball, Indiana was able to maintain a solid leverage rate of 67%.  This means that Indiana was only in passing situations roughly 1/3 of the time.
  • The Tigers had a slightly better efficiency rate through the air than the Hoosiers.  Though the overall success rate was very similar, Maty Mauk kept drives moving slightly more than Nate Sudfeld.[ref]This is not to disparage Sudfeld.  He was great, didn’t turn the ball over, and was a confident field general on the road[/ref]
  • Neither team was particularly explosive.  Indiana had 9 explosive plays[ref]Runs of 10 or more yards.  Passes of 20 or more yards[/ref] compared to 8 for Missouri.  In addition, the average PPP was extremely similar.
  • Indiana failed to do anything with their best field position following the interception by Murphy.
  • Missouri never started a drive in Indiana territory.
  • The Hoosiers scored all their points after reaching the Missouri 40 yard line.  As mentioned, they only failed to score when they started inside the 40.  Go figure.
  • Missouri had a couple longer scoring drives.  The Tigers did score all 3 times they reached the 40, but settled for field goals on 2 of them.
  • Indiana didn’t have a great time on passing downs as evidenced by their poor S&P numbers.  Markus Golden picked a good game to rest his hamstring.
  • In looking at the IU S&P by down, Indiana was really bad on 3rd down.  The Hoosiers were only successful on 1 of 14 third downs.
  • On the defensive side of the ball, outside of Russell Hansbrough’s 68 yard touchdown run, the Tigers only averaged 3.44 yards per carry.[ref]This number is based strictly on rushing plays.  The NCAA classifies sacks and plays where the QB scrambles as rushing plays.  Since the intent of the play is a pass, we have classified them as such.  Therefore, these plays are reflected in the passing S&P, not the rushing S&P.[/ref]
  • Indiana had slightly better average line yards than against Bowling Green.[ref]3.35 to 3.05[/ref]  The combination of good backs[ref]Mostly Coleman, but Roberts and Redding, particularly on Saturday, have looked impressive[/ref] and an experienced offensive line has the Hoosier rushing attack setting the tempo on offense.
  • Missouri’s highlight yards to opportunity looks ridiculously high.  That’s what happens when they have 1 run of 68 yards and only 4 others greater than 4 yards.  Yes, the Hoosiers only allowed 5 highlight opportunities.[ref]Defined as runs where the back gains greater than 4 yards[/ref]  Compare that to the 20 highlight opportunities that Indiana generated.
  • Mark Murphy’s interception was the difference in the projected point margin.  However, the Hoosiers squandered the turnover by failing to convert a first down and missing a field goal.

We’ll track the projected and actual winners for the season on the Schedule page.  You can check it out it here.

Tomorrow, we’ll have the results of our Week 2 PJP over/under game.

Billy