Devil's Data: Charting ASU vs NAU
- By hosbreadfan
- Devils' Huddle
- 2 Replies
*Note: I blatantly stole this idea from Graphing the Tide but it's not like I get paid for this so who cares.
Looking at the above link, I thought I'd put together something similar for our game against NAU just to look at the game from that perspective. This is kind of long, but there are lots of pretty colors.
Also from that link:
The Devils were bouyed by their first drive being extremely successful in the first quarter. Only two unsuccessful plays on the first drive. As one would expect, the next 4 drives were utterly forgettable with a couple of slightly more promising drives resulting in field goals before half. The second half was completely different with a huge 70+% success rate and the Devils turning it on an starting to blow out the Jacks, scoring on every possession. Particularly the 47% big play rate in the 4th is crazy high.
Overall, NAU's success rate was consistently low outside of a good third quarter. Still you'd like to see the success rate more like the first half than the second against an FCS team. Somewhat surprisingly, outside of the 2nd quarter, NAU's big play rate wasn't particularly good and they ended the game with just around last year's average of 12%. It sure felt like it was higher in person. I don't have graphs for them, but NAU was, unsurprisingly, much better passing than rushing, with big play and success rates of 20.6% and 44.1% passing and 3.1% and 21.9% rushing.
Plotting success and big play rates over time show more of the same, just another way to look at it. Additionally, in general we were significantly more successful in the rush game than the pass.
NAU had some success right off the bat passing the ball but kind of cratered in the second quarter. Comparing ASU's and NAU's charts you can really see the 2nd quarter where the game started to drag as both teams weren't able to do much. NAU was able to do better in the second half, but only good enough to get back to average where ASU was playing at another level. Where one could argue they should have been the whole game.
Thoughts?
Looking at the above link, I thought I'd put together something similar for our game against NAU just to look at the game from that perspective. This is kind of long, but there are lots of pretty colors.
Also from that link:
- A "successful" play, as defined by Football Outsiders, is basically when a play gains enough yardage to keep the offense on track, i.e., 50% of needed yardage on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, or 100% on 3rd/4th.
- A "big play" (aka an "explosive play") has different definitions depending on the analyst, but I use a generous one: a run of ≥12 yards, or a pass of ≥16, is a big play.
The Devils were bouyed by their first drive being extremely successful in the first quarter. Only two unsuccessful plays on the first drive. As one would expect, the next 4 drives were utterly forgettable with a couple of slightly more promising drives resulting in field goals before half. The second half was completely different with a huge 70+% success rate and the Devils turning it on an starting to blow out the Jacks, scoring on every possession. Particularly the 47% big play rate in the 4th is crazy high.
Overall, NAU's success rate was consistently low outside of a good third quarter. Still you'd like to see the success rate more like the first half than the second against an FCS team. Somewhat surprisingly, outside of the 2nd quarter, NAU's big play rate wasn't particularly good and they ended the game with just around last year's average of 12%. It sure felt like it was higher in person. I don't have graphs for them, but NAU was, unsurprisingly, much better passing than rushing, with big play and success rates of 20.6% and 44.1% passing and 3.1% and 21.9% rushing.
Plotting success and big play rates over time show more of the same, just another way to look at it. Additionally, in general we were significantly more successful in the rush game than the pass.
NAU had some success right off the bat passing the ball but kind of cratered in the second quarter. Comparing ASU's and NAU's charts you can really see the 2nd quarter where the game started to drag as both teams weren't able to do much. NAU was able to do better in the second half, but only good enough to get back to average where ASU was playing at another level. Where one could argue they should have been the whole game.
Thoughts?