Started By
Message

Anyone follow Parker Fleming on Twitter? Re: Mizzou Game

Posted on 11/6/23 at 7:50 am
Posted by K9
wayx....BOBO IN '19
Member since Sep 2012
24249 posts
Posted on 11/6/23 at 7:50 am
He posts a "did your team really lose that bad" graphic every week. Big analytic guy.

Anyways, usually teams that win have a higher "success rate" (analytic stat) compared to the team they are playing. Sometimes, though, teams can win with a lower success rate. According to this week's graph, Mizzou should have won as they had the higher success rate.

If I knew how to post pictures I would include a picture of the graph. Not sure on what variables go into the success rate calculations, but the graph usually matches up with the eye test pretty well.

The turnovers were our friend on Saturday.
Posted by Spaceman Spiff
Savannah
Member since Sep 2012
17608 posts
Posted on 11/6/23 at 7:55 am to
Maybe not that big an impact. Lassiter was our friend saturday.
Posted by WG_Dawg
Hoover
Member since Jun 2004
86598 posts
Posted on 11/6/23 at 8:07 am to
quote:

According to this week's graph, Mizzou should have won as they had the higher success rate.


I admittedly don't have a clue how PFF and other analytics driven folks derive their info, but I don't see how you can make this claim. If someone wanted to say OSU in the bowl game "should have won", ok I could entertain that. But not Saturday.

Missouri has a stellar offense that has QB/RB/WR that are atop or near the top of all league rankings. 2 of those 3 were almost fully shut down. In the first half they gashed us with QB runs and we totally shut that down in the second half. For as explosive as their offense is, we held them to 1 TD and 1 FG in each half. We held their QB to numbers well, WELL below his season average. Our QB was his typical accurate self and threw 2 TD and 0 turnovers. We were better on 3rd down, gaind more yards, had less pentalites, had less turnovers.

I mean, I just don't see any way that you can say they "should have won". If his whole point was the turnovers or their timing, that's a shite excuse. The opening kick of the game we fumbled completely on our own, that is a turnover play (had we turned it over) where you can say yeah that was entirely on us. Both of cook's interceptions were the result of our defense. Let's also not gloss over the THREE times their center snapped the ball while the QB was looking to the sidelines and it landed right in his breadbasket and the play still went off, or hte ridiculously incompetent officiating.

Hell now that I'm thinning about if we shoudl've won by more.
Posted by mmmmmbeeer
ATL
Member since Nov 2014
7464 posts
Posted on 11/6/23 at 9:05 am to
Hell, you just need to look at the box score to see that Mizzou put up numbers as good as UGA did. Came out even on first downs gained. One less 3rd down conversion. 22 less total offense. Give them those two turnovers back and they beat us across the board, statistically. The turnovers are absolutely what sealed the game for us.
Posted by dhuck20
SCLSU Fan
Member since Oct 2012
20464 posts
Posted on 11/6/23 at 2:03 pm to


Here’s the graph FWIW
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter