:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47470906/Screen_Shot_2015-10-19_at_11.24.52_PM.0.0.png)
Let's just get this over with.
Win Probability
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4179132/Screen_Shot_2015-10-19_at_11.24.52_PM.0.png)
Top 5 Plays
|
|
Play.Number |
Offense |
Down |
Distance |
Spot |
Quarter |
Play_Description |
Pred |
WPA |
|
1 |
167 |
Georgia Tech |
3 |
15 |
67 |
4 |
Justin Thomas Pass to NA NA for 0, INTERCEPTION |
0.364 |
-0.364 |
|
2 |
123 |
Georgia Tech |
1 |
7 |
7 |
4 |
Marcus Marshall Rush for 7, TOUCHDOWN |
0.375 |
0.182 |
|
3 |
156 |
Pittsburgh |
4 |
14 |
38 |
4 |
FIELD_GOAL |
0.521 |
-0.179 |
|
4 |
21 |
Georgia Tech |
2 |
11 |
58 |
1 |
Marcus Marshall Rush for 58, TOUCHDOWN |
0.357 |
0.164 |
|
5 |
163 |
Georgia Tech |
4 |
11 |
77 |
4 |
Justin Thomas Pass to Ricky Jeune for 15, FIRST DOWN |
0.308 |
0.142 |
- This game was pretty wild, at no time did a team have a greater than 77% chance of winning until the final play of the game.
- The oscillations for Pittsburgh on their final drive were all those damn third and fourth downs we forced on the final drive but our defense couldn't force a stop until they were in field goal range, well, barely in field goal range.
Advanced Box Score
| Passing Downs | Quarter Performance | ||||||
| GT | Pitt | GT | Pitt | ||||
| Plays | 20 | 10 | Yards / Play | Success Rate | Yards / Play | Success Rate | |
| Yards / Play | 8.95 | 3.3 | Q1 | 19.5 | 60% | 4.47 | 47% |
| Success Rate | 45% | 10% | Q2 | 7.47 | 58% | 11.54 | 77% |
| Standard Downs | Q3 | 6.5 | 50% | 5.41 | 65% | ||
| GT | Pitt | Q4 | 4.79 | 36% | 3.76 | 47% | |
| Plays | 35 | 56 | Down Performance | ||||
| Yards / Play | 8.66 | 6.39 | GT | Pitt | |||
| Success Rate | 54% | 66% | Yards / Play | Success Rate | Yards / Play | Success Rate | |
| Passing Plays | 1 | 10.81 | 50% | 5.93 | 59% | ||
| GT | Pitt | 2 | 10 | 53% | 7.33 | 62% | |
| Plays | 16 | 23 | 3 | 1.45 | 45% | 3.18 | 36% |
| Yards / Play | 6.06 | 8.3 | 4 | 15 | 100% | 4 | 100% |
| Success Rate | 31% | 57% | Drive Performance | ||||
| Sack Rate (SD / PD) | 0% / 5% | 0% / 0% | Num Drives | Avg Start Spot | % Methodical | % Explosive | |
| Running Plays | GT | 10 | 82 | 20% | 40% | ||
| GT | Pitt | Pitt | 9 | 69 | 22% | 11% | |
| Plays | 39 | 43 | % of Possible Yards Gained | GT: 54% | Pitt: 61% | ||
| Yards / Play | 9.87 | 4.65 | Georgia Tech Hidden Yards | -122.67 | |||
| Success Rate | 59% | 58% | Turnovers | GT: 2 | Pitt: 0 | ||
- Looking at this I really don't see many, if any, negatives for our offense. Especially considering the quality of Pitt's Defense. I guess you could criticize our passing game, only 31% success rate is pretty atrocious, but on passing downs we were much better. We struggled moving the ball on 3rd downs (only 1.45 yards per play) but converted 45% of the time which is pretty great. Our great success on 1st and 2nd downs means we really didn't have far to go on 3rd downs.
- Field Position really killed us. Pittsburgh had an extra 122 yards of offense based on having shorter distance to go at the start of their possessions, that's one of the largest gaps for Tech I can remember.
- Combine that with turnovers I'm honestly surprised the offense scored as much as it did.
- Our defense, eh. Played about as well as can be expected.
Drive Chart
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4179192/Screen_Shot_2015-10-19_at_11.38.45_PM.0.png)
- Our offense started off hot, even on the drive with the fumble we were moving the ball into field goal position. Well into a normal team's field goal position. Not one like ours who is 4 for 7 on the year....
- Our defensed forced one three and out. Our offense isn't consistent enough to bail us out and our defense isn't good enough to stop teams consistently. This is fine.