2018 Weekly Boiler Stat Summaries: Week 1, v. Northwestern

Football's back. And so is doing math with it and being frustrated with it. Given its week 1, and the sample sizes are incredibly low, everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

Rondale Moore Wins The Small Sample Size Heisman
If there is a single thing to come out of last Thursday's game, it is the incredible talent of the true freshman from Louisville. Moore's numbers, on first glance, are absolutely incredible:

Figure 1: Purdue Individual Rushing Statistics [1,3]

Figure 2: Purdue Individual Receiving Statistics [1] 

Moore's pure explosiveness is the difference between the Purdue rushing attack ranking 2nd in the nation and it ranking 30th (tied with Colorado). While that would still be a pretty potent attack, being second only behind Oklahoma is a nice place to be - even if a small sample size plays a big role in that [1,2].

Figure 2: Rondale Moore Rate Statistics Per Quarter [1,3] 

One interesting thing to note: Moore was his most explosive early. As the game wore on, Northwestern was able to concentrate on Moore coverage, stuffing short passes that Moore gashed on them early and dropping his efficiency numbers. This should open up routes for other receivers, assuming playcalling doesn't excessively lean on Moore, which it seemed to during the third quarter. Both good playcalling and quarterback play should allow the talent of Moore to shine, and add to the potency of the rest of the players on offense [3].

Elijah, David, and as Many Torah Puns As I Can Make Happen
I thought last year we were done with our wandering in the multiple quarterback desert, especially with one quarterback having turnover issues. Apparently, we are still somewhere in the Sinai. Both Blough and Sindelar played, and both had slightly different issues over the game.

Figure 3: Purdue Individual Passing Statistics [1,3]

Sindelar started and played most of the first half. He struggled with his decision making - throwing three interceptions - although he had better numbers in certain areas than Blough. Blough relieved him late in the 2nd Quarter and had significantly better accuracy numbers. Granted, the playcalling had him throwing short - his yardage based statistics were worse than Sindelar. Blough's mobility helped to open up rushing lanes, but the lack of deep throws entrusted to him by the coaching staff limited the offense with him playing [1,3].

Figure 4: Purdue Drive Efficiencies with Each QB [1,3]

Figure 5: Half Data For Northwestern's Offensive [1,3]

On a drive-by-drive basis, despite turnovers the offense performed about half a point per drive better with Sindelar taking the snaps. That being said, giving the ball to the Wildcats took its toll: Northwestern's better field position in the first half, coincidentally enough, provided them with a half point more expected points. There was no net difference. Having the two quarterbacks on the roster allows the flexibility of two different styles of play and one relieving the other if he is off that evening. However, if Sindelar can reduce his interceptions, the deep threat the coaches trust him with partnered with another year of a successful Purdue rushing attack can create a potent offense [1,3,4].

I Still Have No Idea What To Make Of This Defense
For all the discussion of Brohm's offensive prowess as a coach, Nick Holt's defense was the strength of the team in 2017. Losing quite a few pieces, some regression was expected. However, I have no idea what to make of this team's defense, which allowed 5.45 yards per play (which would have ranked 45th last year) against the Wildcats, struggling early then clamping down late (see figure 5). This includes 6.35 yards per dropback (would have been 66th last year), despite an anemic pass rush that managed no sacks in this game, a dubious honor shared with 15 teams in FBS. The rushing defense was also pretty mediocre, with 4.50 yards per rush (would have been 37th last year). Since Purdue was playing a week one team that's more representative of a full schedule than most teams, I wanted to compare the ranks from last year. These are average to good numbers, excluding a god-awful pass rush. Against some of the more rushing focused teams in the Big Ten West, this matches up well in the division. Granted, the lack of a pass rush is going to be an impediment unless the secondary can develop from their decent showing Thursday. Holt may be able to scheme a greater rush as well, which could surprisingly continue the trend of a good Purdue defense [2].

Eastern Michigan, You Could Have Been The EMU Emus.
Instead, you are the Eagles. You picked the wrong bird. Eastern Michigan, while perennially the worst team in the MAC, has rebounded in the last few years with a 2016 trip to the Bahamas Bowl (the first bowl since 1986 for EMU) that sealed a winning record for the Eagles for the first time since 1995, and a 5-7 record last year. This year started with a 51-17 shellacking of FCS Monmoth, in which the Eagles averaged 7.12 yards/play, and allowed 4.85 yards/play. Which is how a decent FBS team should perform against an FCS team (unlike, say, Kansas). Due to the wonderful consequences of small sample sizes, S&P+ has the Boilers and Eagles as equals with an expected point difference of 1.9 against an average team. Purdue will obviously have home field advantage, but this is out of whack with Vegas which has the Boilers as a 16.5 point favorite [5,6,7,8,9].

Vegas and gamblers are trying to take to the bank the fact a decent Big Ten team will beat a MAC team. I would agree with S&P+ that the game may be closer than many assume. Last year, EMU was a decent team ranking 69th in S&P+ with an 87th ranked offense but a 44th ranked defense. They also beat Rutgers in Piscataway, which Purdue managed not to manage. While most of their offensive stats were less than stellar, they had great pass protection - allowing a sack on only 3.76% of dropbacks, good for 18th in the nation. With Eagles starting QB Tyler Wiegers completing 85.71% of his passes for 11.3 yards per attempt last Saturday, a Boilermaker squad that struggled with the pass rush may find itself in an challenge that many fans may not have been expecting [2,9,10].

Figure 6: Purdue Team Statistics [2,10]

Figure 7: EMU Team Statistics [2,10]

Boiler Up!

References
[1] https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/boxscores/2018-08-30-purdue.html
[2] https://stats.ncaa.org/rankings?sport_code=MFB&division=11
[3] http://www.espn.com/college-football/playbyplay?gameId=401013342
[4] https://www.reddit.com/r/CFBAnalysis/comments/3utkur/expected_points_given_field_position_and_down/
[5] https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/eastern-michigan/
[6] https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/eastern-michigan/2018-schedule.html
[7] https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa2018
[8] http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-football/odds/las-vegas/line-movement/eastern-michigan-@-purdue.cfm/date/9-08-18/time/1200#BT
[9] https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa2017
[10] https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/boxscores/2018-08-31-eastern-michigan.html