[The following was posted on our Legacy Forum by longtime poster NEWBrutus. There is a ton of data here, so we wanted to share it with everyone.]
Here are some interesting things from Saturday’s box score against Penn State.
Success Rate
A successful play is defined as follows:
1st Down: Gain 50% or more of yards needed to convert.
2nd Down: Gain 70% or more of the yards needed to convert.
3rd Down: Gain 100% or more of the yards needed to convert.
4th Down: Gain 100% or more of the yards needed to convert.
For Ohio State
1st Down Plays 37, Successful plays 21, Success Rate 56.8%
2nd Down Plays 28, Successful Plays 16, Success Rate 57.1%
3rd Down Plays 12, Successful Plays 5, Success Rate 41.7%
4th Down Plays 1, Successful Plays 0, Success Rate 0
For the game 78 offensive plays, 42 successful plays, 53.8% Success Rate. (Prior to PSU, our offensive success rate was 57.1%)
For Penn State
1st Down Plays 27, Successful Plays 6, Success Rate 22.2%
2nd Down Plays 21, Successful Plays 7, Success Rate 33.3%
3rd Down Plays 15, Successful Plays 7, Success Rate 46.7%
4th Down Plays 1, Successful Plays 0, Success Rate 0%
For the game: 64 Offensive plays, 20 Successful Plays 31.3% Success Rate. (Prior to Saturday, Our defense had held opponents to a 33.4% success rate)
The points allowed measure overshadows how good our defensive performance was on Saturday. Penn State had very limited success on offense. The Silver bullets did a masterful job on first and second down making it tough on the Lion offense. Of Penn State’s 15 third-down plays, 5 were 3rd and 4 or less. nine of Penn State’s third down plays were 3rd and 10 or longer, of which they converted 3.
Efficiency and Explosiveness
There are two ways to measure efficiency of an offense, yards per play and the percentage of available yards.
Ohio State YPP 6.78
Penn State YPP 4.42
Pct of Available Yards
Ohio State 57.7%
Penn State 36.5%
This reinforces just how strong the outing was for the Buckeyes.
Finishing Drives
Points per Scoring Opportunity is a measure to see how many points a team has scored when it has a first down play at or inside their opponent’s 40. It excludes any scores from outside this range.
Limiting the number of scoring opportunities is always a good thing. Of Penn State’s 12 possessions, only 5 resulted in scoring opportunities. They did score on all five though, accounting for 31 points.
Ohio State had 13 drives (excluding the clock killer at the end). 8 resulted in scoring opportunities and 7 of those chances produced 32 points.
In some ways, hindsight may tell us we should have attempted the 42-yard field goal instead of going for it on 4th down, it reinforces how important it is to get points when you have the chance. It points to a glaring lack of confidence in the field goal unit, as well.
Some individual numbers and nuggets…
JT Barrett
JT Barrett is having one helluva year (if you didn’t notice). Penn State came into this game featuring a defense which had impressed with gaudy numbers. However as Gerd mentioned last week, those numbers had come against what would hardly be considered a list of top level offenses.
I won’t add much to the the JT Barrett glory too much, as it has been covered, but I will throw this out there.
33-39 328 4 TD’s Pass effiency Rating of 189.11, Pass Eff* Success Rate of 101.83. How good was it relative to his other games:
It was his highest completion percentage of the year.
It was only his 4th best pass efficiency rating thus far (270.91 vs UNLV).
It was his 4th best pass eff*Success Rate measure thus far (162.53 vs Nebraska).
Here are JT’s career numbers. He is having the best year of his career.
| Season | Completions | Att | Yards | TD | INT | Comp Pct | YPA | Pass Eff. |
| 2014 | 203 | 314 | 2834 | 34 | 10 | 64.6% | 9.03 | 169.83 |
| 2015 | 93 | 147 | 992 | 11 | 4 | 63.3% | 6.75 | 139.20 |
| 2016 | 233 | 379 | 2555 | 24 | 7 | 61.5% | 6.74 | 135.31 |
| 2017 | 171 | 246 | 2166 | 25 | 1 | 69.5% | 8.80 | 176.20 |
| Career | 700 | 1086 | 8547 | 94 | 22 | 64.5% | 7.87 | 155.08 |
Playmaker Chart – Penn State
A “chance” is defined as a carry on a rushing play, or being targeted on a pass play. Here is the break down of how our playmakers were used against Penn State.
| POS/Player | Chances | Pct of Chances | Yards | Pct of Yards |
| 2017 | ||||
| H | 16 | 20.5% | 120 | 22.7% |
| 14 | 14 | 17.9% | 102 | 19.3% |
| 21 | 1 | 1.3% | 5 | 0.9% |
| 80 | 1 | 1.3% | 13 | 2.5% |
| QB | 17 | 21.8% | 95 | 18.0% |
| 16 | 17 | 21.8% | 95 | 18.0% |
| RB | 27 | 34.6% | 117 | 22.1% |
| 2 | 14 | 17.9% | 87 | 16.4% |
| 25 | 13 | 16.7% | 30 | 5.7% |
| TE | 4 | 5.1% | 20 | 3.8% |
| 85 | 4 | 5.1% | 20 | 3.8% |
| TEAM | 2 | 2.6% | -3 | -0.6% |
| WR | 12 | 15.4% | 180 | 34.0% |
| 1 | 4 | 5.1% | 56 | 10.6% |
| 9 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 11 | 6 | 7.7% | 90 | 17.0% |
| 83 | 2 | 2.6% | 34 | 6.4% |
| 2017 Total | 78 | 100.0% | 529 | 100.0% |
How does this compare to how we have used playmakers the rest of the season? (please note the numbers in this table DO NOT include the stats from Penn State)
| POS/Player | Chances | Pct of Chances | Yards | Pct of Yards |
| H | 115 | 21.1% | 1076 | 26.7% |
| 14 | 41 | 7.5% | 275 | 6.8% |
| 21 | 43 | 7.9% | 456 | 11.3% |
| 80 | 14 | 2.6% | 183 | 4.5% |
| 30 | 17 | 3.1% | 162 | 4.0% |
| QB | 83 | 15.3% | 398 | 9.9% |
| 16 | 70 | 12.9% | 359 | 8.9% |
| 7 | 13 | 2.4% | 39 | 1.0% |
| RB | 197 | 36.2% | 1341 | 33.3% |
| 2 | 108 | 19.9% | 840 | 20.8% |
| 25 | 52 | 9.6% | 290 | 7.2% |
| 26 | 36 | 6.6% | 206 | 5.1% |
| 28 | 1 | 0.2% | 5 | 0.1% |
| TE | 32 | 5.9% | 260 | 6.4% |
| 85 | 19 | 3.5% | 141 | 3.5% |
| 89 | 6 | 1.1% | 19 | 0.5% |
| 13 | 7 | 1.3% | 100 | 2.5% |
| 81 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| TEAM | 12 | 2.2% | -9 | -0.2% |
| WR | 105 | 19.3% | 967 | 24.0% |
| 1 | 17 | 3.1% | 276 | 6.8% |
| 9 | 30 | 5.5% | 245 | 6.1% |
| 11 | 24 | 4.4% | 170 | 4.2% |
| 83 | 28 | 5.1% | 229 | 5.7% |
| 8 | 3 | 0.6% | 20 | 0.5% |
| 15 | 3 | 0.6% | 27 | 0.7% |
| Grand Total | 544 | 100.0% | 4033 | 100.0% |
So in all pretty similarly. The tight end is involved in about 5% of the plays and that has been a pretty common theme over the past few years.
This was an outstanding win given the early mistakes and special teams issues. As the coaches said in their post game comments, Penn State really didn’t stop us as much as we stopped ourselves.
Iowa presents another challenge, as they have a strong defense. Their offense however is a pretty typical Kirk Ferentz offense. Field position, run the ball with timely pass plays.
The other challenge is the potential mental let down. So much effort and energy went into prep for Penn State. It was an emotional battle that came down to the end. This next game will be a true test of the leadership on this team. If it is as strong as Meyer claims it to be then the Buckeyes should be able to execute at a reasonably high level.
