[CTcard]

... Per-play stats are considerably more circumspect -- they've been outgained three of the last four games on a per-play basis.

Very interesting, especially on turnover luck.

However, I would warn against using per play numbers for in-game comparisons. In that situation, the major weakness of per play stats - that they vastly favor a two play, 70 yard drive over a 10 play 70 yard drive - can dominate.

For example, last week WSU played UA. WSU outgained UA by a healthy margin, 631-483.
However, UA tended to do this more on a few big plays whereas WSU dinked and dunked their way down the field. So, per play it was WSU 6.78 vs UA 7.00. I think the former was more telling.

WSU's conference games.
Listing is: yds/game WSU-opponent, yds/play WSU-Opponent
vs UA:  631-483,  6.8-7.0
vs OSU: 520-394,  7.0-5.3
vs UO:  641-533,  6.1-7.2
vs c.al:  403-469,  5.4-6.3

In general, it seems that WSU's short-passing game approach tends to mean it looks better on per drive stats than per play stats.

[CTcard]

... Per-play stats are considerably more circumspect -- they've been outgained three of the last four games on a per-play basis.

Very interesting, especially on turnover luck.

However, I would warn against using per play numbers for in-game comparisons. In that situation, the major weakness of per play stats - that they vastly favor a two play, 70 yard drive over a 10 play 70 yard drive - can dominate.

For example, last week WSU played UA. WSU outgained UA by a healthy margin, 631-483.
However, UA tended to do this more on a few big plays whereas WSU dinked and dunked their way down the field. So, per play it was WSU 6.78 vs UA 7.00. I think the former was more telling.

WSU's conference games.
Listing is: yds/game WSU-opponent, yds/play WSU-Opponent
vs UA:  631-483,  6.8-7.0
vs OSU: 520-394,  7.0-5.3
vs UO:  641-533,  6.1-7.2
vs c.al:  403-469,  5.4-6.3

In general, it seems that WSU's short-passing game approach tends to mean it looks better on per drive stats than per play stats.