[Austroturf]

BC, I think this summarizes what you missed in the 2H.

These were consecutive Stanford drives, starting in the 2nd quarter.
8 plays, 63 yards - FG
12 plays, 76 yards - FG
8 plays, 75 yards - TD
7 plays, 80 yards - TD

Followed by:
5 plays, 5 yards - punt
3 plays, -2 yards - punt
3 plays, 0 yards - punt
5 plays, 33 yards - punt

Here are a few more statistics to flesh out the flow of the game.  These are not perfect, but give an idea of how the offense performed in the four separate quarters.  I have compiled the number of run plays, passing plays, yards-per-play, first downs and the associated totals.  

Stanford Offense vs. ASU 2018
               Q1    Q2   Q3   Q4   Total
Run          11    11    9     13     44
Yards         9    49    48    20    126
YPP         0.8   4.5   5.3   1.5     2.9
Pass          6     14    10     1      31
Yards       29     94    98   13     234
YPP         4.8    6.7   9.8   13     7.6
1st downs   3      9    10     1      23
Total Yards 38  143  146   33    360
Total Plays 17    25    19   14      75
Total YPP  2.2   5.7   7.7   2.4    4.8
%Run     64.7  44.0 47.4  92.9   58.7
%Pass    35.3  56.0 52.6    7.1   41.3
Points         0      6     14     0      20

Sorry for the formatting, but I haven't figured out how to import an Excel table yet.  What this data shows is a tale of a middle and two ends.  As Spiny_Norman points out, all of our points came on possessions 5,6,7 and 8.  Numbers 5 and 6 came in the 2nd quarter, while drives 7 and 8 were at the beginning of the second half.  As can be seen from the stats, we generated 80% of our total offensive production in the 2nd and 3rd quarters.  We also had 19 of our 23 first downs in this "middle period".  Our yards per play was two to three times higher than in quarters one and four.  And as can been seen, our mix of pass and run was slightly tilted toward passing, with positive results for both areas of offense.  When we passed more, we ran better; when we ran better, our passing production improved.  Yes, we were helped by some PI penalties on drive 7; but the data is too clear to lead to any other conclusion: mixing it up on offense is positively correlated with offensive production and points total.  

I was also frustrated to see Shaw go into turtle mode in the fourth quarter.  Yes, he often gets away with it and wins by not playing to lose.  But there have been examples to the contrary, as well.  One of the more famous cases was in the 2011 Fiesta Bowl against Oklahoma State.  Shaw was convinced he had the necessary field position for the winning FG in regulation and quit driving.  Rather than have Luck strike paydirt and seal the deal, he put the game on the foot of freshman Jordan Williamson.  After all, driving might have resulted in a sack, a fumble or an interception.  But with an all world QB, maybe you score and take the onus off your kicker.  Well, we all know how that ended.  Shaw's game management shows that he is very loath to risk what he has for what he doesn't yet have (i.e., more points, another first down, etc.).  Rather than seeing the potential third TD to put the game out of reach against ASU, he instead had visions of Costello's pick six in the Utah game.  All legitimate; and, yes, we got the ugly W and ride proudly out of Tempe with a 5-2 record.  But this is not how champions play.  When you have an opponent on the ropes, you finish them off.  You don't invite them back into the game by turtling down and going into self-defense mode.  Frustrating as a fan, to say the least.

[Austroturf]

BC, I think this summarizes what you missed in the 2H.

These were consecutive Stanford drives, starting in the 2nd quarter.
8 plays, 63 yards - FG
12 plays, 76 yards - FG
8 plays, 75 yards - TD
7 plays, 80 yards - TD

Followed by:
5 plays, 5 yards - punt
3 plays, -2 yards - punt
3 plays, 0 yards - punt
5 plays, 33 yards - punt

Here are a few more statistics to flesh out the flow of the game.  These are not perfect, but give an idea of how the offense performed in the four separate quarters.  I have compiled the number of run plays, passing plays, yards-per-play, first downs and the associated totals.  

Stanford Offense vs. ASU 2018
               Q1    Q2   Q3   Q4   Total
Run          11    11    9     13     44
Yards         9    49    48    20    126
YPP         0.8   4.5   5.3   1.5     2.9
Pass          6     14    10     1      31
Yards       29     94    98   13     234
YPP         4.8    6.7   9.8   13     7.6
1st downs   3      9    10     1      23
Total Yards 38  143  146   33    360
Total Plays 17    25    19   14      75
Total YPP  2.2   5.7   7.7   2.4    4.8
%Run     64.7  44.0 47.4  92.9   58.7
%Pass    35.3  56.0 52.6    7.1   41.3
Points         0      6     14     0      20

Sorry for the formatting, but I haven't figured out how to import an Excel table yet.  What this data shows is a tale of a middle and two ends.  As Spiny_Norman points out, all of our points came on possessions 5,6,7 and 8.  Numbers 5 and 6 came in the 2nd quarter, while drives 7 and 8 were at the beginning of the second half.  As can be seen from the stats, we generated 80% of our total offensive production in the 2nd and 3rd quarters.  We also had 19 of our 23 first downs in this "middle period".  Our yards per play was two to three times higher than in quarters one and four.  And as can been seen, our mix of pass and run was slightly tilted toward passing, with positive results for both areas of offense.  When we passed more, we ran better; when we ran better, our passing production improved.  Yes, we were helped by some PI penalties on drive 7; but the data is too clear to lead to any other conclusion: mixing it up on offense is positively correlated with offensive production and points total.  

I was also frustrated to see Shaw go into turtle mode in the fourth quarter.  Yes, he often gets away with it and wins by not playing to lose.  But there have been examples to the contrary, as well.  One of the more famous cases was in the 2011 Fiesta Bowl against Oklahoma State.  Shaw was convinced he had the necessary field position for the winning FG in regulation and quit driving.  Rather than have Luck strike paydirt and seal the deal, he put the game on the foot of freshman Jordan Williamson.  After all, driving might have resulted in a sack, a fumble or an interception.  But with an all world QB, maybe you score and take the onus off your kicker.  Well, we all know how that ended.  Shaw's game management shows that he is very loath to risk what he has for what he doesn't yet have (i.e., more points, another first down, etc.).  Rather than seeing the potential third TD to put the game out of reach against ASU, he instead had visions of Costello's pick six in the Utah game.  All legitimate; and, yes, we got the ugly W and ride proudly out of Tempe with a 5-2 record.  But this is not how champions play.  When you have an opponent on the ropes, you finish them off.  You don't invite them back into the game by turtling down and going into self-defense mode.  Frustrating as a fan, to say the least.