Bell's theorem: a non-local win?
How the 'Cats and Dawgs stat up
By:
Richard Linde, Posted 1 November
2004
Both
the Washington Huskies (1-7) and the visiting Arizona Wildcats (1-7) will be looking for
a win this Saturday, as both teams try to repair badly broken
seasons. Reconnoitering after a string of losses, both teams need to face
reality and square up with some woeful stats.
They share last and next-to-last
rankings, one team or the other, in a number of conference measures.
Can particles be in more than one
universe at a time?
Considering RB Mike Bell’s
performance against the Huskies last season, stopping him might be as unlikely
as a reincarnated Einstein putting a hit on Bell’s theorem, which states that
reality must be non-local. So, is Mike Bell faster than the speed of light --
living proof of Bell’s theorem?
Last year, Bell
rushed 26 times for 222 yards, including touchdown runs of 67, 69, and 37
yards, as the Mild-brats upset the Huskies, 27-22, snapping a 13-game
conference home losing streak.
Bell, fourth in the
conference in rushing (averaging 80.8 yards per game), must be salivating at
the thought of facing the Huskies again. Previously, this year, UCLA’s Maurice Drew
ran for a school record 5 touchdowns and 322 yards against the Huskies.
Stanford’s J. R. Lemon rushed 19 times for 162 yards, scoring 3 touchdowns, one of them coming on a 58-yard gallop.
Lemon’s and Drew’s
performances partially explain why the Huskies are fourth in the league in red
zone defense, which can be an elusive statistic.
The UW can counter
with linebackers Joe Lobendahn and Scott White, who rank second and fourth in the league
in tackles, respectively. Also, DE Manase Hopoi tops the Pac10 in both sacks
and tackles for a loss.
The UW outplayed
Oregon for most of the second half last week. QB Casey Paus settled into a
rhythm -- as much as could be hoped for -- connecting with new-found weapon
Craig Chambers on some nice passes. The second-half drives Paus put together
rested a defense that held Oregon to 5 straight 3-and-outs. However, Paus' 4
interceptions on the game proved costly.
Of the 20
statistical categories shown in the Table below, Arizona bests the Dawgs in 10
of 19 categories, with one even. The 'Cats have an average conference rating of
7.2 to the Huskies' 7.55, where smallest is best.
In that Table, the
Huskies' turnover margin (-14), rushing defense (184.5 yards per game) and
time-of-possession (27:44) are the most significant categories with which the
Dawgs must improve on.
"Will the Dawgs and 'Cats settle their tiff amicably?" Alice asked
the March hare.
The Bottom Line:
Although Washington leads
the conference in Pass Defense, its lofty ranking is offset by its
pass-efficiency defense, which ranks eighth. The team that runs the ball best
and commits the fewest turnovers should win the game. Their second half
performance against Oregon gives the Huskies a glimmer of hope. Can Huskies
coach Keith Gilbertson, who got his walking papers Monday, rally his troops for
a spirited effort? We think the Huskies will bounce back and win one for the
Gilber, Bell's theorem and non-locality notwithstanding.
Our Prediction: U-Dub 27,
'Cats 24
Las Vegas odds: Washington by 1 1/2
Our Record: 8-0, on the year
Forecast: Partly cloudy, 55 degrees
Table 1. How they stand in the Pac-10
|
Category |
UW |
Pac |
UA |
Pac |
|
1. Ball Control |
|
|
|
|
|
Time of Possession |
27:44 |
9th |
30:26 |
6th |
|
2. Blocking/Tackling |
|
|
|
|
|
Rushing Offense |
133.4 |
5th |
122.0 |
6th |
|
Passing Offense |
174.6 |
9th |
162.2 |
10th |
|
Rushing Defense |
184.5 |
9th |
119.6 |
4th |
|
Passing Defense |
183.1 |
1st |
228.8 |
10th |
|
Pass Efficiency Defense |
121.1 |
8th |
139.4 |
10th |
|
Pass Efficiency Offense |
76.4 |
10th |
104.4 |
9th |
|
Total Offense |
308.0 |
9th |
284.2 |
10th |
|
Total Defense |
367.6 |
8th |
348.4 |
5th |
|
3. Mistakes |
|
|
|
|
|
Penalties |
58.9 |
6th |
45.4 |
4th |
|
Turnover Margin |
-14 |
10th |
-2 |
7th |
|
4. Field Position |
|
|
|
|
|
Kickoff Returns |
19.0 |
6th |
18.3 |
8th |
|
Punt Returns |
5.1 |
10th |
8.8 |
6th |
|
Punting (Net Per Punt) |
36.0 |
6th |
34.1 |
8th |
|
Kickoff Coverage |
19.9 |
5th |
16.1 |
1st |
|
5. Scoreboard, baby |
|
|
|
|
|
Field Goals |
50% |
T7 |
50% |
T7 |
|
Red Zone Offense |
59.1% |
10th |
63.2% |
9th |
|
Red Zone Defense |
72.4% |
4th |
78.8% |
8th |
|
Points For |
13.0 |
9th |
12.2 |
10th |
|
Points Against |
30.1 |
10th |
23.2 |
6th |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Average Rank in Pac-10 |
|
7.55 |
|
7.2 |