this may be of some local interest
The FEI Forecast for this Saturday is: Notre Dame 37 Michigan 14 with a 93% Probable Win Expectation for ND (yikes!). Notre Dame is ranked #6 in the FEI.
Fremeau Efficiency Index: The FEI is a drive based analysis considering each of the nearly 20,000 drives each year in FBS college football. The data is filtered to eliminate garbage time (at the half or end of game) and is adjusted for opponent. A team is rewarded for playing well against good teams (win or lose) and is punished more severely for playing poorly against bad teams than it is rewarded for playing well against bad teams. (This is why M was ranked relatively high after that loss to Alabama and actually fell 13 places after the blowout of UMass.)
National Rankings: The rankings for offense and defense are based on scoring (yardage statistics are inherently flawed). These are simply raw numbers without any adjustments for opponent, garbage time, or anything else. The data is from TeamRankings and includes only games between two FBS teams.
FEI Details: Here are the FEI numbers for Michigan ( Football Outsiders FEI ). FEI is predicting a 6-6 season for the Wolverines (FBS Mean Wins = 5.8). Like most predictive tools, the FEI is less reliable at the beginning of the year because there is so little data. Last year after 3 games (WMU, ND, EMU), FEI had M ranked #19 and was predicting a 9 win season.
Points Per Possession: The 2 charts show the raw data for offense and defense. The charts both indicate significant improvement in each subsequent game. Of course, this may be due in great measure to the fact that the opponent has been weaker in each subsequent game.
Using Scoring Offense and Scoring Defense National Rankings for the past 5 years (FBS AQ teams only), this table shows the percentage of teams that finish the season with a +WLM and a +5 WLM. For example, teams that finished in the Top 40 in both offense and defense had a 100% chance to be +WLM and an 82% chance to be +5 WLM (9-4 or better).
Preseason Prediction: Michigan will end the year with a +8 Turnover Margin (TOM) or better (2011 was +7). The prediction for TOM for M for this year is based on the prediction that M will be a very good team again this year and is not based on the actual TOM of last year. (Very good teams will have a TOM of +5 or better.)
What The Heck Is Going On Out There?: The opponents have fumbled the ball 7 times (ranked #24) but Michigan has recovered just 2 for a paltry 29% recovery rate (ranked #92). This is far below the average 50% recovery rate and may appear to be just bad luck. But, a further look reveals that M has just forced 1 fumble (ranked #105) which they did recover. Of the 6 unforced fumbles, 3 occurred on punts in the UMass game (one of which was recovered by M), and three occurred in the backfield (all recovered by the player that fumbled the ball). Forced fumbles tend to occur with more M players around the ball and are more likely to be recovered. M's defense has zero interceptions (ranked #100) and the offense has thrown 5 picks (ranked #107). The result is a TOM of –3 (ranked #88).
Synopsis for Turnovers: Woooo! Taylor Lewan scored a touchdown recovering Denard's fumble in the end zone and Paul Gyarmati recovered a UMass fumbled punt. Other than that, I got pretty much nothin' here. M ended the game with a TOM of – 0 – . Denard threw another one – his interception ratio was 4% in this game and is now 5.2% overall (interception ratios of around 3% are "average" in FBS). (Note, this is just the interceptions thrown by DRob and excludes the one interception thrown by Bellomy.) I definitely expected Denard to improve this year and M to have a positive TOM for this game. Oh, well.
Synopsis for Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Just step away from the chart – nothing to see here. Each team had one TO but the EP gained by UMass was much larger because UMass returned the Denard interception for a TD.
(See the Section on Gory Details below for how the adjustment for Expected Points (EP) is calculated.)
National Rankings: Since M has a negative TOM overall, a game with a zero TOM improves the national rankings. All rankings include games between two FBS teams ONLY and are from TeamRankings except for forced fumbles which is from CFBStats. The four columns with *** show the best correlation to offense and defense (per Advanced NFL stats).
The Gory Details
Details for Turnovers: Here is overall summary for all games by player (data in yellow was affected by this week's game).
Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Basically, the probability of scoring depends on the line of scrimmage for the offense. Therefore, the impact of a TO also depends on the yard line where the TO is lost and the yard line where the TO is gained. Each turnover may result in an immediate lost opportunity for the team committing the TO and a potential gain in field position by the opponent. Both of these components can vary dramatically based upon the down when the TO occurred, the yards the TO is returned, and whether the TO was a fumble or an interception.
Here are the details for the game.
The analysis is a bit tricky because: (A) the TO may directly result in lost EP for the offense but (B) only modifies the EP for the team gaining the TO because the team gaining the TO would have gotten another possession even without the TO (due to a punt, KO after a TD, KO after a field goal, etc.). The Net EP Gain must take into account the potential EP gain without the TO. The EP gain without the turnover is based on where the field position would have been for the next possession if the TO had not occurred.
The expected point calculations are based on data from Brian Fremeau at BCFToys (he also posts at Football Outsiders). Fremeau's data reflects all offensive possessions played in 2007-2010 FBS vs. FBS games. I "smoothed" the actual data.
Here is a summary of the smoothed expected points.
This one's for you, MGoBlog readers; specifically those of you who slo-mo crowd shots to look for internet celebrity Michigan fans like Lloyd Brady.
The 2011 Notre Dame game brought us Michigan Stadium's first (football) night game, a crazy last minute, game winning touchdown drive and the awesome Facepalm Guy.
This week's wallpaper is a remix of my 2010 Touchdown Jesus Says "No Good" artwork. It seems appropriate for Touchdown Jesus to assume the facepalm pose in light of three straight Notre Dame losses on late fourth quarter Michigan scores.
The images below are previews only. You can get the widescreen, iPad and mobile wallpapers at The Art. The Art. The Art!.
PRE-GAMING WITH... DESMOND?
(Click the image to view full size)
Not much to say about ol' drunk Desmond there. Just want to thank Pat Stansik for his involvement and blessing, and encourage everyone to visit his YouTube and Facebook accounts. Keep up the good work, and thanks again for the Most Epic Song EVER.
OnThursday Tom runs into the typical Notre Dame fan.
THE BLOCKHAMS™ runs (typically) every Tuesday here at MGoBlog,
and at least every Thursday on its official home page. Also, don't forget to
check out Friday Roughs, a spontaneous low-end comic based on trending
Michigan events, available on Twitter and Facebook every Friday.
Ok, so I will hopefully be putting 2-3 different wallpapers up. A lot of this will depend on how fast I can get my new TV mounted (also my computer monitor). This first one is very simple, but I still like the look of it. I will be working on another one tonight that will be a little more complicated. In the meantime, enjoy the first one of the week! Hope you like it. Go Blue, beat the Irish!
Wallpaper 1 - "Touchdown Jesus"
After watching the UMass game I went through a series of strange feelings:
- Relief. Game never in question, easy opponent dispatched, spread covered.
- Anxiety. The D-Line didn't look that good. Come to think of it, neither did the run-blocking.
- Relief. 2013 isn't far away, and we'll be transitioning from Borges-Denard Fusion to Manball.
- Anxiety. 2013 isn't far away, and we'll be transitioning from Borges-Denard Fusion to Manball.
Yes, the last two are the same. No, it's not a mistake. Here's what happened in my brain:
- I sure will miss Denard next year, but we'll be back to Michigan Manball without him. And our offensive line will be much better at run-blocking.
- Wait, why will it be better at run-blocking? Who will even be playing O-Line for us next year?
- SHUT-UP! SHUT-UP! SHUT-UP! Enjoy the win. Just pretend that Hoke will sprinkle magical Manball dust (wait, that doesn't sound right) and everything will turn out fine.
- No, you shut-up. I have to research this so I can sleep. Or so I can't sleep. AAARRRGGGGH!
Suddenly, I'm lying awake in bed, and going through the depth chart in my head. The one guy that seems to be playing good football on the O-Line is Taylor Lewan, and it's no secret that he's projected to get a 1st round NFL draft grade. We have to assume he's gone. Also gone from the line is...EVERYONE. Except Schofield. He'll stick around for his fifth year. Right? RIGHT?!!! And it's good that he stays...right? RIGHT?!!!
Let's just assume the whole line, except Schofield, is gone. Our new O-Line looks like this:
LT Erik Magnuson; LG Chris Bryant; C Jack Miller; RG Kyle Kalis; RT Michael Schofield
Maybe Joey Burzynski sneaks in there, but we're likely going with four (FOUR!) players with
little or no playing experience. And Schofield.
And I think, if we're geing honest with ourselves, that line doesn't look much better than this year's version. Sure, Bryant and Kalis should be better people-movers than Barnum and Omameh, but they'll be learning the position as they go. And a redshirt freshman left tackle? Ummmm...
Oh, and did I mention that Jack Miller is currently 6-4 and 288 lbs? Not exactly the size we're looking for at center.
My point is that our O-Line will be far from "Manball-Ready" and that we have much to fear about their abilities. Maybe we'll get some better natural push, but we're trading that for what will likely be a drop-off in pass-blocking. Erik Gunderson is currently listed ahead of Ben Braden, so I'm not holding my breath there. Blake Bars isn't currently listed on the depth chart.
On the other side of the ball, things don't look much better. BWC and Roh are gone. Pipkins should be seasoned, and hopefully in shape. Brink, Washington, Black, and Ash are all back, but like, seriously.
Our hopes will be tied to Pee Wee (NT) and Frank Clark (WDE), with Heitzman/Brink/Wormley/Strobel at SDE and Black/Washington/Ash/Brink at DT needing to just not screw it up.
The only logical conclusion is that next year will require the same patience with our lines as this year. This issue will be exacerbated by the lack of Denard...whether it's Bellomy or Gardner running the offense, it will be an offense that is trying to be pro style, and won't have a premier QB to run it. Gardner's growth will be stunted by his time at WR, and Bellomy looks like a solid-but-not-spectacular player. Navarre Light, if you will, with more mobility and a not-as-good arm.
I guess what I'm saying is that we'll really have to wait until 2014 before we have our Manball lines in place, and maybe then we can go back to complaining about the secondary.