Diaries

For questions on how the numbers are calculated see here.

Quarterbacks

Performance of the week: Mike Kafka, NW.  Even though other qb's put up more yards or more touchdowns, nobody added more value to his team than Kafka. His success at Purdue was worth 13 points above average.  With nearly a third of the value coming on the ground, Kafka was able to add nearly 2 TDs worth of value for NW to pull out the win.

Player - QB - Season

Player - QB - Season

Player	Team	G	Value	Yards	TD	INT	Rush Yards	Rush TD
Mike Kafka	Northwestern	4	7.44	270.25	1.25	0.75	34.50	0.50
Kirk Cousins	Michigan State	4	4.63	204.75	1.00	1.00	29.67	0.00
Terrelle Pryor	Ohio State	5	4.17	172.20	1.60	1.00	69.80	0.60
Tate Forcier	Michigan	5	3.64	176.80	1.80	0.60	42.00	0.40
Juice Williams	Illinois	4	3.46	125.75	0.25	1.00	81.00	0.50
Daryll Clark	Penn State	5	3.19	223.80	1.80	1.20	29.75	0.50
Keith Nichol	Michigan State	4	2.42	80.50	0.75	0.50	16.00	0.00
D Robinson	Michigan	3	1.73	19.00	0.00	0.67	51.67	1.00
Scott Tolzien	Wisconsin	4	1.62	221.00	1.75	0.75	20.50	0.00
Ricky Stanzi	Iowa	4	1.59	208.25	1.75	1.75	11.00	0.00
Joey Elliott	Purdue	5	1.52	249.20	2.00	1.40	25.60	0.40
Adam Weber	Minnesota	5	0.90	229.80	1.20	1.20	4.60	0.00
Ben Chappell	Indiana	4	-1.94	202.00	1.00	1.00	0.00	0.33

Kafka also reigns supreme in the yearly totals with a value of over 7 points per game.  Forcier resides in the 4th spot with just under 4 points per game of value added.

Running Backs

Performance of the week: This week, all numbers pointed to John Clay of Wisconsin.  The traditional stats were great, 184 yards and 3 TDs, but the value was just as good, adding 8 points that helped Wisconsin to victory and was 3 more points than any other Big 10 running back on the weekend.

Player - RB - Season

Player - RB - Season

Player	Team	G	Value	Rush	Yards	TD	Rec Yards	Rec TD	Conf
Ralph Bolden	Purdue	5	3.39	19.40	108.20	0.80	28.40	0.20	Big Ten
Carlos Brown	Michigan	5	3.09	8.80	67.20	0.60	29.75	0.25	Big Ten
Evan Royster	Penn State	5	2.29	15.60	78.40	0.80	22.75	0.25	Big Ten
John Clay	Wisconsin	4	1.69	25.00	128.00	1.75			Big Ten
Jaycen Taylor	Purdue	4	1.48	6.25	28.00	0.75	38.00	1.00	Big Ten
Adam Robinson	Iowa	4	1.11	15.75	74.00	0.75	19.67	0.00	Big Ten
Brandon Saine	Ohio State	5	1.10	9.80	58.80	0.00	20.60	0.00	Big Ten
Duane Bennett	Minnesota	5	1.02	10.40	42.20	1.00	5.67	0.00	Big Ten
Brandon Minor	Michigan	4	0.88	8.75	44.75	0.50			Big Ten
D Eskridge	Minnesota	5	0.86	7.40	33.00	0.20	10.00	0.00	Big Ten
Stephfon Green	Penn State	5	0.79	7.40	38.00	0.40	18.50	0.00	Big Ten
Larry Caper	Michigan State	4	0.52	9.25	36.50	1.00			Big Ten
Darius Willis	Indiana	3	0.35	14.00	80.33	1.00	27.00	0.00	Big Ten
Jordan Hall	Ohio State	3	0.00	8.33	34.33	0.00			Big Ten
Caulton Ray	Michigan State	3	-0.22	7.33	24.67	0.33			Big Ten
Dan Herron	Ohio State	4	-0.98	15.75	53.75	1.25	17.00	0.00	Big Ten
Arby Fields	Northwestern	4	-1.26	8.50	29.00	0.50	11.67	0.00	Big Ten
D Mccray	Indiana	4	-1.60	7.75	45.25	0.25	10.00	0.00	Big Ten
Zach Brown	Wisconsin	4	-1.72	9.50	36.00	0.25	7.33	0.00	Big Ten
Jacob Schmidt	Northwestern	4	-1.72	7.75	28.25	0.00	31.00	0.00	Big Ten
Brandon Wegher	Iowa	4	-2.09	14.25	67.25	0.50	12.00	0.00	Big Ten
Glenn Winston	Michigan State	4	-3.33	10.25	28.75	0.25	6.00	0.00	Big Ten

Carlos Brown comes in at 2nd place with just over 3 points per game of value.  Brandon Minor is also in the top 10 at number 9 at just under a point a game.
Ralph Bolden of Purdue is the overall leader, although his lead is likely over soon, as his value has declined every game this season and his average over the last 3 games is -1 points per game.

Wide Receivers/Tight Ends

Performance of the week: The big name receiver of the Big 10 strikes again, Eric Decker provided 10 points of value on 8 catches, 140 yards and 1 TD.  Even including incompletions thrown his way, Decker still provided the Gophers with 7 points of value on the day. Marvin McNutt from Iowa receives Honorable Mention this week by posting 9 points of value both on catches and targets.

Player - WR - Season

Player - WR - Season

Player	Team	G	Value	Value+	Rec	Yards	TD	Gap	Conf
Eric Decker	Minnesota	5	8.80	5.61	8.60	127.80	1.00	63.36%	Big Ten
Keith Smith	Purdue	5	7.83	6.19	7.00	91.80	0.60	70.88%	Big Ten
B Cunningham	Michigan State	4	6.66	4.33	5.75	78.00	0.75	57.27%	Big Ten
Marvin Mcnutt	Iowa	3	5.49	4.39	2.00	64.67	0.67	64.20%	Big Ten
Aaron Valentin	Purdue	5	5.40	2.70	4.20	55.20	0.80	40.35%	Big Ten
Tandon Doss	Indiana	4	4.94	3.15	5.50	81.25	0.25	-157.59%	Big Ten
Mark Dell	Michigan State	3	4.92	2.71	4.33	70.33	0.33	61.57%	Big Ten
Blair White	Michigan State	4	4.83	3.11	5.00	59.25	0.50	-220.40%	Big Ten
Trey Stross	Iowa	3	4.71	3.30	4.00	56.67	0.33	68.41%	Big Ten
D Sanzenbacher	Ohio State	5	4.69	3.96	3.00	61.80	0.80	64.69%	Big Ten
Keshawn Martin	Michigan State	3	4.43	1.85	2.00	54.00	0.67	-20.92%	Big Ten
Garrett Graham	Wisconsin	4	4.38	1.99	5.25	64.25	0.75	37.92%	Big Ten
Derek Moye	Penn State	5	4.22	1.39	3.60	57.60	0.40	-48.36%	Big Ten
Chaz Powell	Penn State	4	4.17	3.25	3.75	53.25	0.50	85.82%	Big Ten
Isaac Anderson	Wisconsin	4	4.15	3.71	3.00	63.75	0.25	89.94%	Big Ten
Devier Posey	Ohio State	5	4.01	1.45	3.80	42.80	0.40	39.45%	Big Ten
Drake Dunsmore	Northwestern	4	3.68	1.99	5.00	54.25	0.25	1.81%	Big Ten
Andrew Brewer	Northwestern	3	3.68	2.55	3.00	45.00	0.67	-61.94%	Big Ten
Nick Toon	Wisconsin	4	3.60	0.81	4.00	49.75	0.50	31.96%	Big Ten
Arrelious Benn	Illinois	3	3.52	3.46	3.33	46.00	0.00	98.88%	Big Ten
Darryl Stonum	Michigan	3	2.93	2.71	3.00	50.33	0.33	88.55%	Big Ten
D Belcher	Indiana	4	2.70	0.51	4.25	43.25	0.00	-46.41%	Big Ten
Graham Zug	Penn State	4	2.64	1.78	3.75	45.25	0.50	29.71%	Big Ten
Kevin Koger	Michigan	4	2.55	1.90	2.25	36.75	0.50	69.66%	Big Ten
D Fields	Northwestern	4	2.43	1.98	3.25	27.25	0.25	62.09%	Big Ten
J Hemingway	Michigan	4	2.25	1.88	2.50	34.75	0.50	107.64%	Big Ten
Z Markshausen	Northwestern	4	2.23	2.38	6.50	62.50	0.00	109.22%	Big Ten
A Quarless	Penn State	5	1.84	0.77	3.20	30.60	0.00	-33.95%	Big Ten
T Turner	Indiana	5	1.61	-0.99	4.40	38.00	0.20	-77.43%	Big Ten
Kyle Adams	Purdue	4	0.10	-1.29	3.50	27.75	0.00	-100.92%	Big Ten

Eric Decker, 2nd in the country overall, also leads overall on the season with nearly 9 points per game and ranks second to Keith Smith of Purdue on value when targeted at 6 points per game. No Michigan receiver ranks in the top 20 for the season.

I am surprised at the number of soccer fans on this board including our leader and savior, Brian.  With that, I'm sure most of us fans are familiar with the chants and cheers that go on during matches and I was wondering if any college football teams have adopted anything like that and could you see Michigan doing it.  I'm not talking Seven Nation Army or even You'll Never Walk Alone but more player specific.  I get pretty annoyed when ND fans do the "Hughes" moan because it's rather boring.  I was thinking something more along the lines of That Boy Ronaldo or the Torres Armband chant.

<object width="320" height="265"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2GHqFT-TehQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2GHqFT-TehQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="265"></embed></object>
(Link in case I suck and the video doesn't show)

Obviously we would change Ronaldo for a current M player (Forcier maybe?) and change the "plays on the left" part to something different (he throws/runs/rolls to the left/right?) and finally change the England to whoever we're playing that day.  Maybe sing it after a TD.  I figure it's something simple that most people would be able to pick up on after hearing it once or twice.

He throws to the left
He throws to the riiiiight
That boy Tate Forcier makes State/Iowa/Ohio State look shite

<object width="320" height="265"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q0cHv_iHyzI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q0cHv_iHyzI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="265"></embed></object>
(Link again)

Since there are a lot of lines in this one, maybe just do the Na Nar parts and maybe put in "Miller, Ricardo Miller, Michigan's #1" after good grab or "Turner, JT Turner, Michigan's #2" after an INT.  Again, it's pretty simple and most would be able to pick up on it.

I'm not limiting us to those but they're pretty easy to learn and adapt.  I really like it as long as it's something simple and that it could very easily catch on since it would unique to college football (I think?  I can't think of a school that does it).

What do you guys think, good or bad idea?  Anyone else have a good chant to use, maybe something more original?    Please no actual soccer talk; I don't want to start a flame war.

**Note** -  I love The Victors, Temptation and all that good shit and I am by no means trying to say it isn't good enough.  I was shooting for more along the lines of player specific like the examples I posted.

***Edit -  This is my first diary post and I don't know why the videos won't show.  I've posted videos in the forum.  Anyone want to help a brother out?

Sorry for being a little late to the party, but here's a couple of other thoughts on the going for two question. If you're sick of the whole bloody mess, you should probably stop reading about now.

First off, I largely agree with ikestoys's diary (http://mgoblog.com/diaries/down-14-and-going-2). I have often thought that football is a game that rewards aggressive play calling, like going for two and on fourth down more often, and fake punts from your own 20... Eh...

Anyway, I disagree with a couple of points ikestoys made, both explicitly and implicitly, and I thought I'd chuck 'em out here.

Trials are not independent
This point was made by a commenter in the original diary, but the basic idea of treating the different sorts of trials (going for 2, going for 1, overtime) as independent events (and therefore as amenable to the application of the mathematics of garden-variety probability theory) is flawed.

In football the outcome of one trial affects the probability of another trial even occurring, and not in predictable ways. Let's say UM had made the first two-point conversion. Would State have played their next drive differently than they did? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps they would have come out throwing and scored a field goal to go up by nine. We have no way of knowing how things would have unfolded in that alternative universe.

Relative frequencies are not probabilities
Second, and another point made by a commenter, is that ikestoys treats relative frequencies (the proportion of successful two-point conversions) as the same thing as probabilities of success. They are not. That's like saying that because 1% of adults die of lung cancer, you have a 1 in 100 chance of dying of lung cancer. Do you smoke? If so, then your probability is surely higher. If not, it's lower. The point here is that the probability of success of a two point conversion depends on many factors, as various people have noted.

Nevertheless...
Because relative frequencies =/= probabilities, I thought it would be interesting to see how the probabilities of winning fared if you didn't assume the probability of a successful two-point conversion was 0.44. So, two graphs for your viewing pleasure. The y-axis is the probability of winning the game after all events have unfolded (post-touchdown try after TD 1, TD 2, and possibly overtime). The x-axis is the probability of success of the two-point conversion (I limited the range of this probability to between 20 and 80%).

Graph the first
In the first graph, I have plotted the cumulative probabilities of winning for two strategies: going for 2 after scoring a TD to be down by 8 (iketoys's strategy--the black line), and going for 1 (RichRod's strategy--the blue line). The only thing I have allowed to vary is the probability of success of a two-point conversion (on the x-axis).

Couple things:

• Note that I have reproduced the probability ikestoys does, where the dashed red line intersects with the black curve at about 57% when Pr(success) for a two-point conversion is 44%.
• Note also that despite ikestoys's implicit claim that going for two is always the better move, if the probability of success falls below 35.5%, it is better to go for 1, as RichRod did. I'm not suggesting that this is what the probability would have been, though people's comments about a dog-tired Tate, a driving rain, etc., make this idea not too farfetched).

Graph the second
There are two other variables in the process: the probability of a successful PAT (which I held constant at 0.95), and the probability of winning in OT. The latter probability doesn't change the black curve below much, so I left it at 50/50, as did ikestoys.

In the graph below, the three non-black curves represent three different probabilities of winning in overtime: 40% (orange), 50% (blue), and 60% (green).

The only thing to take away here is that if you believe your probability of winning in overtime is high (based on your style of play, being at home, etc.) and if you believe your probability of a successful 2-point conversion is less than 44%(ish), then you should adopt RichRod's strategy. If you believe that your chances of winning in OT is 50/50, and you believe your chances of scoring on a two-pointer are > 35%, then you should follow ikestoys's strategy.

In conclusion (I know, finally)
Of course, coaches don't think this way in the heat of a game. Again, I basically agree with ikestoys, but the story is a bit more complex.

Here is a more detailed look at how I calculate the numbers for By The Numbers.

For every down, distance and yardline I have a calculate expected value. The expected value equates to the average points scored from an average team in that situation. 

   *Example, 1st and 10 at your own 20, no situation has more data points than this one. Last year, this situation yielded an average of 1.57 points every time it occurred. Obviously, you can't score 1.57 points in a football game.  If you had the ball in this situation 100 times, you would score 157 points.  It could be a TD every 4-5 possessions or a FG every other possession or probably some mix.

Each play changes the that expected value and that value is then attributed to the player/players who were recorded on the play.  Over the course of games and seasons these points add up, some positive, some negative and we begin to see a clearer picture of what value was added by what players/units.

But adding value isn't the same for all opponents.  A total of +10 is a very impressive number, but its more impressive against a good team than a bad team.  After all of the data is collected, every team's unit is rated on a per play basis.  This value is then added or subtracted from every play that occurs against it. 

    *Example, a good rush defense averages -0.1 against it every time the opponent runs. They are playing a decent run offense that averages +.04 every play.  If the net result for the game is a -5 on 40 carries, the adjusted results would be a -1 rating for the offense (-5 + 0.1*40 = -1) and a +6.6 rating for the defense (-[-5 - 0.04*40]) in my write-ups, positive is always above average and negative is below average.

So the essence of the metric is how many scoreboard points did the player/unit contribute vs average and accounting for competition.

Exceptions and Notes

• Plays with lost fumbles are removed from all numbers because fumbles are considered random and greatly skew ratings
• QB sacks are included for team passing metrics but not for individual players
• Garbage time is not included in stats.  If a team is up by 4 TDs in the 3rd quarter or 3 in the 4th it is considered garbage time and no plays are recorded.
• Wide receivers have 2 ratings, a rating on balls caught (Value) and a rating on balls caught or on balls targeted at them (Value+) the two metrics tell two different things and I haven't figured out how to combine them.  WR values typically run higher because of the lack of negative plays assigned directly to a WR.
• Performing on third down is huge, on third down you either make a first down and you gain big points, or your drive is over and you lose any points expected for the drive (unless in FG range).  This is one of the big advantages of this system, it can reward/punish plays made on big downs appropriately
• Only games against 1A competition count.  Games against 1AA teams are basically scrimmages with nothing good or bad counting.
• All data is pulled directly from play by play data hosted on the NCAA website.  I load all the data into a SS, run a bunch of fancy formulas and then dump it into a database where I can run queries till I pass out or the boss shows up.

Schedule

It is scary to put this in writing, but here are my goals.

Monday - Game Review
Tuesday - Big 10 Player Rankings
Wednesday - Big 10 Team Rankings
Thursday - Flex/Catch up if I missed a deadline
Friday - Game Preview

During the offseason I am looking for ideas to pull from my DB of plays to validate or refute conventional wisdom.  Items such as, is momentum real on quick change plays? Examining 4th down convention. Etc, again, looking for ideas.

Ideas going forward

I am very open to ideas anyone has on how to improve what I pull, how its calculated or what I do with it.  Also, I am working on moving from expected points to a win percentage calculator so that there is no need for garbage time gray area.  Won't happen this year but hopefully next year I will have that added.

Sorry for the delay in getting this posted.

Any questions on how By The Numbers works, look here.

Rushing Offense

This was called out as a 3 point win for Michigan going in.  It wasn't.  State absolutely shut down the Michigan running game, the final number -4 for the game, but it was worse than that.

Minor was a -2.2 on 4 carries, none of them with positive values.  Carlos Brown was -2.0 on 6 carries, with only 2 carries coming out positive. Shoelace posted a pair of negative runs.  Odoms one carry was a negative.  The only one who did anything on the ground was Forcier (+1.7) and most of his value was on scrambles. 6 of his 11 runs (sacks are excluded) went positive which is not great but for the rest of the teams performance, was far above average this week.

Passing Offense

In the preview this was noted as the biggest disparity of any unit in the game.  Excluding Stonum's fumble, the passing game was slightly negative (-0.6).  The three sacks cost nearly 4 points on the game and the interception in OT was obviously a big deal.

Stonum, apart from the fumble, had a very nice game with 1 point on 3 catches plus over 5 points on the long TD which more than offset the lost value on his fumble.

Matthews was targeted 5 times, none of them complete.  We'll have to wait for the UFR to see where the fault lies.

Hemingway picked up 3 catches for a meager +1.

Kogar was 1/4 on targeted balls, but snuck into the positives at +.6.

Odoms had a productive day, picking up nearly 3.5 points in 6 targets with 4 points coming on his 5 catches.

Roundtree's grab in the endzone was worth 3 points after missing on two targets that worth 1.5 points.

Rush Defense

Saw this as a point or two disadvantage coming in, and that's about where it netted out, although in a strange way.

Jailbird Glen Winston was -8.6, even with his +3 TD run.
Larry Caper's game deciding run, just put him back to even on the game.
Running QB Keith Nichol ran only twice for little value.
But...

Wow! Kirk Cousins, 5 rushes, all for positive value racking up an incredible +8 on the ground for the game. Wow!

What a bizarre path to an expected outcome.

Pass Defense

This was the only segment that was a solid win for Michigan.  Coming in, it was expected to be a 2 point disadvantage but it ended up being a 2 point advantage.

The two sacks netted a three point advantage for Michigan, even when taking out the benefit of the fumble.

Strangely enough, Keith Nichol (+2.4) added more value through the air than Kirk Cousins (-.4) did on the day.

Cunningham was the only receiver who managed to post more than a point or two of value for the game with a +7.3.

Field Position

Even with the turnovers, Michigan failed to have an advantage in field position.  The regulation numbers for field position where 24 exp points for MSU and 22 for Michigan. The first down at the 25 for OT is worth just over 4 points, so for the game, MSU scored 1 less point than expected (PAT is assumed) after being -4 in regulation while Michigan was -2 in regulation but -6 on the game.

Special Teams

Other the Zoltan audible, the special teams didn't provide any huge advantages for either side.

Olesnavage had another good game, going +1.9 on his two field goals while Swenson was +.6 on two chippies.

MSU had a +.5 advantage on kickoff teams with Michigan giving up a couple of good returns.

When Michigan was actually punting, the punt teams netted out with no real advantages and MSU had negligible advantage in returns.

Penalties

A lot of value came Michigan's way via the yellow laundry on Saturday. NO CONSPIRACY!

When Michigan was on offense there was a net pickup of a point of value due to penalties. However, MSU's offense had the should have been killer penalty problems, costing them 5.5 points in value most of which coming on...

The Drive that spanned the globe

Thought I would add a little note on the drive that covered a ton of yardage and could not be stopped.

During the drive, Michigan State rushed 10 times for a value of 3.8, 3 of which coming from Cousins. The Spartans passed 7 times for a value of 5.9.  That's 17 plays, adding nearly 10 points in value.  Obviously, this was all to offset the ridiculous penalties being accumulated during the drive. Michigan State's 4 penalties cost them 4.3 points on the drive.  After the second personal foul, Michigan State's 2nd and 25 put their drive expected points at 1.4, less that what they would have expected when they started the drive.  A very strange drive.

Tomorrow E:60 will be doing a segment on Elliott Mealer tomorrow at 7pm. 

For those that do not know, Mealer is a RS freshman from Wauseon, Ohio that sat out last year due to a torn rotartor cuff.  His family and girlfriend was in a car accident on Christmas Eve 2007.  The car was struck on the driver side and both his father and girlfriend were killed during or soon after the accident.  Additionally, Elliott's brother was on the passenger side front and was trapped inside the car.  Elliott tried to rescue his brother from the car and this is how he tore his rotartor cuff.  Soon after the accident Elliott's brother was claimed to be paralyzed from the waist down.

The accident happened one week before Carr retired.  When RR came in he was very accepting of Elliott's condition and circumstance.  RR told Elliott that no matter if he can ever play a down for Michigan, he will always have a scholarship at Michigan.  Elliott's brother is also making progress, I heard today that he is walking with assistance now and is swimming.

This is a great story, reminds me of the ESPN make a wish stories or something like that.  I hope everyone gets a chance to watch this.  I don't know if it is because I am from Toledo, Ohio (not that far from Wauseon) but I am really pulling for Elliott and his family.

Here is a link to the story by a Toledo news station. 

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=7540734

Also a link to the mgoblue.com page (check out the two videos...great stuff)

mgoblue Mealer

GO BLUE!!!!!