MG Campredon
 

With hemming and hawing at an all-time high following Michigan missing a zillion free throws against Minnesota, the same old platitudes about not being able to hit free throws costing you in March started to be bandied about. They made me wonder if Michigan hasn’t already paid a price.

Michigan is currently shooting 63.8% from the free throw line, good for a stinky #342 ranking per Kenpom.com. Historically, Beilein’s Michigan teams have significantly-to-overwhelmingly outperformed D1 average FT%, but we will consider the current D1 average FT% of 71.5% as our “NO LONGER UNACCEPTABLE” number.

I have neither the interest nor the capability to prognosticate how an increase in Michigan’s FT% would translate to how their offense works or how games would have been affected in the big-picture, but I did think it would be interesting to take a look at how end-game FT shooting affected the outcomes in Michigan’s closest games.

I anecdotally decided to look at the last 5 minutes of games, as that is when, in my household, missing the front-end of a 1-and-1 goes from a “C’mon man!” to a war crime. I chose to define close games as games where the winning team has a win% of less than 90% at any point in those last 5 minutes. Hopefully this will give us a peek at when and if not shooting D1 average FT% cost Michigan potential paths to wins when they lost or easier wins when they won.

Tier 1 - No Reasonable Argument FT% would have Changed Anything:

VCU, OSU, vs Purdue, MSU

Not going to go through these 4 games individually, but if it’s here it means changing Michigan’s free throw percentage does not lead to a significant difference in the magnitude or ease of victory or chance at a win, probably because Michigan didn’t take any free throws or they hit the ones they took at a D1 average level already.

---

Tier 2 - Better FT% would have been Nice but Likely Doesn't Change Outcome:

@Purdue

Technically this game doesn’t satisfy my standards as Purdue was never less than 90% to win during the last 5 minutes but I counted it anyway.  The only free throws taken in the last 5 were when Zavier Simpson had a chance to cut the Purdue lead from 5 to 3 with 19 seconds left and went 0-2. Purdue was already in the double bonus and is an excellent free throw shooting team, so Michigan was almost certainly cooked regardless of the outcome of Simpson's FTs.

UCLA

Matthews missed a front-end and went 1-2 on another 1-and-1 before Eli Brooks hit 2 FTs to send the game to overtime. If Matthews hits 1 more FT, Michigan potentially wins in regulation, but that would have potentially bumped Michigan from 3-5 to 4-5 end-game FTs, and over the 71.5% standard. Simpson and Matthews combined to shoot all 6 Michigan free throws in overtime, and only managed to hit 1 of them. However, neither player went to the line with less than a 6 point lead as Michigan coasted to an easy victory in the extra period.

---

Tier 3 - Better FT% Plainly Improves End-game Prospects:

LSU

After Moritz Wagner canned a 3 to go up 6 with 3 minutes remaining, Michigan’s only points the rest of the way would come from 2-4 FT shooting, with Eli Brooks and Charles Matthews each splitting a pair. Matthews’s attempts came while down 2 with the shot clock turned off. Had Michigan managed to go 3-4 during this stretch, it would have forced LSU to make a game-winning shot or go to overtime. Instead, Michigan was forced to foul, and Abdur-Rahkman missed a wild attempt on the final play.

Maryland

Michigan shot 4-8 across the last 5 minutes of the game, 2-6 before MAAR nihilistically went 2-2 to win the game in regulation. Bumping Michigan up to 4-6 FTs almost certainly gets them a win in regulation without any low-percentage inbounds plays needing to go off.

Here’s a dude that will never miss ANY clutch FTs!

Minnesota

Michigan shot 2-6 across the last 5 minutes (including 4 misses from Abdur-Rahkman, the FT hero vs Maryland) and the way this one played out, you have to figure any additional makes would have gotten them the win in regulation. Michigan proceeded to shoot 2-5 in the overtime period. 3-5 or better would likely have had them shooting more FTs to maintain a small lead rather than needing MAAR to hit a dramatic layup-and-1 for the win. ...maybe things worked out for the best.

 

---

I only observed 3 games this year where improving Michigan’s FT% to D1 average level would have made an undeniable impact on the final possessions, and Michigan managed to go 2-1 in those games regardless. In the game they lost, barring a FT% increase to 100%, the best Michigan could have hoped for was forcing overtime.

[Ed-Ace: I'm taking time off this weekend but this diary stands in quite well for a game recap and gives me an excuse to post MG's photos.]

[This and all other photos: Marc-Gregor Campredon]

I don't like to wade into the open threads during or after a game, and since there isn't a recap posted, I wanted to make a couple notes about the game today.  It seemed like some folks were disappointed with today's game so I'm going to channel Ace and try to dish out some perspective.

A John Beilein basketball team just shot a horrific 8-32 from three, an unfathomable 12-28 FTs, watched an opposing freshman who came into the game shooting an abysmal 39/19 toss in circus shot after circus shot despite being defended pretty well....and still won.  Huh? How did that happen?

1) Rebounding.  M continues to be an elite, you heard that correctly, elite defensive rebounding team (11th in the country). Minnesota only rebounded 13% of their misses (5 OREBs) to our 26% (11 OREBs) which gave us five more shot equivalents, every one of them was needed the way we shot.

2) Defense. I thought we played pretty good defense the whole game, but Mason started the game hitting his (typically) ill-advised pull-ups from 17 feet and then Washington took over and hit everything (almsot literally as he started 9-10) he threw towards the basket despite Z being right there making it difficult most of the time.  I was like, great, thanks Brian.  You had to go write the entire preview about their awful 2 point shooting, and of course, they make them against us (and for the record it was just Mason and Washington that shot well, everyone else was mediocre to bad).

Beilein made a very smart move to go zone (which I almost always hate and which usually goes poorly) right around the time we were down 10 with about 10 min to go.

Zone was a perfect way to slow down a team that was going one-on-one exclusively and weren't threating to pass or hit threes. They did get a couple dunks/shots at the rim off drive and dishes which will happen against a zone, but we took away what had been working for them: Washington driving the lane.

3) Points in the paint. Thanks to Z, Matthews and MAAR driving the lane, we scored 40 points in the paint.  I don't even what's going on anymore.

Yes, this is not your older brother's M team that wins or loses by the three.  We win with defense and rebounding sometimes too!  Extremely nice to be able to do that on an off day (and this day was realllllly off despite those threes being mostly great looks).

Individual shoutouts:

• Z got the appreciation thread and he was outstanding down the stretch with a couple layups and a pretty steal and pass ahead to Duncan on the break during the comeback. Then he took over in OT with two layups and a three.  Despite shooting an awful 1-8 from three (and they were ugly like his freshman year) he was 6-6 (!!) from two (we won't talk about the 0-2 FTs).
• Charles Matthews deserves a lot of credit for having a good second half after a brutal first half in which he went 0-6 FGs.  He went 4-5 in the second half and had all 13 of his points after the break.
• Mo Wagner had one of his steadier games as a Wolverine.  He wasn't spectacular like he can be occasionally and he wasn't victimized down low like he also can be.  He continues to be the anchor of our elite defensive rebounding, his only TO was a three second violation and his double-double (16 points, 10 rebounds) was big.
• MAAR: Oh yeah, the guy that had 17 pts including the game winner which was reminiscent of the Maryland game except this time instead of getting tripped he spun to the bucket for the and1.
• The 4 combo.  Livers was once again very solid while in the game with his usual uber-efficient shooting (5 pts on 3 shots), rebounding (2 OREBs, 3 DREBs in just 17 min) and defense (2 blocks). But Duncan played 28 min in this one because in a zone, we can hide him on the wing and don't have to worry nearly as much about him getting beat because there's a guy waiting in the middle of the zone. He was also efficient with 10 pts on 6 shots and 2 assists to 1 TO.

This is probably the time to point out that 1 TO of Robinson's was a travel to give Minn the ball back with M up 3 with 8 seconds to go after being intentionally fouled multiple times.  This was the worst call/no-call of the season in a season filled with them.  The ref was standing five feet away from this happening and despite knowing Minnesota was trying to foul, and despite them doing a good job of it, he did not call it. If we had lost, this call would have been the story of the game. Refs had to be relieved that we won.

Minnesota, of course, hit a three to tie it on a play on which we probably missed a switch, very similar to the Maryland three to take the lead. Luckily we were up three this time so it just meant OT, but that makes it all the more inexcusable to give up an open three when you should be a lot less concerned about giving up a two.

Perspective: we won a game in which we shot terribly, and in this one, it wasn't opponent induced, we were getting shots we wanted.  It happens.  That we got the W because of our defense and rebounding is very encouraging for the future when we'll almost always shoot better than this. There's been some grumbling about the team since the MSU game, but remember:

1) M covered the spread in each of our last three games: Rutgers, Purdue and Northwestern. Not sure if we fans just aren't used to winning with great defense and meh offense and that's what makes it seem like we aren't playing well, but despite expectations being high for us right now (on the form of point spreads), we still exceeded those expectations in our three previous games.

2) In our six games since MSU, we have been the 42nd best team in the country per Bart Torvik's rankings.  So we've still played like a top 50 team despite clunkers at Nebraska and today's...whatever that was.  To put that in perspective, teams that have played worse during that time: Kentucky, Rhode Island, Creighton, Clemson, Wich St. Gonzaga....those are all teams projected to be higher seeded than M.  That's pretty good for this being a so-called "bad" stretch.

[Hit THE JUMP for more photos and the box score.]

Mates,

Hesitating to post this, even as a diary, but here goes.  Saw my first game at Crisler since '84, but what a game.  Down and back in one day, took some of the kids, much of the snowy drive in 4x4, going around and through other vehicles like gates on a slalom course.  But what a day, what a memorable, meaningful day.  

1.  The Basketball Game - So yeah, that was I think what Brian/Seth call a 'rock fight', but we won.  Short story, if this was a hoops UFR, would be Refs -10;  Michigan Free Throws negative...., well, how much numbers are there in the world?  Put that number in after the '-' sign.  Then multiply it.  I would add that Gopher guard Mason is alleged to have actually made more shots than he took.  Thats unpossible, but we're checking the tape to verify.

2.  The Ushers -  I think I am finally getting it about the ushers.  You know how we go to the football games and they introduce those guys with X years of service?  Well I talked with some today.  Scanner Blue introduced us to his work-mates and they must have to go to some kind of smile/customer service boot camp.  All businesses should send their staff to the same camp.  I met one guy, Herb, who had been working Crisler for 45 years.  That's a lot, right?  Well guess what.  He's been working football for 70 years.   Not a typo, 70 years.  Many of us won't live that long.  Can you imagine the love and committment to Michigan to do that for 70 years?  The dude is 90, and when folks started showing up he was doing all the stuff all the other ushers were doing.  Will any of us even be concious at 90?  I'm going to guess that those type of folks get married and stay married, don't switch jobs too much, and their kids come home at the holiday, glad to see them.  We could all use some of what those ushers have. 

We met Phil, he's the floor supervisor, uber friendly.  Actually let the twins high-five the players going into the tunnel.  To a 10 year old, that's almost like touching the hand of a diety. 

Then there's Scanner Blue.  We have barely said 'hello' this afternoon and he's handing the kids a bag o' swag that'll cause covetousness and wrestling matches to break out in the XM house for the next month.  Awesome stuff.  There were flags, key chains, lights, posters, even a knit cap from the U of M Cancer Center - which has become my new winter cap.  Fatherhood has its privileges.  Did you know Scanner is a U of M engineering grad that decided to become a high-end, interior trim carpenter?  In the building trades that is considered art work.   He's in SE Michigan, look him up for your next building project. 

3.  The MgoCommunity - The real reason I write this is the MgoCommunity and its unique nature.  Where else on earth can you have a thread about astrophysics right next to one asking for advice about expressing your dog's glands, next to a 'Wife Day' thread?  There are so many smart and kind people here.  At the game robf and I were texting (we left after the game, failed to meet this time, I blame myself), Scanner was making sure we were taken care of (spoiled us rotten), a frequent Mgoblog lurker, we'll call him Larry, stopped by to say hi, and we even got to meet Seth.  Seth seems to be as cool in person as he is in print.  Someday I'm going to corner him and pepper him with questions, but luckily for him, today was not that day.  

But what about the more important stuff?  What about the occasional thread where guys/gals need help, prayer, a job, a ticket, advice for getting into school?  This is the place for that.  What about the incredibly personal stuff, the stuff that takes your breath away - remember Brutus and his wife this fall?  There's been threads that included great help for things like depression or cancer or how about that thread yesterday, the one where a long-time lurker, infrequent poster, had an OP about abuse that was as thoughtful and well-worded as I've ever read.  

Unlike virtually every other message board you've ever visited, there's real people here.  Its kind of like your weekly Saturday morning basketball game with the same group showing up.  Sure, one guy doesn't pass, another keeps taking 3's like he's going to make them and never does, and none of us are as fast or jump as high as we used to.  But you know what, these are also the same people that will pull their truck up to yours and jump you battery b/c yours won't crank, and buy you breakfast after the game b/c you 'forgot' your wallet.  Contrast that with when you go play hoops at some big-city court.  Every foul is an argument, some break out in fights.  That's because of the anonymity, the attitude that they'll never see that guy again so who cares, take that ball, argue the call, start a pushing match. 

 I know I value this community and try to treat it like a Saturday morning basketball game.  There are so many people here that are worthwhile folks.  I guess it'd be a good thing to keep in mind once in a while, might help us with the tougher topics.  Besides, you might need your car jumped someday and the blogger you are being snarky to might be the one whose got cables.  Heck of a day, heck of an MgoCommunity.

Go Blue!

XM

 

 

Yeah, kinda like that [Eric Upchurch]

OFFENSE

	Corsi	House	Possession %
First Period	26	13	62%
Second Period	14	8	54%
Third Period	12	10	67%
Overtime	n/a	n/a	n/a
TOTAL	52	31	60%

Analysis: Granted, this was probably score-adjusted, but whoa. After a night where Michigan did not create anything at even strength, this looked like a different offense. Michigan took 31 attempts (60% of their total) from the House (front of the net to the dots and up to the top of the faceoff circles) and came away with no goals. Sports! Before there was any score, Michigan created about four looks that had great chances of producing a goal. So, it wasn’t all situational. If the Wolverines reproduce this, they’ll likely get four or five on the board. Hayton played well, but he had bounces go his way tonight. There were rebounds, trickles, and whiffs all night. Michigan just could not bury anything. There are nights like that, and Michigan got one when they could least afford it. Let’s see if they can reproduce this next weekend. They’ll need to do so.

[After THE JUMP: the defense held up, but the goaltending didn't]

Dakota Raabe had quite a nice night on the PK and was rewarded with an empty-netter [Marc-Gregor Campredon]

OFFENSE

	Corsi	House	Possession %
First Period	15	5	41%
Second Period	11	5	39%
Third Period	12	4	41%
Overtime	n/a	n/a	n/a
TOTAL	38	14	40%

Analysis: Not Michigan’s best offensive game. Each period, the Wolverines seemed to create a few nice looks at the net, but that was about it. They didn’t have a high volume of chances, nor did they overwhelm Wisconsin’s defense. Michigan’s offense was mostly buoyed by their power play. During even-strength play, Michigan could not generate a whole lot. This game seemed a lot like the second PSU game from a couple of weeks ago, and the inverse of the OSU game last Friday. There was not a lot of organic offense, but the team leaned on other realms to pull out the victory. Jack Becker did have a nice circle route on which he powered though a couple of Badgers and was rewarded with a wrister that beat Jack Berry. He has really come on in the last month.

[After THE JUMP: establishing Lavigne's baseline and looking at how special teams won the game]

Now that football season is over, occasionally a season ranking comes out based on team or offensive/defensive performance. Enter the self proclaimed college football professor. (I'm not here to dime the guy out, he's just what got me interested in working this up). Landof10 reported the other day that this guy's annual ranking of defensive coordinator performances came out, and that this past year Don Brown had the 24th best defensive performance in FBS, 6th best in the B1G. At this point you probably don't even care where he has Harbaugh. Wise of you. For any coaches out there trying to poach Don Brown, read no further!

My first reaction was "Look, if Don Brown's 2017 defensive performance isn't in your top 10, we can't even talk". However curiosity got the best of me, and in digging deeper, the statistics used don't measure what I would consider a Defensive Coordinator's performance at all.

Very briefly, he is including statistics that that are counted within other stats, such as number of sacks, and number of tackles for loss. To compare this to basketball, a slam dunk gives you two points and an emotional boost (maybe a sports center clip), but it's simply part of shot efficiency and total score the same way that sacks and TFL's are part of defensive yards, efficiency, and defensive 3/4th down conversion stops, its just how you get the job done, the result is what matters. Additionally he is detracting for recruit quality, which makes no sense. A coach's performance should most certainly include the quality of recruits they bring to the program, not detract from it.

A Simplified Defensive Theory

A defensive coordinator's main off field role is to recruit (and train) quality defensive players, study film, and develop game strategies. This should all directly relate to performance, so I don't believe it needs to be weighted against anything. Let's leave it all off the report card as it is included elsewhere in overall performance indicators.

A defensive coordinator's main on field role is to stop the offense from gaining any yardage, through either three and outs, or by turnovers gained, so as to provide maximum field position for the offense, with no points scored. 

Barring the ability to completely stop the offense from gaining yardage and first downs, the defensive coordinator's role is to stop the offense from scoring points. 

Applicable Scoring Indicators

While many relevant statistics are based on say yards per game, or score per game, these do not account for "offensive interference". A team with an offense that cannot advance the ball is likely going to have a defense that either has more time on the field or more defensive possessions. As such defensive performance needs to be based on its productivity per possession in cases where it makes sense to do so. Based on this theory, I examined the main applicable defensive statistics for all FBS teams.

Average Defensive Yards per Possession

Defensive 3rd and 4th Down Combined Conversion %

Defensive 1st Downs Allowed per Possession

Points Allowed per Possession vs Power5 Quality Teams

Defensive Turnovers Forced per Game

These five indicators to me measure the true performance of a defensive unit, and other important performance factors are already baked into at least one of these. While the first three indicators are somewhat related (actually there is a correlation between the first four, including points allowed), I felt it was important to examine all of them in totality as outliers could show say teams that gave up huge plays fairly frequently.

Points Allowed per Possession vs Power5 Quality Teams was used instead of the more common "scoring defense" (Defensive points per game/possession), as games against non-Power 5 conference quality schools do not provide a clear picture of defensive coordinator performance. For example, a late season game against Furman might allow for an excellent defensive performance without having to show any new looks, while an early season MAC opponent may strategically allow a DC to try and not show any new formations, or to play around with positioning, provided they maintain a comfortable lead. Also, some schools schedule slightly more non-Power5 quality games than others. A final note on this statistic: for all FBS teams measured, all games vs P5 teams and teams with similar/reasonable quality were considered.

It seemed most logical to rank these teams in order either by yards or 1st downs/possession, defensive stop %, or Points Allowed per Possession as the most important factors. I chose yards/possession based on my defensive theory above, and as Michigan came in first for three of these top four, with similar rankings for many others. Objective statistics below:

Michigan Rank	1	1	1	7	18
Team	Yd/Pos	3/4d%Cnv	1stD/Pos	Pt/Pos	Trnvr/G
Michigan	19.57	0.272	0.99	1.43	1.31
Clemson	20.50	0.323	1.10	1.13	1.43
Wisconsin	20.62	0.320	1.10	1.18	2.07
Alabama	20.72	0.348	1.22	1.04	1.71
Northern Ill.	22.11	0.332	1.11	1.72	1.69
Indiana	22.19	0.318	1.14	1.87	1.08
Ohio St.	22.64	0.339	1.26	1.50	1.71
Washington St.	22.72	0.298	1.15	2.09	2.15
Mississippi St.	22.89	0.310	1.01	1.80	1.62
Virginia Tech	23.44	0.281	1.13	1.28	1.46
Michigan St.	23.45	0.349	1.25	1.69	1.77
Georgia	23.65	0.326	1.25	1.37	1.33
UTSA	23.80	0.354	1.25	1.89	2.00
Texas	23.88	0.274	1.15	1.50	2.00
Auburn	23.91	0.345	1.25	1.55	1.36
Central Mich	23.98	0.360	1.24	2.00	2.38
South Fla.	24.26	0.364	1.33	2.08	2.00
Penn St.	24.48	0.359	1.29	1.45	1.92
Washington	24.53	0.403	1.39	1.39	1.85

I ended up taking the top 19 teams by yards given up per possession because it covered all of the top 10 teams for the relevant statistics and looked fairly pretty. 

This is my attempt to do it right- accounting for offensive interference of true defensive performance

Moving past the issues that came up with the college football professor's version, a main concern with using simple statistics to quantify defensive (or offensive) performance is that the offensive and defensive performance is so intertwined. That is to say, number of defensive possessions per game, defensive field position, average number of offensive turnovers lost per game, number of offensive punts per game, and opponent quality (here measured as % of top 10 teams by final rankings played) will all reasonably factor into defensive points allowed, and are not logically true measures of defensive performance. Additionally I argue that loss in defensive production from the previous year is an additional factor in game performance to some extent that may vary by year to year. For this I did not measure starters lost, but total production as I think that's more accurate.

Offensive interference indicators:

%top 10 opponents in schedule

%lost defensive production from 2016

Average defensive field position

Average offensive turnovers/game

Offensive punts/game

Opponent possessions per game (past 10)

To stress, this is not a ranking of team performance or best teams, it's an attempt to quantify how well Defensive Coordinators did, or how well a FBS defense did in spite of the offense. Here I have named these indicators below as "offensive interference indicators", though some are external interference indicators (opponent strength) rather than purely offensive:

Team	%Top10 Opp	Lost DPrdctn	DFldPos	Trnvr/G	Pnts/G	Opp Pos/G
Michigan	0.231	0.78	0.2971	1.62	6.00	13.85
Clemson	0.143	0.38	0.2686	1.14	5.07	13.5
Wisconsin	0.143	0.32	0.2911	1.71	4.43	12.71
Alabama	0.214	0.41	0.2535	0.71	3.93	12.57
Northern Ill.	0.000	0.26	0.3183	1.85	6.62	15.31
Indiana	0.250	0.04	0.3075	1.67	7.17	15.33
Ohio St.	0.214	0.43	0.2896	1.36	3.64	13.29
Washington St.	0.000	0.28	0.3573	2.38	4.85	14.23
Mississippi St.	0.231	0.41	0.2976	1.69	4.23	13.38
Virginia Tech	0.077	0.21	0.2672	1.08	5.08	13.62
Michigan St.	0.154	0.48	0.2844	1.54	5.31	12.69
Georgia	0.267	0.15	0.2666	1.07	4.13	12.47
UTSA	0.000	0.26	0.2905	1.64	4.27	12.09
Texas	0.000	0.20	0.2786	1.38	6.46	15.31
Auburn	0.357	0.40	0.3295	1.43	4.07	13.36
Central Mich	0.000	0.26	0.3381	2.38	6.92	15.46
South Fla.	0.083	0.23	0.3002	1.08	5.33	14.83
Penn St.	0.077	0.32	0.2732	1.00	4.15	13.46
Washington	0.077	0.50	0.2809	0.85	3.54	12.15

I chose to use Opponent possessions per game instead of average time played on defense for one main reason. Higher time on defense correlates directly to poor defensive performance: if you are allowing a team to slowly and consistently march down the field, that is not a offensive interference indicator, its an indicator of poor defensive performance. Conversely, higher defensive possessions per game can correlate either way and allow for exceptional defensive performance, with the assumption that the defense is still going at full speed for those shorter but more frequent possessions.

Once we accept (or don't) these six indicators as external or otherwise offensive interference, things start to become subjective. How much do each of these impact a Defensive unit's performance indicators? I was specifically interested in how they would impact Defensive points allowed per possession, as Michigan already appears to lead the way even excluding the offensive effect on yards, 1st downs, and 3+4d stop%. The first thing I did was to pull the points allowed per possession for the top dozen teams, and compared their offensive interference indicators to Michigan's. 

Team	Avg Def Pt/Pos v P5Qual TM	Top10 Opp in Schedule	Lost Def Production	Avg DField Position	Off Trnovr/G	Off Punts/G	Opp Pos/G
Alabama	1.04	0.214	0.41	0.2535	0.71	3.93	12.57
Clemson	1.13	0.143	0.38	0.2686	1.14	5.07	13.5
Wisconsin	1.18	0.143	0.32	0.2911	1.71	4.43	12.71
Virginia Tech	1.28	0.077	0.21	0.2672	1.08	5.08	13.62
Georgia	1.37	0.267	0.15	0.2666	1.07	4.13	12.47
Washington	1.39	0.077	0.50	0.2809	0.85	3.54	12.15
Michigan	1.43	0.231	0.78	0.2971	1.62	6.00	13.85
Penn St.	1.45	0.077	0.32	0.2732	1.00	4.15	13.46
Ohio St.	1.50	0.214	0.43	0.2896	1.36	3.64	13.29
Texas	1.50	0.000	0.20	0.2786	1.38	6.46	15.31
Auburn	1.55	0.357	0.40	0.3295	1.43	4.07	13.36
Michigan St.	1.69	0.154	0.48	0.2844	1.54	5.31	12.69

What I observed is that almost across the board, Michigan has stronger offensive interference indicators than these top 11 other teams by points allowed/possession. Of the six teams with better base points allowed than Michigan, only two had 1/6 indicator stronger than Michigan, the rest were 0/6. Of the five teams behind Michigan in base points allowed, only two had 2/6 stronger indicators, the other three were 0/6. My hypothesis was then that essentially Michigan was going improve more significantly by points allowed relative to its peers regardless of any reasonable weighting. I played around with various simulations (more on that below), using a subjective measurement that 2sd from the mean in either direction could result in 20% changes in defensive points given per possession, and ended up using this scoring mechanism below for two reasons 1) it felt the most logical, and 2) it weighted more heavily towards the indicators that were more consistent between teams but that have a direct impact on points per possession (field position and offensive turnovers/game):

	%Top10 Opp	Lost DPrdctn	DFldPos	Trnvr/G	Pnts/G	Opp Pos/G-10
Average	0.13	0.33	0.29	1.45	5.01	3.66
Weight/1	0.13	0.12	0.22	0.25	0.10	0.18
Multiplier	1.00	0.35	0.75	0.17	0.02	0.05

Using Opponent Possessions per Game did not seem entirely appropriate without an adjustment, as the issue that translates from offensive interference is the "gas effect" (having to play that extra 1-2 possessions because the offense can't stay on the field (think back to the South Carolina game), which sort of loses its linearity past a certain number of possessions. As such I simply used possessions over 10 per game as a baseline. I weighted all six indicators to come to an average of one, and the multiplier is simply what is required for the weight vs the original type of number.

Some comments on these offensive interference indicators: Pnts/G is Offensive Punts/Game. The theory behind that being that if your offense is progressively punting a lot, your defense is going to become backed up to their own goal line by no fault of their own, similarly with offensive turnovers and average DFldPos. (Remember, that even with an average change of 4 yards field position, i.e. the difference between Michigan and Alabama, that's simply a mean that puts an offense within field goal range at the start of their possession on average once a game). Ignoring that offensive interference indicator would assume incorrectly that those 3 points given up per game are entirely the fault of the defensive unit. Results below:

Michigan Rank	1	1	1	1	18
Team	Def Yd/Pos	Def 3+4d Conv %	Def 1stD/Pos	Weighted Def Pt /Pos v P5Qual TM	Def Trnovr Forced/G
Michigan	19.57	0.272	0.99	1.09	1.31
Clemson	20.50	0.323	1.10	1.19	1.43
Wisconsin	20.62	0.320	1.10	1.19	2.07
Alabama	20.72	0.348	1.22	1.18	1.71
Northern Ill.	22.11	0.332	1.11	1.65	1.69
Indiana	22.19	0.318	1.14	1.57	1.08
Ohio St.	22.64	0.339	1.26	1.43	1.71
Washington St.	22.72	0.298	1.15	1.94	2.15
Mississippi St.	22.89	0.310	1.01	1.58	1.62
Virginia Tech	23.44	0.281	1.13	1.57	1.46
Michigan St.	23.45	0.349	1.25	1.63	1.77
Georgia	23.65	0.326	1.25	1.51	1.33
UTSA	23.80	0.354	1.25	2.42	2.00
Texas	23.88	0.274	1.15	1.65	2.00
Auburn	23.91	0.345	1.25	1.25	1.36
Central Mich	23.98	0.360	1.24	1.72	2.38
South Fla.	24.26	0.364	1.33	2.26	2.00
Penn St.	24.48	0.359	1.29	1.77	1.92
Washington	24.53	0.403	1.39	1.78	1.85

In taking these offensive interference indicators and plugging them into defensive points allowed per possession, using this model Michigan comes out on top of points allowed per possession. As a side note various weights kept Michigan at or near the top 4 regardless of what sort of logic I used for the six indicator weighting, from 8% to 40% change in defensive points per possession, and did not vary significantly for Michigan's ranking within the top four in assigning different weights for each of the six indicators. For example Michigan still comes out on top if these six factors account for 15% swing points given up per possession, and is among the top four at 8-10%, making me fairly confident that Michigan's points given up per possession was within the top four or at the top of FBS performance, accounting for Offensive interference indicators. 

Confirmation Bias or just Confirmation

After publishing this originally I was curious and went back once more and ordered the original defensive point per possession between defensive yards per possession and the weighted defensive points per possession. I argue that defensive yards per possession shows a fairly accurate estimate of a defense's ability to stop an offensive movement towards points scored, and it isn't as influenced by offensive interference indicators such as field position or errant offensive turnovers in field goal range. As a result my hope was that weighted points per possession would more closely correlate to defensive yards per possession than unaltered points per possession. This appears to be the case.

Team	Def Yd/Pos	Unaltered Pt/Pos	Weighted Pt /Pos
Michigan	19.57	1.43	1.09
Clemson	20.50	1.13	1.19
Wisconsin	20.62	1.18	1.19
Alabama	20.72	1.04	1.18
Northern Ill.	22.11	1.72	1.65
Indiana	22.19	1.87	1.57
Ohio St.	22.64	1.50	1.43
Washington St.	22.72	2.09	1.94
Mississippi St.	22.89	1.80	1.58
Virginia Tech	23.44	1.28	1.57
Michigan St.	23.45	1.69	1.63
Georgia	23.65	1.37	1.51
UTSA	23.80	1.89	2.42
Texas	23.88	1.50	1.65
Auburn	23.91	1.55	1.25
Central Mich	23.98	2.00	1.72
South Fla.	24.26	2.08	2.26
Penn St.	24.48	1.45	1.77
Washington	24.53	1.39	1.78

That Defensive Turnover Rate

I'm going to try and dig into this deeper, as was suggested. I did not actively play with this rate or consider it relative to the offensive indicators, as it is simply a function of how the defense gets the job done; it is baked into yards/possession, down statistics, and offensive field position (not covered here). However, Michigan and Indiana were dead last at defensive turnovers gained per game in the top 19 defensive teams (though Indiana had the top defensive returning production in FBS at 96%. My guess is that Don Brown's strategy with so many younger players was to keep it simple, and play contain rather than attempt to make the big plays. Sort of how Don Brown kept things more simple for Rashan Gary in 2016. (below)

I'd say it worked, but I'd also hazard a guess that next year that turnover ratio is one of the things that significantly improves, which will likely result in better offensive productivity. Perhaps Gary will develop a defensive holding tell like throwing his arms up in the air to make it super obvious. Who knows. All in all this defense got me excited in review. Can't wait for next year, and go Blue!

(Thanks for reading, and feel free to provide comments, especially those of you more data/analysis oriented).