Home
i'm an actor, not a reactor

Primary links

  • About
    • $upport (lol)
    • Ethics
    • FAQ
    • Glossary
    • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • MGoStore
    • Hail to Old Blue
  • MGoBoard
    • MGoBoard FAQ
    • Michigan bar locator
    • Moderator Action Sticky
  • Useful Stuff
    • Depth Chart By Class
    • Hoops Depth Chart by Class
    • 2017 Recruiting Board
    • Unofficial Two Deep
    • MGoFlickr
    • Diaries, Windows Live Writer, And You
    • User-Curated HOF
    • Where To Eat In Ann Arbor
  • Schedule/Tix
    • Future Schedules (wiki)
    • Ticket spreadsheet
Home

Navigation

  • Forums
  • Recent posts

User login

  • Create new account
  • Request new password

MGoElsewhere

  • @MGoBlog (Brian)
  • @aceanbender
  • @Misopogon (Seth)
  • @Aeschnepp (Adam)
  • @BISB
  • @EUpchurchPhoto
  • @FullOfTwitt (Fuller)
  • Hail to the Victors 2016
  • MGoFacebook
  • MGoPodcast
  • WTKA
  • Instagram

Michigan Blogs

  • Big House Blog
  • Burgeoning Wolverine Star
  • Genuinely Sarcastic
  • Go Blue Michigan Wolverine
  • Holdin' The Rope
  • MVictors
  • Maize 'n' Blue Nation
  • Maize 'n' Brew
  • Maize And Go Blue
  • Michigan Hockey Net
  • MMMGoBlueBBQ
  • The Blog That Yost Built
  • The Hoover Street Rag
  • The M Zone
  • Touch The Banner
  • UMGoBlog
  • UMHoops
  • UMTailgate
  • Wolverine Liberation Army

M On The Net

  • mgovideo
  • MGoBlue.com
  • Mike DeSimone
  • Recruiting Planet
  • The Wolverine
  • Go Blue Wolverine
  • Winged Helmet
  • UMGoBlue.com
  • MaizeRage.org
  • Puckhead
  • The M Den
  • True Blue Fan Forum

Big Ten Blogs

  • Illinois
    • Illinois Loyalty
    • Illinois Baseball Report
  • Indiana
    • Inside The Hall
    • The Crimson Quarry
  • Iowa
    • Black Heart, Gold Pants
    • Fight For Iowa
  • Michigan State
    • The Only Colors
  • Minnesota
    • GopherHole.com
    • The Daily Gopher
  • Nebraska
    • Corn Nation
    • Husker Max
    • Husker Mike's Blasphemy
    • Husker Gameday
  • Northwestern
    • Sippin' On Purple
    • Lake The Posts
  • Notre Dame
    • The House Rock Built
    • One Foot Down
  • Ohio State
    • Eleven Warriors
    • Buckeye Commentary
    • Men of the Scarlet and Gray
    • Our Honor Defend
    • The Buckeye Nine
  • Penn State
    • Slow States
    • Black Shoe Diaries
    • Happy Valley Hardball
    • Penn State Clips
    • Linebacker U
    • Nittany White Out
  • Purdue
    • Boiled Sports
    • Hammer and Rails
  • Wisconsin
    • Bruce Ciskie

Links of Note

  • Baseball
    • College Baseball Today
    • The College Baseball Blog
  • Basketball
    • Ken Pomeroy
    • Hoop Math
    • John Gasaway
    • Luke Winn/Sports Illustrated
  • College Hockey
    • Chris Heisenberg (Class of 2016)
    • College Hockey Stats
    • Michigan College Hockey
    • Hockey's Future
    • Sioux Sports
    • USCHO
  • Football
    • Smart Football
    • Every Day Should Be Saturday
    • Matt Hinton/Grantland
    • Football Study Hall
    • Football Outsiders
    • Harold Stassen
    • NCAA D-I Stats Page
    • The Wizard Of Odds
    • CFB Stats
  • General
    • Sports Central
  • Local Interest
    • The Ann Arbor Chronicle
    • Arborwiki
    • Arbor Update
    • Ann Arbor Observer
    • Teeter Talk
    • Vacuum
  • Teams Of The D
    • Lions
      • Pride of Detroit
    • Pistons
      • Detroit Bad Boys
      • Need4Sheed
    • Tigers
      • Roar Of The Tigers
      • Bless You Boys
      • The Daily Fungo
      • The Detroit Tigers Weblog
    • Red Wings
      • Winging It In Motown
      • On The Wings
    • Michigan Sports Forum

Beveled Guilt

Site Search

Diaries

  • New
  • Popular
  • Hot
  • Thirteen unlucky minutes (TL;DNR-This is a bit of rant about the refs)
    docwhoblocked - 2 weeks ago
  • Fan Satisfaction Index End of Season Bball Survey
    OneFootIn - 2 weeks ago
  • How likely are we to revert to the mean?
    Bo Glue - 2 weeks ago
  • It's time to avenge Villanova's 1985 NCAA tourney upset over Michigan
    Communist Football - 2 weeks ago
  • 14 Months Ago: The Fire Beilein Threads.
    stephenrjking - 3 weeks ago
  •  
  • 1 of 2
  • ››
more
  • It's time to avenge Villanova's 1985 NCAA tourney upset over Michigan
    Communist Football - 11 comments
  • ‹‹
  • 2 of 2
  •  
more

MGoBoard

  • New
  • Recent
  • Hot
  • Apparently, the NCAA has already received a response from MSU about Nassar
    62 replies
  • No additional protest of Shea Patterson appeal by Ole Miss
    113 replies
  • OT: RIP Bruno Sammartino
    16 replies
  • OT: MSU digs hole deeper, Engler adviser: Nassar survivor's claims of payout 'fake news'
    106 replies
  • OT: Sparty considering bringing back Reschke...
    74 replies
  • Potential basketball transfers. Out of the running for Matt Mooney, but in for Dachon Burke?
    46 replies
  • Way OT: NYC poop sitting on a train in Alabama
    78 replies
  • BBall Recruiting - New 2019 Target/EM Top 100 Wing Jae'lyn Withers
    20 replies
  • ESPN very kind to U-M in latest bball recruiting rankings
    69 replies
  • Whats the Best Way to Make Flight Arrangements?
    149 replies
  • RIP OT: Former First Lady Barbara Bush
    57 replies
  • Beilein first NCAA game with Michigan
    32 replies
  • Police investigating Elysee Mbem-Bosse for death threat against Harbaugh
    224 replies
  • Manchester United v Liverpool: Ann Arbor, July 28th
    30 replies
  • OT: best-selling musical artists by state of birth
    120 replies
  • ‹‹
  • 3 of 6
  • ››
  • The Evolution of Commerce - What Industries are Dying, What's Thriving?
    61 replies
  • OT: Avicii dead at 28
    65 replies
  • OT: Gregg Popovich's wife Erin dead at 67
    24 replies
  • Game Day Condos - who's gonna buy one?
    70 replies
  • OT - Jalen Hurts possibly looking to transfer
    117 replies
  • Schembechler Hall practice field ripped out (photos)
    8 replies
  • Softball Wins Series Opener Over Maryland, 6-0
    7 replies
  • It’s Friday - Time to POSBANG!!
    81 replies
  • Matthews Declares WITHOUT agent
    45 replies
  • OT: Map of college stadiums that sell alcohol
    91 replies
  • Podcast discussion on the conference
    31 replies
  • OT: How do some student-athletes finish a bachelors so quickly (to transfer)?
    54 replies
  • Karsen Barnhart - did we cool on him?
    92 replies
  • OT: Arsene Wenger set to retire from Arsenal FC
    51 replies
  • Chase Young becomes highest drafted Michigan lacrosse player
    20 replies
  •  
  • 1 of 6
  • ››
  • Beilein first NCAA game with Michigan
    32 replies
  • Podcast discussion on the conference
    31 replies
  • OT: Stinging Article about Engler's "Leadership"
    31 replies
  • Manchester United v Liverpool: Ann Arbor, July 28th
    30 replies
  • OT: The entire SEC tried to hire Hugh Freeze
    30 replies
  • Noah Furbush: Master of Space! (Engineering )
    28 replies
  • OT: Sunday Night NHL Playoffs
    28 replies
  • Incredibly OT: all time great weather forecast
    28 replies
  • BBall Recruiting - New 2020 Target/EM Top 100 PG Zeb Jackson
    26 replies
  • Comcast X-Finity Watchathon Week
    25 replies
  • OT: Gregg Popovich's wife Erin dead at 67
    24 replies
  • OT: The Cube Inaccessible Until Fall 2019
    22 replies
  • OT: RIP Harry Anderson
    20 replies
  • BBall Recruiting - New 2019 Target/EM Top 100 Wing Jae'lyn Withers
    20 replies
  • Chase Young becomes highest drafted Michigan lacrosse player
    20 replies
  • ‹‹
  • 5 of 6
  • ››

Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon

Diaries

Michigan Hockey ‘17-18, Game #23: Michigan 4, Penn State 0

By NastyIsland — January 20th, 2018 at 12:13 AM — 13 comments
Filed under:
  • better offense
  • Corsi
  • Hockey Game Breakdown
  • Michigan hockey

Jack Becker had two tallies, including a great re-direct at the top of the crease [James Coller]

OFFENSE

 

Corsi

House

Possession %

First Period

18 8 49%

Second Period

20 8 48%

Third Period

16 7 53%

Overtime

n/a n/a n/a

TOTAL

54 23 49%

Analysis:  Going back a couple of years, Michigan has not outplayed Penn State at even strength. They pounded the Nitany Lions on the scoreboard two years ago, but that was mostly due to special teams. That was not the case tonight. They played a top-five Corsi team to a draw and generated better offensive chances with more consistency. I was not as high on Peyton Jones coming into this game, but he played very well and definitely kept his team in the game until Michigan finally blew it open late. Michigan pressured the Lion defense and got into the house area all night. They also moved the puck from side to side very well and could have scored more much earlier if not for a very nice game from Peyton Jones. Lastly: three even strength non-DMC-line goals. Ye-uh!

[After THE JUMP: the defense holds and special teams take a step in the right direction] 

Read more »
  • NastyIsland's blog
  • 13 comments

Fan Satisfaction Index: Outback & End of Season Results

By OneFootIn — January 15th, 2018 at 11:50 AM — 10 comments
Filed under:
  • 2018 Outback Bowl
  • fan satisfaction
  • football
  • Poll
  • Survey

Quick note: For those unfamiliar with the FSI, it is a weekly survey asking fans to rate their feelings about each game and the season so far on a 0-100 scale. To catch up check out my blog here: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/onefootin

Who has it better than us? Well, according to my calculations, more than half of the Big Ten has it better right now. And I’m going to bet you won’t like who’s on top.

Let’s take this in two parts.

The Outback Bowl

First, there was that bowl game. As Figure 1 makes clear, this game felt bad. In fact, at a satisfaction level of 17.6 on our 0-100 scale, it felt worse than every regular season game except the Michigan State game.

This isn’t too surprising. It was bad enough to lose when favored by 7 points against an uninspired-looking South Carolina team that had just fired its offensive coordinator. It got worse when Michigan, leading 19-3, managed to fumble at the 5. It bottomed out when it turned out that was just the beginning of the second half Errorpalooza. Watching Michigan self-immolate while the Gamecocks scored 23 unanswered points was deeply aggravating, to put it mildly.

Figure 1: Outback Bowl Game Satisfaction.

(On a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 is the worst you ever felt after a game and 100 is the best you ever felt after a game, where would you rate your feelings about the Outback Bowl?)

X-axis is game satisfaction and Y-axis is # of respondents

Adding insult to injury, the loss to the Cocks took most of the remaining mojo from the fan base regarding the season as a whole. Season satisfaction clocked in at 24.9 – its lowest point of the season. 8-5 doesn’t feel good, as it turns out.

Figure 2: Season Satisfaction after the Outback Bowl.
(On a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 means the season went horribly and 100 means the season went perfectly, how do you feel Michigan's season went?)

X-axis is season satisfaction and Y-axis is # of respondents

Calculating B1G Fans’ Season Satisfaction

Okay, now for part two. Michigan’s season was unsatisfying but perhaps – out of a morbid sense of curiosity – you are wondering how Michigan fan satisfaction stacks up against other fan bases around the league.

Modeling Satisfaction from Our Data

Since I did not survey non-Michigan fans directly I used a regression analysis of our Michigan fan data to come up with a formula for calculating satisfaction for other fan bases. This approach comes with clear limitations. First, since we only have one season of Michigan data we don’t even have a perfect model of how Michigan fans will react to all situations. Just to take a couple of examples, we have no data on how fans respond to an unexpected victory over a ranked opponent, nor any idea how season satisfaction would look during a season where Michigan outperformed overall expectations. For that reason, our regression model is certainly far from perfect.

Second, even if our model were perfect for Michigan fans, it is very likely that other fan bases would react somewhat differently to the same situations. Given historical circumstances (spoiler alert!), Purdue’s fan base is likely to be happier with a 7-6 record on the season than Michigan’s is with 8-5. And though all teams have rivalries, we probably shouldn’t assume that all fans feel the same about them. I am pretty convinced, for example, that Sparty and Buckeye fans get more satisfaction from beating Michigan than the other way around.

With these caveats in mind, I still think we can provide a pretty reasonable estimate of B1G fan base satisfaction based on how Michigan fans responded during the season. For Michigan fans, based on 2605 responses over 13 games, the basic equation for game satisfaction is: 49.63 + (1.03 x Margin of Victory/Defeat) + (0.28 x Margin vs. Vegas) – (20.8 x Surprise Loss).

Margin of Victory/Defeat, clearly, is just measured by how many points more/less Michigan scored than its opponent. This captures both whether a game is a victory or defeat as well as its intensity. Margin vs. Vegas is how many points more/less Michigan scored than its opponent relative to the Vegas line. This captures general fan expectations about how the game went, which as we have discussed in past weeks is a critical component of how people feel about the outcome of a game. Surprise Loss is a variable I threw in because it was clear that unexpected losses – i.e. where Michigan was favored to win by Vegas – hurt more than usual.

In English, the model assumes satisfaction is about 50 points on our 100-point scale and then slides things up or down based on whether Michigan won or lost, by how much, and by how much relative to expectations. An additional point of margin in a victory adds about one point to fan satisfaction (vice versa for a loss). For every touchdown by which Michigan beats the Vegas spread you can add another 2 points of satisfaction, while a surprise loss sucks about 21 points of satisfaction from the average fan.

According to the magic of statistics this formula explains 70% of the variation in individual game satisfaction ratings. In the land of predicting individual opinions, 70% is pretty darn good, especially since all we have is data about the games and we don’t have any information on the respondents (Imagine, for example, trying to predict presidential popularity from economic conditions but without any information on respondents’ political affiliations). 

Table 1 below illustrates how well the formula does predicting the typical fan’s satisfaction compared to the average satisfaction measured by the survey for each game. Though the predicted satisfaction misses big in a couple cases, overall it tends to come pretty close, with an average absolute difference of less than six points across all 13 games. After a few more seasons worth of data the predictions should get better.

Table One. Real vs. Predicted Michigan Fan Game Satisfaction

Game Actual Sat Predicted Sat Actual - Predicted
Florida 80.9 74.5 6.4
Cincinnati 59.9 65.3 -5.4
Air Force 62.9 61.2 1.7
Purdue 76.5 71.3 5.2
Michigan State 17.5 14.9 2.6
Indiana 51.6 56.5 -4.9
Penn State 23.9 6.1 17.8
Rutgers 73.9 69.5 4.4
Minnesota 78.5 78.6 -0.1
Maryland 73.5 81 -7.5
Wisconsin 28.8 30.7 -1.9
Ohio State 27.7 39 -11.3
Outback Bowl 17.6 11.5 6.1
    Average diff 5.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The formula for season satisfaction is pretty similar. If you’ve been reading the diary this season you know that the average fan’s sense of the season is heavily tied to the game they just watched. As a result, assessments of the season varied a lot more on a weekly basis than they probably should have based strictly on the amount of new data coming in each week. The other significant variable in the season satisfaction formula, unsurprisingly, is the number of cumulative losses. Nothing says satisfaction like winning; nothing destroys it more than losing.

As a result, our season satisfaction formula after the 2017-18 season looks like this: 29.84 + (.62 x Game Satisfaction) – (3.388 x # Cumulative Losses). This model explains 73% of the variation in individual season satisfaction assessments over the 13 games of the season. Again, not too shabby. Table Two provides the summary.

Table 2 Real vs. Predicted Michigan Fan Season Satisfaction

Game Actual Sat Predicted Sat Actual - Predicted
Florida 85 80 5
Cincinnati 77.2 67 10.2
Air Force 72.7 68.8 3.9
Purdue 76.7 77.3 -0.6
Michigan State 40.5 37.3 3.2
Indiana 53.7 58.5 -4.8
Penn State 33.7 37.9 -4.2
Rutgers 62.9 68.9 -6
Minnesota 69.1 71.7 -2.6
Maryland 69.9 68.6 1.3
Wisconsin 36.3 37.5 -1.2
Ohio State 36.8 33.5 3.3
Outback Bowl 24.9 23.8 1.1
    Average diff 3.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who Has It Better Than Us? Season Satisfaction across the Big Ten

If you’re still with me, Table 3 brings home the sad fact: Michigan’s implosion in the Outback Bowl, combined with its five losses on the season, put Michigan fan satisfaction below all seven B1G teams that won their bowl games and even below Indiana, which lost to its rival Purdue to end its season.

Table 3 End of Season Fan Satisfaction in the B1G

Team Season Sat Record (Ranking) Final Game (Game Sat)
MSU 70.2 10-3 (15) Beat #18 WSU 45-17 (81.5)
OSU 65.9 12-2 (5) Beat #8 USC 24-7 (69.1)
Wisconsin 63 13-1 (7) Beat #10 Miami 34-24 (61)
PSU 59 11-2 (8) Beat #11 UW 35-28 (58)
Purdue 56.1 7-6 Beat Arizona 38-35 (75.2)
Northwestern 50.1 10-3 Beat Kentucky 24-23 (49.1)
Iowa 49 8-5 Beat Boston College 27-20 (58)
Indiana 31.4 5-7 Lost to Purdue 31-24 (40.7)
Michigan 24.9 8-5 Lost to South Carolina 24-17 (17.6)
Minnesota 14.9 5-7 Lost to Wisconsin 31-0 (14.2)
Rutgers 9.5 4-8 Lost to MSU 40-7 (10.9)
Nebraska 2.74 4-8 Lost to Iowa 56-14 (0)
Maryland 2.74 4-8 Lost to Penn State 66-3 (0)
Illinois 1.2 2-10 Lost to Northwestern 42-7 (8.4)

There is plenty to quibble with about these satisfaction predictions. Looking at the final game satisfaction figures, for example, it seems to my eye that they are probably too low for teams that won a bowl game. For most fans, winning a bowl game is likely more satisfying than winning a regular season game for any given margin of victory and performance against the Vegas spread. And in particular I think the model clearly undervalues the impact of beating a highly ranked opponent in a bowl game, even in these cases where the B1G team was favored. As a result of this, those teams’ final season satisfaction ratings should probably be higher than they are predicted here.

The reason the model misses on this is simple: so far we have no Michigan bowl victories and zero victories over ranked opponents in our satisfaction database. Until we do we’re stuck guessing at how much those things affect the predictions. Likewise, since we only have one season’s worth of data we can’t model the effects of teams significantly outperforming (or underperforming) season expectations. Going 7-6 is worse than 8-5, but Boilermaker fans are looking at their 7 wins through a very different lens than Michigan fans are viewing 8 wins. Similarly, OSU is close to the top, but how satisfied can the Bucks really be at this point with a two-loss season? And what about Wisconsin? Was that a great season or was that like winning a silver medal and wishing you’d won the damn gold?

Looking at the results from 30,000 feet, however, they make sense. Thanks to the fact that game satisfaction is a big driver of how fans rate the season, the seven teams that won their bowl games generated higher season satisfaction scores than Michigan. It’s important to remember here that this is an analysis of fan satisfaction – the fact that the satisfaction rankings don’t mirror objective measures of season quality (i.e. win/loss records) is pretty much the whole point. Fans are emotional, irrational, and short-term thinking animals. We have the S&P to tell us how good teams are. We have the satisfaction index to have fans tell us how they feel about the teams.

For our grand finale, in case you want to compare Michigan’s roller coaster of satisfaction with others on a week-by-week basis, I leave you with the season trends for each of the B1G teams.

Michigan State (10-3)

Ohio State (12-2)

Wisconsin (13-1)

Penn State (11-2)

Purdue (7-6)

Northwestern (10-3)

Iowa (8-5)

Indiana (5-7)

Michigan (8-5)

Minnesota (5-7)

Rutgers (4-8)

Nebraska (4-8)

Maryland (4-8)

Illinois (2-10)

  • OneFootIn's blog
  • 10 comments

Michigan Hockey ‘17-18, Game #22: Michigan 3, Minnesota 1

By NastyIsland — January 14th, 2018 at 12:31 AM — 5 comments
Filed under:
  • better defense
  • Corsi
  • hockey
  • Hockey Game Breakdown
  • Michigan hockey

AcePainting

Alright, last night was about helping people. Tonight…let’s see what we can get Ace (and maybe Brian –if there’s a revolt!) to do! More things on the table! Hair cuts, dye jobs, ink, piercings, limb severances…ok, maybe I’ve taken this too far. Just give, okay?
https://www.crowdrise.com/o/en/campaign/in-honor-of-the-anbenders-lets-find-a-cure-for-cfs/

OFFENSE

 

Corsi

House

Possession %

First Period

14 7 45%

Second Period

13 5 56%

Third Period

11 3 61%

Overtime

n/a n/a n/a

TOTAL

38 15 52%

Analysis: This was not an offensive juggernaut by any means, but this is not what the game lent itself to for Michigan. They scored super early, a nice wrister by Brendan Warren– again. Michigan then got a PP tally a few minutes later. While they did create a few chances, Michigan was mostly content to control play and suffocate this game away…which they seemed to do starting in the mid 2nd period. Aside from trading PP goals in the 2nd, Michigan enjoyed a lot possession and generally put the puck in safe places. In a series that generally requires goalz to win, this one did not, and Michigan played it well.

[After THE JUMP: a defensive juggernaut in wait?]

Read more »
  • NastyIsland's blog
  • 5 comments

Fan Satisfaction Index: Ohio State Results

By OneFootIn — January 13th, 2018 at 12:52 PM — 4 comments
Filed under:
  • Fan
  • football
  • Ohio State 2017
  • Poll
  • Satisfaction
  • Survey

Note: Sorry this is so late – work and the holidays conspired against me this year.

Sigh. Another regular season ends with a disappointing loss that could have been a win. Buoyed by a great game plan, the Wolverines jumped out to lead, made me break my promise not to have any hope whatsoever, and then the football gods took that hope away and crushed my heart. Again. Yeah, Harbaugh has things pointed in the right direction and the future is bright. But I live in the present and in the present I feel like shit (Edit: this goes double after the Outback Bowl – see part 2).

And so, evidently, do most of you. As I will explain below in just a bit, game satisfaction “without trolls” checked in at 27.7. This was almost identical to the Wisconsin game (28.8). This surprised me some given it was another loss to our biggest rival, though the Wolverines certainly played a better game than most people expected. A less optimistic take, on the other hand, might be that the Michigan fan base has become a bit numb from losing so often to the Buckeyes and that low expectations led to less anger and upset than is sometimes the case.

Figure 1. OSU Game Satisfaction

Season satisfaction (without trolls) also held more or less steady from last week at 36.8. In scientific terms this means the season was…not good. As I discussed last week, even if your rational self knew with great certainty that an 8-4 record was the most likely result of this season, you still felt like shit on Saturday. It turns out that expecting 8-4 and *experiencing” 8-4 are two totally different things. Sure the season probably would have felt worse had we expected to go undefeated, but losing is losing and no one likes it.

Figure 2. Season Satisfaction after OSU

Thus the regular season ended with satisfaction on a decided down note after the "Peters Resurgence."

 

Figure 3 Season Trends

Themes, Thoughts, Trends

Here Come the Trolls

The trolls found our survey. It’s the Internet so I knew it was bound to happen, but still. This is why we can’t have nice things. Of the 227 responses I logged for the OSU survey, I estimate that somewhere between 15 and 33 of them were our enemies – you probably know them as “jive turkeys.”

How do I know they were trolls? Well, if you rated both your game and season satisfaction as 100, as 15 people did, then I’m pretty sure you’re a Buckeye (or possibly a Schadenfreude Sparty) taking the survey for the lulz. Another 5 people rated their game satisfaction as 100 but with a strange variety of other season satisfactions. And another 13 people rated their game satisfaction as somewhere between 80 and 99.

Now, I’m sorry, but an actual living and breathing Michigan fan does not give this game an 80. Did you? If you are a real Michigan fan and you did, please let me know in the comments. Otherwise I have to assume you were high or live in Ohio, or likely both.

That said, after a long conversation with my scientifically inclined son, I realized that in the name of science we couldn’t just delete data, even Buckeye data. So in the interest of transparency and truth and the like, here is your satisfaction sensitivity analysis, under various troll identification parameters.

As you can see, there are enough trolls to make a difference in the results.

Table 1. Who’s Trolling?

Troll ID Rule Game Sat Season Sat

# Clean Responses

# Trolls
Assume no trolls 37.7 42.2 227 0
Game & Season Sat = 100 33.3 38.1 212 15
Game Sat = 100 31.6 38 207 20
Game Sat = 80+ 27.7 36.8 194 33

 

 

 

 

 

Another way to find the trolls is to use a simple scatterplot. As you can see, there is an obvious central cluster and then there are some obvious outliers near the maximums on each axis. These are probably your trolls. It’s even more obvious something’s fishy when you compare this data to the data from Michigan’s wins (which were unlikely to result in opposing fans filling out our survey). In those cases there just aren’t any fans adopting the 0/0 position – so I’m pretty confident we can rule out anyone who answered 100 on both counts.

Figure 4. Scatter Trolls

What I am curious about, though, is what you think the most reasonable cut off point is. Is there any way a Michigan fan gave that a 100 for game satisfaction? Or an 80? Maybe on the notion that the lads did their best and gave the Buckeyes all they could handle, etc., etc.?

The Road Ahead

I was going to point out how there was one more shot at redemption, a chance for at least a moderately optimistic ending on the season.

But since I’m writing this after the Outback Bowl I won’t bother.

Stay tuned for part 2 for results from the Outback Bowl and to see how other B1G fanbases fared this season.

 

  • OneFootIn's blog
  • 4 comments

Michigan Hockey 17-18, Game #21: Michigan 5, Minnesota 3

By NastyIsland — January 13th, 2018 at 12:32 AM — 6 comments
Filed under:
  • better defense
  • Corsi
  • hockey
  • Hockey Game Breakdown
  • Michigan hockey
  • Stay Out of the Box Llewellyn

AcePainting

Hey, so Ace has been very forthcoming about some super serious stuff he’s been dealing with for a long time. He’s put together something if you’d like to help out people going through similar experiences. You should click here:

https://www.crowdrise.com/o/en/campaign/in-honor-of-the-anbenders-lets-find-a-cure-for-cfs/

OFFENSE

 

Corsi

House

Possession %

First Period

9 1 41%

Second Period

12 3 50%

Third Period

14 6 42%

Overtime

n/a n/a n/a

TOTAL

35 10 44%

Analysis: After two games of outplaying a better team, Michigan definitely ceded the puck to Minnesota for the majority of this game. Ironic that this is the one of the last three games that they won. Two of their four non-empty netters were mostly luck. Michael Pastujov threw a puck into the slot and it was kicked back at Robson and between his pads. Warren’s first goal went off of his stick heel (after making a very nice break for the slot, though) and just inside the post. To be fair, Dancs picked a corner and Marody hid a nice snipe under the bar, though, for the first and third Michigan goals. Both Pastujovs are starting to look a little more dangerous, and I also thought Sanchez created some in the offensive zone. Now, if he can just not take silly penalties...

[After THE JUMP: insane penalty stats, woooo defense?]

Read more »
  • NastyIsland's blog
  • 6 comments

A Review of MBB Recruiting Under John Beilein and Comparing the 2012 Class to the 2018 Class

By Bambi — January 11th, 2018 at 7:37 PM — 26 comments
Filed under:
  • basketball

Today's front page post about the future off the basketball team, combined with the general optimism surrounding the program, has inspired me to go back and compare this year's recruiting class to the 2012 one. That 2012 class is easily the best in recent Michigan mens basketball history so the comparison is not in the "how succesful will the 2018 class be compared to the 2012 class" but more just to compare the recruiting rankings and how the recruits fit into Beilein's system.

Before I look at the 2012 and 2018 classes, I wanted to remind everyone of the classes in between. For simplicity's sake, all recruiting info (individual player ratings, stars and class rankings) will be pulled from 247 using their composite rankings.

2013: Overall Class Rank - 14, B1G Class Rank - 3, AVG Rating - .9755

Name Position Recruiting Stars Composite Grade National Ranking State Ranking
Zak Irvin SG 4 .9876 28 1 (IN)
Derrick Walton Jr. PG 4 .9833 45 2 (MI)
Mark Donnal PF 4 .9579 86 3 (OH)
-          
-          

2014: Overall Class Rank - 30, B1G Class Rank - 4, AVG Rating -.8818

Name Position Recruiting Stars Composite Grade National Ranking State Ranking
Kam Chatman SF 4 .9896 27 1 (OR)
DJ Wilson SF 4 .9212 123 14 (CA)
Ricky Doyle PF 3 .8675 209 21 (FL)
Aubrey Dawkins SG 3 .8218 396 8 (NH)
MAAR SG 3 .8094 434 12 (PA)

2015: Overall Class Rank - 107, B1G Class Rank - 14, AVG Rating -.9430

Name Position Recruiting Stars Composite Grade National Ranking State Ranking
Moritz Wagner PF 4 .9273 119 1 (NY?)
-          
-          
-          
-        
 

2016: Overall Class Rank - 31, B1G Class Rank - 6, AVG Rating -.9049

Name Position Recruiting Stars Composite Grade National Ranking State Ranking
Zavier Simpson PG 4 .9748 67 7 (OH)
Jon Teske C 3 .9047 142 10 (OH)
Austin Davis C 3 .8803 177 3 (MI)
Ibi Watson SG 3 .8600 239 15 (OH)
-        
 

2017: Overall Class Rank - 43, B1G Class Rank - 6, AVG Rating -.9176

Name Position Recruiting Stars Composite Grade National Ranking State Ranking
Jordan Poole SG 4 .9506 92 7 (IN)
Isaiah Livers PF 4 .9215 132 2 (MI)
Eli Brooks PG 3 .8807 202 10 (PA)
-          
-        
 

Some notes on these classes:

  • Position is position listed on their 247 recruiting profile, not the position they necessarily played at Michigan.
  • Austin Hatch and Brent Hibbits were both excluded from the tables (Hatch for medical reasons, Hibbits because he was never a scholarship player).
  • Hibbits was listed in the same class as Wagner but without any rankings or info. Despite Wagner having a rating of .9273 (and being listed as playing in Berlin, NY), the class has an average rating of .9430, which makes no sense.
  • The best recruiting class by far was the 2013 class with Irvin, Walton and Donnal, all of which were 4 stars. It was the 14th best class in the country that year per 247.
  • The worst class was the 2014 class, with an average rating of .8818. This fits with what we now know from that class, with DJ and MAAR being the only contributors and MAAR being the only player to stay for 4 years. The fact that the class had 5 players pushed the class to 30th in the nation per 247, which actually puts it second highest of these classes.
  • The highest rated recruit of these players was Kam Chatman in 2014 (lol), with a national ranking of 27 and composite grade of .9896. He just barely beat out Zak Irvin who was 28th and had a grade of .9876.
  • The lowest rated recruit was MAAR, also part of that 2014 class, with a .8034 composite grade and 434 national ranking.. He beat out fellow 2014 recruit Aubrey Dawkins who had a composite grade of .8218 and ranking of 396.

Now the 2012 and 2018 classes:

2012: Overall Class Rank - 8, B1G Class Rank - 2, AVG Rating -.9373

Name Position Recruiting Stars Composite Grade National Ranking State Ranking
GR3 SF 5 .9934 17 1 (IN)
Mitch McGary PF 4 .9897 28 3 (NH)
Nik Stauskas SG 4 .9369 110 5 (MA)
Spike Albrecht PG 3 .8556 221 9 (MA)
Caris Levert SG 3 .8444 239 5 (OH)

2018: Overall Class Rank - 9, B1G Class Rank - 1, AVG Rating -.9434

Name Position Recruiting Stars Composite Grade National Ranking State Ranking
Ignas Brazdeikis SF 4 .9867 34 1 (ON)
Brandon Johns PF 4 .9718 69 (nice) 2 (MI)
David Dejulius PG 3 .9331 132 5 (MI)
Colin Castleton PF 3 .9330 133 14 (FL)
Adrien Nunez SG 3 .8924 206 2 (CT)

Some comparisons between the two classes:

  • Both classes are top 10 nationally and the 2018 class is currently 1st in the B1G (although as more unsigned top propsects commit, both those rankings will drop).
  • The 2018 class has a higher average ranting per player (.9434 vs .9373), which is the second highest of any of these classes behind the 2013 class.
  • Both classes consist of 5 players. Unlike the 2014 class which also consisted of 5 players, both the 2012 and 2018 classes consist of 5 player classes where each player fits a unique position on a Beilein team.
    • PG - Albrecht vs Dejulius
    • SG - Levert/Stauskas vs Nunez
    • SF - Levert/Stauskas vs Brazdeikis
    • PF - GR3 vs Johns
    • C - McGary vs Castleton
    • This is not saying the play style of each player matches up directly (ie Castleton is not the same player as McGary, he's a stretch big compared to McGary being a post player), but just where they fit on the floor.
  • The 2012 class had a better top of the class (McGary and GR3 were more highly regarded than any of the 2018 guys), but the depth of the 2018 class is much better. Iggy and Johns are the only 4 stars but Dejulius and Castleton are 3 and 4 spots away respectively from being 4 stars, and Nunez is a solid mid tier 3 star compared to Albrecht and Levert being bottom tier 3 stars. This is what pulls the average 2018 rating above the average 2012 rating.

Overall the 2018 class should be a great class and another reason to be excited about the future of Michigan basketball. However this should also serve as a reminder that college athletes are fickel beasts and recruiting rankings pretty much mean nothing once the kids get to campus.

The highest rated recruit for Michigan between 2013 and 2017 (Chatman) was arguably the worst recruit in that time, while the lowest rated guy (MAAR) has been arguably the most consistent player in that time. Even in the 2012 class the lowest rated guy (Levert) has had a better career than either of the top 2 guys in that class. So while expectations for the future should be high, keep in mind that struggles and busts may/will occur and are to be expected.

  • Bambi's blog
  • 26 comments
  • « first
  • ‹ previous
  • …
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • …
  • next ›
  • last »
Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system
Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.