Turnovers

Restating What You Already Knew: For the second time this year, turnovers were the primary cause for losing the game (ND was the other). The Turnover Margin of –2 for the game resulted in a net of 8.92 expected points benefitting ohio. God dammit! Michigan ends the regular season with a dismal TOM of –8 (ranked #101).

Michigan Football: Michigan had 20 pass attempts and 27 rushing attempts for a 58% run play percentage. For the year, M has a 61% run play percentage overall (ranked #18). In 2011 M ranked #11 at 65% run play %.

Synopsis for Turnovers: Here is the overall summary for all games by player (data in yellow was affected by this week's game).

Robinson recovered the fumbled punt to add his name to the list of takeaways for defensive players. Clark recovered the other ohio fumble while Avery and Ryan both forced fumbles. There are now 17 different M players that have either forced a fumble, recovered a fumble, or intercepted a pass.

For giveaways, Michigan plummeted to #27 in fumbles, #33 in fumbles lost,  and remains at #124 in interceptions thrown %.

For takeaways, M improved to #50 in forced fumbles, #55 in fumbles recovered, #83 in takeaway fumble recovery %, and fell to #90 in interceptions.

Synopsis for Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Turnovers resulted in a net of 8.92 expected points benefitting ohio.

The folks at Football Outsiders – FEI are also doing weekly "Revisionist Box Scores" that strips out TOs, Special Teams, and Field Position. FEI calculates the value generated by each drive and then lost on the drive up until the turnover, as if the drive had concluded at that spot on the field. Thru Week #12, FEI has 16% of games where TOs were significant.

(See the Section on Gory Details below for how the adjustment for Expected Points (EP) is calculated.)

National Rankings: All rankings include games between two FBS teams ONLY and are from TeamRankings except for forced fumbles which is from CFBStats. The four columns with *** show the best correlation to offense and defense (per Advanced NFL stats).

The Gory Details

Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Basically, the probability of scoring depends on the line of scrimmage for the offense. Therefore, the impact of a TO also depends on the yard line where the TO is lost and the yard line where the TO is gained. Each turnover may result in an immediate lost opportunity for the team committing the TO and a potential gain in field position by the opponent. Both of these components can vary dramatically based upon the down when the TO occurred, the yards the TO is returned, and whether the TO was a fumble or an interception.

Here are the details for the game.

The analysis is a bit tricky because: (A) the TO may directly result in lost EP for the offense but (B) only modifies the EP for the team gaining the TO because the team gaining the TO would have gotten another possession even without the TO (due to a punt, KO after a TD, KO after a field goal, etc.). The Net EP Gain must take into account the potential EP gain without the TO. The EP gain without the turnover is based on where the field position would have been for the next possession if the TO had not occurred.

The expected point calculations are based on data from Brian Fremeau at BCFToys (he also posts at Football Outsiders). Fremeau's data reflects all offensive possessions played in 2007-2010 FBS vs. FBS games. I "smoothed" the actual data.

Preseason Prediction (Not Happening!): Michigan will end the year with a +8 Turnover Margin (TOM) or better (2011 was +7). The prediction for TOM for M for this year is based on the prediction that M will be a very good team again this year and is not based on the actual TOM of last year. (Very good teams will have a TOM of +5 or better.) Turnover Margin for the year is currently – 6.

Defying the Odds: Over the past decade, only 8% of all FBS teams with a turnover margin of – 5 or worse have had a record of 8-4 or better (only 28% of teams with a TOM of – 5 or worse have even had a winning record).  With a TOM for the year of – 6, Michigan is definitely defying the odds (yea!!).

Michigan Football: Michigan had 23 pass attempts and 39 rushing attempts for a 63% run play percentage. For the year, M has a 61% run play percentage overall (ranked #15). In 2011 M ranked #11 at 65% run play %.

Synopsis for Turnovers: Here is the overall summary for all games by player (data in yellow was affected by this week's game).

Ryan forced a fumble but is was recovered by Iowa. Gardner threw the one pick and had a fumble recovered by M. Michigan has 16 different players that have either forced a fumble, recovered a fumble, or intercepted a pass.

For giveaways, Michigan is ranked #14 in fumbles and #9 in fumbles lost but remains at #124 in interceptions thrown %. The good news is that in B1G games, Robinson/Gardner have been much better with an interception % of 2.9% (which would be ranked #70).

For takeaways, M is ranked #65 in forced fumbles, #74 in fumbles recovered, #96 in takeaway fumble recovery %, and #89 in interceptions.

Synopsis for Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Turnovers resulted in a net of 2.9 expected points benefitting Iowa.

The folks at Football Outsiders – FEI are also doing weekly "Revisionist Box Scores" that strips out TOs, Special Teams, and Field Position. FEI calculates the value generated by each drive and then lost on the drive up until the turnover, as if the drive had concluded at that spot on the field. Thru Week #12, FEI has 16% of games where TOs were significant.

(See the Section on Gory Details below for how the adjustment for Expected Points (EP) is calculated.)

National Rankings: All rankings include games between two FBS teams ONLY and are from TeamRankings except for forced fumbles which is from CFBStats. The four columns with *** show the best correlation to offense and defense (per Advanced NFL stats).

The Gory Details

Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Basically, the probability of scoring depends on the line of scrimmage for the offense. Therefore, the impact of a TO also depends on the yard line where the TO is lost and the yard line where the TO is gained. Each turnover may result in an immediate lost opportunity for the team committing the TO and a potential gain in field position by the opponent. Both of these components can vary dramatically based upon the down when the TO occurred, the yards the TO is returned, and whether the TO was a fumble or an interception.

Here are the details for the game.

The analysis is a bit tricky because: (A) the TO may directly result in lost EP for the offense but (B) only modifies the EP for the team gaining the TO because the team gaining the TO would have gotten another possession even without the TO (due to a punt, KO after a TD, KO after a field goal, etc.). The Net EP Gain must take into account the potential EP gain without the TO. The EP gain without the turnover is based on where the field position would have been for the next possession if the TO had not occurred.

The expected point calculations are based on data from Brian Fremeau at BCFToys (he also posts at Football Outsiders). Fremeau's data reflects all offensive possessions played in 2007-2010 FBS vs. FBS games. I "smoothed" the actual data.

Preseason Prediction (Not Happening!): Michigan will end the year with a +8 Turnover Margin (TOM) or better (2011 was +7). The prediction for TOM for M for this year is based on the prediction that M will be a very good team again this year and is not based on the actual TOM of last year. (Very good teams will have a TOM of +5 or better.) Turnover Margin for the year is currently – 5.

Whew!: A spectacular last second catch by Roundtree and thoughts of brunettes by Gibbons saved Michigan from a second loss this year due to turnovers (ND was the one). At the end of regulation, turnovers had cost Michigan 8.1 expected points!

Michigan Football: Michigan had 30 pass attempts and 32 rushing attempts for a 51% run play percentage. This dropped M to a 62% run play percentage overall (ranked #16). NW is ranked #112 in passing defense and #28 in rushing defense – so, yeah. In 2011 M ranked #11 at 65% run play %.

Synopsis for Turnovers: Here is the overall summary for all games by player (data in yellow was affected by this week's game).

Black forced a fumble that was recovered Bolden. Gardner threw the one pick that drew a collective SHIT from all of us. Michigan now has 16 different players that have either forced a fumble, recovered a fumble, or intercepted a pass.

For giveaways, Michigan is ranked #15 in fumbles and #9 in fumbles lost but remains at #124 in interceptions thrown %. Even if you take out the 4 interceptions thrown by Bellomy, M would still be ranked #123 in interceptions thrown %. The good news is that in B1G games, Robinson/Gardner have been much better with an interception % of 2.6% (which would be ranked #52).

For takeaways, M is ranked #82 in forced fumbles, #66 in fumbles recovered, #85 in takeaway fumble recovery %, and #83 in interceptions.

Synopsis for Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Turnovers resulted in a net of 8.1 expected points benefitting Northwestern.

The folks at Football Outsiders – FEI are also doing weekly "Revisionist Box Scores" that strips out TOs, Special Teams, and Field Position. FEI calculates the value generated by each drive and then lost on the drive up until the turnover, as if the drive had concluded at that spot on the field. Thru Week #11, FEI has 16% of games where TOs were significant.

(See the Section on Gory Details below for how the adjustment for Expected Points (EP) is calculated.)

National Rankings: All rankings include games between two FBS teams ONLY and are from TeamRankings except for forced fumbles which is from CFBStats. The four columns with *** show the best correlation to offense and defense (per Advanced NFL stats).

The Gory Details

Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Basically, the probability of scoring depends on the line of scrimmage for the offense. Therefore, the impact of a TO also depends on the yard line where the TO is lost and the yard line where the TO is gained. Each turnover may result in an immediate lost opportunity for the team committing the TO and a potential gain in field position by the opponent. Both of these components can vary dramatically based upon the down when the TO occurred, the yards the TO is returned, and whether the TO was a fumble or an interception.

Here are the details for the game.

The analysis is a bit tricky because: (A) the TO may directly result in lost EP for the offense but (B) only modifies the EP for the team gaining the TO because the team gaining the TO would have gotten another possession even without the TO (due to a punt, KO after a TD, KO after a field goal, etc.). The Net EP Gain must take into account the potential EP gain without the TO. The EP gain without the turnover is based on where the field position would have been for the next possession if the TO had not occurred.

The expected point calculations are based on data from Brian Fremeau at BCFToys (he also posts at Football Outsiders). Fremeau's data reflects all offensive possessions played in 2007-2010 FBS vs. FBS games. I "smoothed" the actual data.

Here is a summary of the smoothed expected points.

Preseason Prediction: Michigan will end the year with a +8 Turnover Margin (TOM) or better (2011 was +7). The prediction for TOM for M for this year is based on the prediction that M will be a very good team again this year and is not based on the actual TOM of last year. (Very good teams will have a TOM of +5 or better.) Turnover Margin for the year is currently – 4.

Psychic?: From last week "This is a recurring problem that is not going away and it is very likely that Denard will miss major portions of the next 4 games." Gardner started out shaky but after not playing QB for over a year what else could we have expected? If Gardner had not made that one spectacular play (which seemed to turn everyone's confidence around), it may have been a very scary game.

I am as confused as everyone else as to why the coaches decided to gamble with Bellomy as the backup this year. I had (erroneously) thought that Bellomy had shown himself to be the better QB. That hardly seems likely based on the immediate switch to Gardner for this game. Yes, Denard had never missed an entire game but running QBs are always at risk and DRob is not the biggest in physical size. Just another question we will never know the real answer to.

Michigan Football: Michigan had just 18 pass attempts and 41 rushing attempts for a 66% run play percentage. Overall M has a 62% run play percentage (ranked #11). In 2011 M ranked #11 at 65% run play %.

Synopsis for Turnovers: Here is the overall summary for all games by player (data in yellow was affected by this week's game).

M forced 2 more fumbles (Kovacs & Clark) and recovered one (Avery). The fumble recovery was at 2:49 of the 4th quarter and was completely meaningless. Gardner threw the one pick. Michigan now has 14 different players that have either forced a fumble, recovered a fumble, or intercepted a pass.

For giveaways, Michigan is ranked #14 in fumbles and #6 in fumbles lost but is #124 in interceptions thrown %. Even if you take out the 4 interceptions thrown by Bellomy, M would still be ranked #123 in interceptions thrown %. The good news is that in B1G games, Robinson/Gardner have been much better with an interception % of 2.4% (which would be ranked #45).

For takeaways, M is ranked #71 in forced fumbles, #67 in fumbles recovered, #90 in takeaway fumble recovery %, and #66 in interceptions.

Synopsis for Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Turnovers resulted in a net of 0.41 expected points benefitting Michigan. Eliminating the meaningless fumble recovery at the end of the game, turnovers benefitted Minnesota by 3.41 EP.

The folks at Football Outsiders – FEI are also doing weekly "Revisionist Box Scores" that strips out TOs, Special Teams, and Field Position. FEI calculates the value generated by each drive and then lost on the drive up until the turnover, as if the drive had concluded at that spot on the field. Thru Week #10, FEI has 16% of games where TOs were significant.

(See the Section on Gory Details below for how the adjustment for Expected Points (EP) is calculated.)

National Rankings: All rankings include games between two FBS teams ONLY and are from TeamRankings except for forced fumbles which is from CFBStats. The four columns with *** show the best correlation to offense and defense (per Advanced NFL stats).

The Gory Details

Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Basically, the probability of scoring depends on the line of scrimmage for the offense. Therefore, the impact of a TO also depends on the yard line where the TO is lost and the yard line where the TO is gained. Each turnover may result in an immediate lost opportunity for the team committing the TO and a potential gain in field position by the opponent. Both of these components can vary dramatically based upon the down when the TO occurred, the yards the TO is returned, and whether the TO was a fumble or an interception.

Here are the details for the game.

The analysis is a bit tricky because: (A) the TO may directly result in lost EP for the offense but (B) only modifies the EP for the team gaining the TO because the team gaining the TO would have gotten another possession even without the TO (due to a punt, KO after a TD, KO after a field goal, etc.). The Net EP Gain must take into account the potential EP gain without the TO. The EP gain without the turnover is based on where the field position would have been for the next possession if the TO had not occurred.

The expected point calculations are based on data from Brian Fremeau at BCFToys (he also posts at Football Outsiders). Fremeau's data reflects all offensive possessions played in 2007-2010 FBS vs. FBS games. I "smoothed" the actual data.

Here is a summary of the smoothed expected points.

Preseason Prediction: Michigan will end the year with a +8 Turnover Margin (TOM) or better (2011 was +7). The prediction for TOM for M for this year is based on the prediction that M will be a very good team again this year and is not based on the actual TOM of last year. (Very good teams will have a TOM of +5 or better.)

No Way: The replay guys were just brutal. Negate a 50 yard catch by Roundtree and then uphold that interception off the Vincent Smith catch/whatever. If that was a catch, then Smith was down when he hit the ground – if the ball hit the ground, then it should have been incomplete. Michigan had 2 takeaways but the 3 interceptions made the turnover stats for the game ugly. For the year, Bellomy is 4-21 with 4 interceptions and a – 0.65 efficiency rating. And, no, I am not charting that.

Denard Robinson Interception %: Denard was having a good game until the elbow nerve flared up for the third time this year and he did not return to the game. This is a recurring problem that is not going away and it is very likely that Denard will miss major portions of the next 4 games. The chart shows a comparison of Denard's Int% for 2011 and 2012 subdivided by out-of-conference (OOC) and Big Ten games.

Michigan Football: Michigan had 27 pass attempts and 37 rushing attempts for a 58% run play percentage. Overall M has a 62% run play percentage (ranked #14).

In 2011 M ranked #11 at 65% run play %.

Synopsis for Turnovers: M added 1 interception gained (Ojemudia) for a total of 7 interceptions and is ranked #52. M had one forced fumble (Washington) recovered by Heitzman for 6 fumble recoveries for the year (ranked #63). The total of 14 interceptions lost is ranked at #121. Team interception rate is 7.4% – ranked #124 with the next worst being Auburn at 5.95%. M did not lose a fumble and the total of just 3 lost fumbles is ranked #13. Michigan now has 12 different defensive players that have either forced a fumble, recovered a fumble, or intercepted a pass.

Synopsis for Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Turnovers resulted in a net of 5.1 expected points benefitting Nebraska. Although the EP analysis does not indicate that TOs were a significant reason M lost this game, my gut sure tells me that the TOs made it just about impossible for M to win this one.

The folks at Football Outsiders – FEI are also doing weekly "Revisionist Box Scores" that strips out TOs, Special Teams, and Field Position. FEI calculates the value generated by each drive and then lost on the drive up until the turnover, as if the drive had concluded at that spot on the field. Thru Week #8, FEI has 16% of games where TOs were significant.

(See the Section on Gory Details below for how the adjustment for Expected Points (EP) is calculated.)

National Rankings: All rankings include games between two FBS teams ONLY and are from TeamRankings except for forced fumbles which is from CFBStats. The four columns with *** show the best correlation to offense and defense (per Advanced NFL stats).

The Gory Details

Details for Turnovers: Here is overall summary for all games by player (data in yellow was affected by this week's game).

Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Basically, the probability of scoring depends on the line of scrimmage for the offense. Therefore, the impact of a TO also depends on the yard line where the TO is lost and the yard line where the TO is gained. Each turnover may result in an immediate lost opportunity for the team committing the TO and a potential gain in field position by the opponent. Both of these components can vary dramatically based upon the down when the TO occurred, the yards the TO is returned, and whether the TO was a fumble or an interception.

Here are the details for the game.

The analysis is a bit tricky because: (A) the TO may directly result in lost EP for the offense but (B) only modifies the EP for the team gaining the TO because the team gaining the TO would have gotten another possession even without the TO (due to a punt, KO after a TD, KO after a field goal, etc.). The Net EP Gain must take into account the potential EP gain without the TO. The EP gain without the turnover is based on where the field position would have been for the next possession if the TO had not occurred.

The expected point calculations are based on data from Brian Fremeau at BCFToys (he also posts at Football Outsiders). Fremeau's data reflects all offensive possessions played in 2007-2010 FBS vs. FBS games. I "smoothed" the actual data.

Here is a summary of the smoothed expected points.

Preseason Prediction: Michigan will end the year with a +8 Turnover Margin (TOM) or better (2011 was +7). The prediction for TOM for M for this year is based on the prediction that M will be a very good team again this year and is not based on the actual TOM of last year. (Very good teams will have a TOM of +5 or better.)

Denard Robinson Interception %: Except for a completely meaningless interception at the end of the first half (why in the hell was that play called and why in the hell did he even throw that pass?), Denard did not have an interception for the third game in a row. The chart shows a comparison of Denard's Int% for 2011 and 2012 subdivided by out-of-conference (OOC) and Big Ten games.

Back To Michigan Football: Michigan did not run the ball as much this week with 30 pass attempts and 32 rushing attempts for a 52% run play percentage. Overall M has a 63% run play percentage (ranked #10).

In 2011 M ranked #11 at 65% run play %.

Synopsis for Turnovers: The official statistics will reflect a TOM of zero for this game but since the M interception occurred with – 0 –  time left in the half, it was completely meaningless and the effective TOM was +1 for Michigan.

M added 1 interception gained (Kovacs) for a total of 6 interceptions and is ranked #53. M had two forced fumbles (Ryan and Beyer) but could not recover either and remains at just 5 fumble recoveries for the year (ranked #68). The fumble recovery % remains at a paltry 38% (ranked #98). The total of 11 interceptions lost is still ranked at #113. M did not lose a fumble and the total of just 3 lost fumbles is ranked #17. Michigan now has 10 different defensive players that have either forced a fumble, recovered a fumble, or intercepted a pass.

Synopsis for Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Turnovers resulted in a net of 1.5 expected points benefitting Michigan and M kicked a field goal on the drive after the turnover. IMO, the Kovacs interception was a significant factor in Michigan winning the game.

The folks at Football Outsiders – FEI are also doing weekly "Revisionist Box Scores" that strips out TOs, Special Teams, and Field Position. For FEI, the Special Teams Advantage (Field Goals) was a determining factor in the M victory. FEI calculates the value generated by each drive and then lost on the drive up until the turnover, as if the drive had concluded at that spot on the field. Thru Week #8, FEI has 15% of games where TOs were significant.

(See the Section on Gory Details below for how the adjustment for Expected Points (EP) is calculated.)

National Rankings: All rankings include games between two FBS teams ONLY and are from TeamRankings except for forced fumbles which is from CFBStats. The four columns with *** show the best correlation to offense and defense (per Advanced NFL stats).

The Gory Details

Details for Turnovers: Here is overall summary for all games by player (data in yellow was affected by this week's game).

Expected Point (EP) Analysis: Basically, the probability of scoring depends on the line of scrimmage for the offense. Therefore, the impact of a TO also depends on the yard line where the TO is lost and the yard line where the TO is gained. Each turnover may result in an immediate lost opportunity for the team committing the TO and a potential gain in field position by the opponent. Both of these components can vary dramatically based upon the down when the TO occurred, the yards the TO is returned, and whether the TO was a fumble or an interception.

Here are the details for the game.

The analysis is a bit tricky because: (A) the TO may directly result in lost EP for the offense but (B) only modifies the EP for the team gaining the TO because the team gaining the TO would have gotten another possession even without the TO (due to a punt, KO after a TD, KO after a field goal, etc.). The Net EP Gain must take into account the potential EP gain without the TO. The EP gain without the turnover is based on where the field position would have been for the next possession if the TO had not occurred.

The expected point calculations are based on data from Brian Fremeau at BCFToys (he also posts at Football Outsiders). Fremeau's data reflects all offensive possessions played in 2007-2010 FBS vs. FBS games. I "smoothed" the actual data.

Here is a summary of the smoothed expected points.