that's unfortunate, but at least the interest is there on both sides
Football Study Hall has posted two rankings of offensive and defensive lines for all 2013 teams according to their advanced statistics.
First, the bad news: offensive line:
What this means:
- Our offensive line generated 83.2 yards per game (adjusted for opponent). That was not good.
- On standard downs, the OL generated 2.19 yards per carry. Worse than not good.
- On passing downs, the OL generated 2.80 yards per carry. Slightly less not good.
- 34.5% of the time, the OL"did its job" and produced at least five yards for the runner.
- 52% of the time, the OL got a 1st down or touchdown on 3rd and 2 or less or 4th and 2 or less (or 1st or 2nd and goal from the 2 or less). Not good.
- 29.9% of the time, the runner was tackled behind the line of scrimmage. God awful.
Silver lining: Doug Nussmeier's Alabama offense was awesome at running the ball.
The defensive line was better:
What this means:
- We were a decent DL (45th) overall, bad on standard downs (73rd), short yardage downs (82nd), and getting negative plays (76th) but good on passing downs (26th).
Silver lining: Jake Ryan is back next year.
Nothing we didn't know, I suppose, but interesting to see nonetheless.
Football study hall has run a projection of the 2014 season based on three factors:
(a) Ca. 60%: A five-year weighted S&P+ average, with 2013 getting 5x the weight, 2012 4x, ..., and 2009 1x
(b) Ca. 30%: The 2013 S&P+ ratings, adjusted for the number of returning starters.
(c) Ca. 10%: the past two years of recruiting
The top 25 are as follows:
|Rk||Team||(a)||Rk||(b)||Rk||(c)||Rk||2014 Projected S&P+|
That seems generally about right to me, although not all of the rankings seem right: Boise State's ranking is inflated, for instance.
We don't need more cold water splashed in our faces after the season we just endured, but Football Study Hall did an analysis of turnover differential in the past season and tried to get an idea of who were the "luckiest" teams -- on the assumption that fumble recovery is essentially random, and here are the results:
|Team||Off. TO||Def. TO||TO Margin||Adj. Off. TO||Adj. Def. TO||Adj. TO Margin||Diff||TO Luck/Game|
Essentially, what you have is a TO margin, based on real numbers. Then you have adjusted turnovers, assuming that 51% of all fumbles are recovered by the offense, and that 22% of all passes defended are intercepted. The adjusted turnover margin is thus an estimate of a turnover margin without as much luck built in.
This suggests that Michigan was fairly lucky in terms of turnovers in 2013. We recovered more fumbles than average (15 opponent fumbles, 9 of which we recovered) and lost fewer than average (22 fumbles 8 of which we lost), and we had fewer picks than expected based on passes defended. (If you don't like what you see, just close your eyes are repeat to yourself that turnovers aren't random).
We played some of the unluckiest teams this year. The top 10 unluckiest:
|Team||Off. TO||Def. TO||TO Margin||Adj. Off. TO||Adj. Def. TO||Adj. TO Margin||Diff.||TO Luck/Game|
Continuing my string of diaries ranking the Big Ten according to Football Outsiders' FEI plus statistic, I present you with this week's installation, though November 16th (faded icons are placed on the corresponding team's position last week):
- Michigan and Iowa's offense are identical according to the advanced stats. Michigan's defense is slightly better than Iowa's. Although their special teams are slightly better than ours, according to these stats we should be a slight favorite to win on a neutral field.
- Wisconsin is looking like the best of the top 3 B1G teams according to the advanced stats. Boy I bet they wish they had that Ohio State game back.
The weekly roundup gets somewhat less enjoyable with each loss, but here's the chart nevertheless. I've incorporated Seth's suggestion of including last week's rankings for comparative purposes. Last week's rankings are indicated with a less opaque icon; if you can't see it at all, it's because the ranking hasn't changed much at all.
Click to embiggen:
So, we seem to have a four-tier B1G:
- Good teams: Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan State
- Above-average teams: Nebraska, Minnesota, Michigan, Northwestern, Iowa, and Indiana is in this group, too, despite their schizophrenic nature (excellent offense, abysmal defense).
- Below-average teams: Illinois, Penn State
- Horrible teams: Purdue
The weekly edition of my ongoing diary evaluating the B1G using the advanced stats of the Football Outsiders (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feiplus). Here is the chart:
Following suggestions, I've rotated the chart 45 degrees so that the better teams are at the top of the chart and worse teams are at the bottom. Teams that are better on defense are on the right (e.g., Michigan State), teams that are better on offense are on the left (e.g., Ohio State).
- Michigan is migrating towards the clump of okay B1G teams: Iowa, Northwestern, and Nebraska. These games are certainly winnable but they are looking less and less like gimmes (per the advanced stats, of course).
- The B1G ten is currently dominated by Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Michigan State.
- Purdue is worse than Akron.
- That Penn State loss is not looking any better.